Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 06.05.95I BOCC 6tst9s PROJECI INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: STTE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZOMNG: ADJACENT ZONING: PUD Zone District and Text Amendment of the Riverbend PUD and Sket<;h 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 o[ 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/zuRD South - PUD East - PUD West - PUD I. II- RET ATTONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVF PT AN The tract of land is located in District B l.b, Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas, within one (1) mile radius, Moderate Environmental Constraints. This is based on the Riverbend Subdivision water and sewer systems being in the vicinity of this proposal. DESCRTPTION OF THE PROPOSAT. Site Dercrintion: The subject parcel is primarily historic agricultural land, which was a part of the original ranch that became the Riverbend Subclivision, 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 o[the area is unimproved land that had been used lor agricultural purposes in the past. There are two new clarifying A. - /- C. ponds on the property near the river. The majority of the lancl 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 for single lamily use. Request. The applicants are requesting an amenclment to the Riverbend PUD Plan for a portion of the property presenl.ly shown as being "Utility Facilities" and " open Space and Agricultural Land" on the puD plan appro ved n 1977. The proposed plan amendment and zone district text amen<lment would create the following three (3) new zone districts in the Riverbend PUD; Single-family, Two-family and Open SpaceiParkland zone districts. Theproposed subdivision willhave I I single-family lots and llve (5) two-family dwelling lots on the 10.61 acre tract.(see plan pg.A) All of the lots range in size from 0.33 ac. to 0.36 ac. eaoh. water and sewer would come lrom a privately owned system owned by the applicants, which also serves the existing Filings I and 2 of the Riverbend Subdivision. Access woul<I be a 50|t. wide, 890 ft. long, Ioop road oflof County Roacl 335. The applicant proposes to modify the existing Riverbend Subdivision covenants to include this development. History: The Riverbend Subdivision was originally approvecl lor 617 d.u. in 1973. rn1977,Lhe development was reduced in size to 198 d.u. in 1977, when it was approved as a PUD.(See zone <listricts 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 dehne the uses allowecl in the various zones. The plan inclu<tecl 1 l8 single family lots and 80 multi-family dwellings. Only the single lamily area was ever platted. There are two types olopen space; Common Area and Open Space/Agricultural. In 1984, NCEC (aka Storm King Mines) modified the original PUD to allow for acoal mine and other inclustrial support lacilities on the western end o[ the property. A. PUfi Zoning: To amend a PUD plan, Section 4.12.03 states the following: All those provisions of the Plan authorizecl to be enforced by the County may be modified, removed, or released by the County, subject to the following: (1) No modification, removal or release of the provisions of the plan by the County shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants ancl owners of the pUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and (2) No substantial modifications, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall be permittecl except upon a finding by the County, lollowing a public hearing called and held in accorclance with the provisions of Section 24-67-lM,C.R.S., that themodil'rcation, removalorrelease isconsistent with the ellicient development and preservation of 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 grante6 solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The proposed PUD plan an<ltext amenclment is on a tract of land thaL was originally designated as the Utility Area and Open Spaoe/Agricultural area. The utilities lor the hrst two filings have always been owned by a prival"e party, who provides water and Ir. sewer service to the subdivision lor a monthly servirc charge. In 1980, the original developer sold the utility lacilities and the 10.61 acres of lancl to another developer. This property was subsequently sol<l to the applicants, who have operatecl the systems since that time. The original saleof the property was not <lone with any approval of the County Commissioners and is technically an illegal lot. The County has taxecl the lot as a separate lot since it was created and the propose<l subdivision action would, i-f approved, would clear up the illegal lot. This is an issue that needs to be resolve<I lor the beneht of the applicants, who own the systems on 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 recluce the minimum of 25yo 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 for agricultura-l 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 expande6. The applicant's engineer has stated that the system's design capaoity will be evaluated basecl on actual operation and adjusted alter that, if necessary. If there is the capacity to accommodate the new dwellings, there shoulcl not be any aflect on the rights of the existing residents. The original PUD plan proposed a signifioantly larger number of lots that have not been developed as originally approved. A total of 5l single lamily lots have been platted since the original PUD was approved. The Open Space/Agricultural areas appear to be for the purpose olcontinuing the historic ranching operation, but there is no indication that the ranch/farm use was intended 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 o[the land outside of theexisting sub<Iivision has been solcl to various parties and been subject to 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 plal"tecl lots. But the gross density of the properties is identical in that there is 2.0 dulac. lor 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 clensities is that the existing lots clo not haveany open space or common area to include in the calculation. [n terms of cornparing dwellings per acre on a net density basis, the propose<l clevelopment has a net density ol 0.22 ac. per dwelling compared to the 0.51 ac. per dwelling in the existing lors. B' Comrrrehensive Plan: The existing Comprehensive Plan has designatecl the area in question as a Subdivision/Rural Serviceable Area, based on the availability of a oentral water and sewersystem' The Comprehensive Plan recommends lhe following density lor these areas: District B - A density no greater than one (l) clwelling unit per two (2) acres unless the adjacent subclivision has a higher density, the density may be the same density as the acrjacent deveropment or up to three (3) dwelring units per acre, whichever is ress. As noted previously, the proposecl PUD has a gross density of 2.0 du/ ac. and a netdensity of 4.5 du/ac.. The existirtg Riverben<l Subdivision has a gross clensity of 1.4 du/ac' and a net density of 2.0 du/ac.. The Comprehensive plan does not provicle anyguidance as to what type ofdensity is usecl in the comparison o[densities, but it is only-5- C. logical to compare the same types of density for this review. Based on the comparable densities, the proposed PUD has a higher density than the acljacent development. If the proposed PUD were to eliminate the two family 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 findings 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 clensities in areas with central water and sewer. Sewage Disfrosal: The upgraded system will not have a capacity greater than it had prior to the present changes. The present treatmenl. 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 capaciLy will be verilied based on measurements ofB.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 and future demands. This would include the remaini ng 149 dwellings approve<l by the original PUD in I 977. This will also require an analysis of whether or not a regional facility is appropriate in this location or in another location. Another question that would arise lrom this review is whether or not there is enough land area for plant expansion with the proposed subdivision. (5€€ fftnu4tt 1ETFL reu4 SnA Sketch PIan: As a PUD, there is no separate sketoh plan review requirecl, since the rezoning proress provides the same conceptual review provided uncler the standar<l subdivision review. PUD Plan and Text Amendments: The proposed PUD has three proposed zone districts. (See plan and text pgs. /0- ll \ The proposed text allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 0. 10/1 .0, which will limit houses in that <listrict to a maximum of 1550 sq. ft. on the largest lots that are 15,498 sq. ft. (0.35 ac.) and 1450 sq. ft. on the smallest lot. Any subdivision approval of a two lamily dwelling on a lot will need to acldress the future division of the ownership of the individual units, with the appropriate plat note for future subdivision if the first plat is not intencled lor separate interests. Both ofthe proposed residential zone districts have "special uses", that would be subject to a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. There <Ioes not seem to be any reason for a "guest house" in either of these <listricts, particularly with the previously noted floor area limitations. A "home occupation" and "arts and crafts studio" are conditional uses in the County Zoningresolution, which is a simpler process for approval. The term "utility lines" is sornething that coul<l 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, whioh means that they are subject to a public hearing and possible denial. It would seem [o be more logical to make them a use by right, provided they are for service to the Riverbend pUD. SUGGESTFN FINDINGS D. E. l ' That all applicable regulations regarding a Zone District Amenclment have been complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 ofthe Garlielcl County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. -4-I ry. That the public meeting before 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 welfare of citizens of Garfield STAFF RECOMMENDATION the best interqsts of the public health, safety and County. 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 based on thoughts and philosophies prevalent in 19g0 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 difficult for staff and arguably unfair to both an applicant and the general public concerned about the proposal. Although no actual land use and density definitions 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 def,rnition of how the Riverbend area is goinj to develop in relation to the New Castle area, we have Lo rely on the 1984 goais, policies and objectives to make a recommendation. Added to the comprehensive plan issue is the need to legitimi ze the ownership of the tract of land in question. The homeowners in the Riverbend subclivision have been offeredthepropertyfortheirownership, operation andcontrol. Theyhavede,clined theoffers' It appears that the County did not require that the developer turn the property over to homeowners, which has resultecl 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/agricul tural designation. This proposal would be able to clear up the illegal lot and put some better definition in a portion ofthe PUD, il the Planning Commission agrees with the staff that the openspace/agricultural area is a transition designation. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommencled APPROVAL olthe proposed Riverbendby the River PUD plan ancl text amendment, subject to the following conditions ofapproval: l ' That all representations of the applicant shall be conditions of approval, unlessmodified by the Boar<I of County Commissioners. ) 3. v. vr- J -3, -r 2.t tei't.be modifi iom the Uses, ial fro facilities ver amily zone. zone "Waterand Sewage Right. t_/ __\r-"r-- )/,t*Lr; E /Djr 7 tf Pp prLu-^-4 a- *v.o//u4-*. A /raopfia ru,n4s/t/.f ol i'1" a"? h /:n/ 4 frutstDvv fr, or,/-/o, t^r*-i ,,sr.'e/5. +/a/ c^lrl; Ln- teur/altc ,h ,na/u/-t' a// 0,ot4t € q"bo{d-;n--./t r**J t rcla'ti f a/r4'rt/' il-c^%'"*#'ffi trtau/-tal ftr./$ lo /r4/- 1u,tgi44-/ t,npoe* ,y' _fu*/wl /2r./ /tr/,u$.rb / L*/, 11 A la--scrp-j p(^ 4,,- - e - r ir/[,1.1(' I'turi llot' l-J U/ 5tr. .],1 l'JiJ5 R EH R R E&$H sSI 8-S $E d N !.:. Irr R8d8r!rr 8ilBB gs I uI sodl Ot \ sI\ Rul S>Gb\h BS *$L \e trfll B \* ,ndn tl- \ ^c-+'/' . 9ro? oc..,1"" I irr0ss I s"p.rrqi^6 I Jr,o5 ray\ oeJ - t)t, t /€,_ i_ s,&lrar 00i esa! [,[JgtI.ll:d T7 JS'i ) ,IlJ.\',SJJIdJSIt_ 3ll\02 , \ 1J,!:1 ,r J ,,N..N ... IZ': l_j ,-.1.: lllrir 0 curuol t Do