Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 04.12.95REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: PROJESI INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PC 4ltugs PUD Zone District and Text Amendment ofthe Riverbend PUD and Sketch Plan for the Riverbend by the River Subdivision RB Homes Inc. A parcel of land located in Section 34, T5S, R90W, more practically described as a tract of land located approximately 2ll2 miles east of New Castle off of C.R. 335. 10.61 ac. Riverbend Subdivision RB Water & Sewer Co. County Road 335 PUD North - A/R/RD South - PUD East - PUD West - PUD I- II. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The tract of land is located in District B l.b, Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas, within one (l) mile radius, Moderate Environmental Constraints. This isbased on the Riverbend Subdivision water and sewer systems being in the vicinity of this proposal. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The subject parcel is primarily historic agricultural land, which was a part of the original ranch that became the Riverbend Subdivision, located between County Road 335 and the Colorado River east of New Castle. Presently, a portion of this tract of land is used as the sewage treatment facility for the Riverbend Subdivision and the rest of the area is unimproved land that had been used for agricultural purposes in the past. There are two new clarifying ? /- ponds on the property near the river. The majority of the land outside of the existing Riverbend Subdivision is either used for crop land, grazing or unimproved open space. one exception is a house built on a portion of the unplatted PUD that was designated lor single family use. Request. The applicants are requesting an amendment to the Riverbend PUD Plan for a portion of the property presently shown as being "Utility Facilities" and " Open Space and Agricultural Land" on the PUD plan approved n 1977. The proposed plan amendment and zone district text amendment would create the following three (3) new zone districts in the Riverbend PUD; Single-family, Two-family and Open Space/Parkland zone districts. The proposed subdivision will have I I single-lamily lots and five (5) two-family dwelling lots on the 10.61 acre tract.(See plan pg.I_J All of the lots range in size from 0.33 ac. to 0.36 ac. each. water and sewer would come from a privately owned system owned by the applicants, which also serves the existing Filings I andZof the Riverbend Subdivision. Access would be a 50|t. wide, 890 It. long, loop road oflof county Road 335. The applicant proposes to modily the existing Riverbend Subdivision covenants to include this development. History: The Riverbend Subdivision was originally approved for 617 d.u. in 1973. rn 1977, the development was reduced in size to 198 d.u. in 1977, when it was approved as a PUD.(See zone districts map 8-) The PUD plan approved at that time had a number of land use designations on a map, but no zone district text to del-rne the uses allowed in the various zones. The plan included I l8 single lamily lots and 80 multi-tamily dwellings. Only the single lamily area was ever platted. There are two types of open space; Common Area and Open Space/Agricultural. In 1984, NCEC (aka Storm King Mines) modihed the original PUD to allow lor a coal mine and other industrial support facilities on the western end of the property. III- MAJOR ISSITES AND CONCERNS A. PIII) Zoning: To amend a PUD plan, Section 4.12.03 states the following: All those provisions of the Plan authoized to be enforced by the County may be modified, removed, or released by the County, subject to the following: (l) No modihcation, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and (2) No substantial modif-rcations, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, lollowing a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of Section 2+67-|M,C.R.S., thatthemodification, removal orreleaseisconsistent with the effrcient development and preservation ol the entire PUD, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street lrom the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special beneht upon any person. The proposed PUD plan and text amendment is on a tract of land that was originally designated as the Utility Area and Open Space/Agricultural area. The utilities for the first two filings have always been owned by a private party, who provides water and B. C. 2- sewer service to the subdivision for a monthly service charge. In 1980, the original developer sold the utility facilities and the 10.61 acres of land to another developer. This property was subsequently sold to the applicants, who have operated the systems since that time' The original sale of the property was not clone with any approval of the County Commissioners and is technically an illegal lot. The County has taxed the lot as a separate lot since it was created and the proposed subdivision action would, if approved, would clear up the illegal lot. This is an issue that needs to be resolved for the beneht of the applicants, who own the systemson the land, and the properties being served by the system and need to have someone operating and maintaining the systems. The reduction of open space/agricultural will not reduce the minimum of 25yu open space required for a PUD, if this land is considered as a part of that requirement. It is not clear from the record of the rezoning action to PUD, as to the intent of the open space/agricultural area. It appears that the intent was to create an area foragricultural activities as an interim designation, prior to conversion to another use. The sewage treatment facilities are presently being upgraded to comply with the Water Quality Discharge standards, but the size of the system is not being expanded. The applicant's engineer has stated that the system's design capacity will be evaluated based on actual operation and adjusted alter that, if necessary. If there is the capacity to accommodate the new dwellings, there should not be any affect on the rights of the existing residents. The original PUD plan proposed a significantly larger number of lots that have not been developed as originally approved. A total of 5l single family lots have beenplatted since the original PUD was approvecl. The Open Space/Agricultural areas appear to be lor the purpose ofcontinuing the historic ranching ogreration, but there is no indication that the ranch/farm use was intendecl to be the perpetual use. Based on the fact that there is also "common area", this area appears to be another type of land use that is not intended to count toward the PUD open space requirement. All of the land outside of the existing subdivision has been solcl to various parties and been subjectto rezoning and subdivision exemption actions. The proposed development has an average single lamily lot size of 0.33 ac. which is smaller than the 0.51 ac. for the existing platted lots. But the gross density of the properties is identical in that there is 2.0 dulac. for each of the areas. Gross density is the total acreage of a project, divided by the total number or dwelling units. The reason there are the same gross densities is that the existing lots do not have any open space orcommon area to include in the calculation. In terms of comparing dwellings per acreon a net density basis, the proposed development has a net density of 0.22 ac. per dwelling compared to the 0.51 ac. per dweiling in the existing lots. B' comnrehensive Plan: Theexisting Comprehensive PIan has designated the areain question as a Subdivision/Rural Serviceable Area, based on the availability of a central water and sewersystem' The Comprehensive PIan recommends the following density for these areas: District B - A density no greater than one (r) crweiling unit per two (2) acres unless the adjacent subclivision has a higher density, the density may be the same density as the adjacent Jevelopment or up to three (3) dweiling units per acre, whichever is ress. As noted previously, the proposed PUD has a gross density of 2.0 du/ ac.and a netdensity of 4.5 du/ac.. The existing Riverbend Subdivision has a gross density of 1.4du/ac' and a net density of 2.0 du/ac.. The Comprehensive plan does not provide anyguidance as to what type of density is used in the comparison of densities, but it is only 3 .? si- C. logical to compare the same types of density lor this review. Based on the comparable densities, theproposed PUDhasahigherdensity than theadjacent development. Ifthe proposed PUD were to eliminate the two lamily lots and make them single family lots, the gross density would be 1.5 du/ac., which is much closer to the existing development density. One of the hndings that needs to be made is that the proposed PUD is in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. While the proposed plan may not be in specific compliance with the above noted guideline, it would be in general compliance with other plan policies that encourage higher densities in areas with central water and sewer. Sewage Disnosal: The upgraded system will not have a capacity greater than it had prior to the present changes. The present treatment capacity is 19,950 gallons per day (gpd), which the State Department of Health says is the equivalent to 57 dwellings, based on 350 gpd/du. The applicant has documented that the average gpd is closer to 250 gpd/du., which would convert to approximately 79 dwellings. The applicant's engineer has said that the system design capacity will be verihed based on measurements of B.O.D. load and flow rates and the site application will be modil.red accordingly. Any modification will have to address both the existing dwellings ancl future demands. This would include theremaining l4gdwellings approve<l bytheoriginal PUDin 1977. This will also require an analysis of whether or not a regional tacility is appropriate in this location or in another looation. Another question that would arise from this review is whether or not there is enough lancl area for plant expansion with the proposed subdivision. Sketch Plan: As a PUD, there is no separate sketch plan review required, since the rezoning process provides the same conceptual review provided under the standard subdivision review. The proposed PUD has three proposed zone The proposed text allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 0.10/1.0, which will limit houses in that district to a maximum of 1550 sq. ft. on the largest lots that are 15,498 sq. tt. (0.35 ac.) and 1450 sq. ft. on the snallest lot. Any subdivision approval ol a two lamily dwelling on a lot will need to address the future division of the ownership of the individual units, with the appropriate plat note for future subdivision if the first plat is not intended for separate interests. Both of the proposed residential zone clistricts have "special uses", that would be subject to a public hearing belore the Board of County Commissioners. There does not seem to be any reason for a "guest house" in either of these districts, particularly with the previously noted floor area limitations. A "home occupation" and ,'arts and crafts studio" are conditional uses in the Coun ty Zoningresolution, which is a simpler process lor approval. The term "utility lines" is something that could conflict with future needs to modify or improve the water or sewer system. The Open Space zone makes',utility facilities, lines and systems" a special use, which means that they are subject to a public hearing and possible denial. It would seem to be more Iogical to make them a use by right, provided they are for service to the Riverbend pUD. STIGGESTED FINDINGS l ' That all applicable regulations regarding aZoneDistrict Amendment have been complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 of the Garheld County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. D. E. 4 ( rv. 2. 3. That the public meeting belore the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. That the proposed zoning is in general compliance with surrounding land uses and zoning in Garfield County. 4- That the proposed zoning is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of Garfield County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staffnotes that the future land use pattern in the New Castle area to be a yet to be dehned in the present Comprehensive Plan. The area in question at this time has Comprehensive Plan designations basecl on thoughts and philosophies prevalent in 1980 and 1984. It is in an area that will impact the Town of New Castle in terms of roads, water and sewer infrastructure. Basing a decision on ideals and philosophies that are ten years old is difhcult for staff and arguably unlair to both an applicant and the general public concerned about the proposal. Although no actual Iand use and density dehnitions lor the this region have not been developed, goals and policies for the County as a whole, previously approvecl by the Planning Commission encourage urban uses to locate adjacent to existing communities. Until there is a better definition of how the Riverbend area is going to develop in relation to the New Castle area, we have to rely on the 1984 goals, policies and objectives to make a recommen<Iation. Added to the comprehensive plan issue is the need to legitimize the ownership of the tract of land in question. The homeowners in the Riverbend subdivision have been offered the property for their ownership, operation and control. They have declined the offers. It appears that the County did not require that the developer turn the property over to homeowners, which has resulted in the private ownership of the water and sewer system from the beginning. There has also been a poorly dehned PUD, that needs to be resolved as far as the intent of the open space/agricultural designation. This proposal would be able to clear up the illegal lot and put some better dehnition in a portion ofthe PUD, if the Planning Commission agrees with the staff that the open space/agricultural area is a transition designation. RECOMMENDATTON That the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Riverbend by the River PUD plan and text amendment, subject to the following conditions of approval: l ' That all representations of the applicant shall be conditions of approval, unless modihed by the Board of County Commissioners. 2' That the PUD Plan map be modified to eliminate the two fzrmily zone district and convert it to a single lamily zone clistrict. v- vr. _5- 3. That the PUD Zone District text be modif,red as follows: a. Delete the Two-Family zone district. b. Delete "guest house" from the lJses, Special in the Single-Family zone. c. Delete all Uses, Special from the Ofien Space/Parkland zone and "Water and Sewage Treatment facilities and lines',, as a Use by Right. 4. That the property owners in the Riverbend by the River be subjoct to the same covenants as the Riverbend Subdivision owners. be