Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceEDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHER L. COYLE THOMAS J. HARTERT CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER SARA M. DUNN DANIEL C. WENNOGLE SCOTT GROSSCUP JORDAN C. MAY BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: John Martin Tresi Houpt Larry McCown 108 8th Street, Suite 213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.9769 nwi tair„a barpygn.cnn+ June 28, 2007 Re: Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD Dear Commissioners: KENNETH BALCOMB (1 920-2005) OF COUNSEL: JOHN A. THULSON C! JUN 2 8 2007 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PLANNING On behalf of Elk Meadows Properties, LLC we hereby respectfully request that you reconsider your decision made on June 11, 2007 to deny the application for PUD/Sketch Plan for the Reserve at Elk Meadows. We submit that a reconsideration of your decision is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. On April 11, 2007 the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the Amendment of the proposed Land Use Designation Map for Study Area I as applied to the subject property from Medium and Low Density to Medium and High Density residential. The gross density proposed for the Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD was therefore consistent with, and in fact less than, the densities specified by the Land Use Designation Map and compatible with the neighborhood. Your finding that the proposed development was overly dense is thus contradictory to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and constitutes an error in law. 2. Your finding that the traffic impacts of the Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD were underreported and inadequately addressed is inconsistent with the evidence contained in the application and produced at the hearing. The traffic report prepared by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW John Martin Tresi Houpt Larry McCown June 28, 2007 Page 2 dated January 2006 and included in the application, and the Pre -Annexation Agreement with the City of Glenwood Springs clearly demonstrate that the traffic impacts of the project within the City were addressed to the satisfaction of the City. Traffic impacts of the project within the County would have been addressed through the application of the County's road impact regulations which were apparently not considered in your decision. We submit that a further presentation and discussion of the evidence of the traffic impacts from the project and mitigation thereof would be appropriate upon reconsideration. 3. Your finding that the property should be annexed to the City of Glenwood Springs is not based upon evidence in the record and is inconsistent with law as the property is not eligible for annexation. We submit that it would be appropriate to allow the applicant to submit evidence on this issue upon reconsideration. 4. We submit that the Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was not complete. Several of the Commissioners' concerns about the project, particularly those expressed by Chairman Martin in explaining his vote to deny, were not articulated prior to the closing of the Public Hearing. The combination of closing the Public Hearing prior to fully articulating the reasons for denial, together with the unanimous recommendation for approval made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the staff's recommendation for approval, unfairly surprised the applicant and.deprived the applicant of the opportunity to present all of the available evidence relevant to the reasons ultimately expressed to support the denial of the project. Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully request that you reconsider your decision to deny the Reserve at Elk Meadows PUD. LRG/bc xc: Don Deford, Esq. Fred Jarman, Planner Will Humphrey Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. BOCC Minutes for 6/11/07 (Motions and Discussion on1vl CONSIDER A REZZONING REQUEST FROM ARRD TO PUD AND SKETCH PLAN FOR THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS. APPLICANTS: BERSHEYNI LAND & CATTLE,LLLP, CAROL A. BERSHENYI, JOHN WILSON BERSHENYI AND ALICE P. BERSHENYI AND THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS, LLC - FRED JARMAN Decision A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Houpt to close the Public Hearing; motion carried. Chairman Martin — recommendations have been made by P & Z and also staff, we've heard all the testimony from the applicant to the others. Do we have a decision? Commissioner McCown — I'll make a motion that we approve the rezone request for the PUD to the Reserve at Elk Meadows with conditions with corrections as brought forward by the Planning Commission with corrections that have been noted today specially addressing the issue of the slope of the maximum grade changing to a 10% in that wavier or variance if you will; I believe Number 21 regarding the sprinkling of the affordable housing the applicant testified that it was their intention that all housing would be sprinkled and the affordable housing would not be excluded from that; Number 19 as it is presented today with the County not being the receiver entity for the 960 acres since we have no mechanism for that or a means to create that mechanism; and then I would suggest that those items, I think there's one that's clearly been struck through, Number 4, that once these conditions are finally typed for final approval that these not be left in to clutter the issue, making it a little cleaner presentation. Commissioner Houpt — I would not agree that Number 19 should not include the County, I think that our involvement in the LOVA project may put us in the position of putting together some type of recreational department or district and I think we should at least be on that list to be part of the discussion of what happens to that property if this project goes forward so I wouldn't agree with taking, or leaving our name out of that — would you reconsider that? Commissioner McCown — No mamm. Commissioner Houpt — okay. No second. Chairman Martin — second for discussion then — the motion is there, let's go ahead and have a discussion in reference to the different issues that may or may not.... Commissioner Houpt — I have to say that I'm greatly impressed with the work that was done on this application, I think there was a lot of thought put into the ultimate product in terms of preservation, there's a few things I'm really struggling with and unfortunately they are pretty major things, I don't agree with Planning Commission, I don't agree that they should not have changed the Comprehensive Plan, I don't think this is within character of neighborhood as it stands right now; I agree with clustering, I think it's a great approach to development but I don't agree with high density in this area, I appreciate the heritage ranch and the hayfield preservation and those steps you took to respond but I have to agree that I didn't see any view shed pictures taken from the County side either. I think that this is large number of homes for the actual location that we're seeing built out and I'm — I've been working on resolving that through this discussion — I'm having a very difficult time with that. Commissioner McCown — well I just think that apparently this developer has placed more value on EQR's for sewer by paying a sewer tap fee and giving the city $900,000 than they do for improving a 1/4 mile of Bershenyi Ranch road and giving the County $500,000 in impact fees of which whoever buys those lots will pay half at building permit time so I think we're kind of coming out on the short end of the financial stick there but I guess the inherent values that all of this traffic will end up in the City of Glenwood and they do have their finger on the trigger for the sewer system, makes it more appealing to pay Glenwood, so..... Commissioner Houpt — also for the record, I think it was unfortunate the County Planning Commission took the County out of the discussion for the park land; I would not have agreed with that either. Chairman Martin — all right. So with the most respect that I can gather, I want to thank the applicant for putting a good team together, good application together, want to thank the staff for doing their job above and beyond call, thank you for the P & Z who volunteer their time and to review all of these documents, and again I want to thank the Martino and Bershenyi family for the history that they have given us and what have you and it looks like its change in one way or another and Jimmy I'm looking at your face — you've got the kids to think of as well and Wince and Alice and everybody, okay. Understand that. But I want to base my decision based upon the facts, the rules, the application and how it was presented, with the staff and P & Z review and how they are as well as I'm going to do a little balancing act and try to do the best possible for the most people and it really is a balancing act — it puts a burden on everyone, it really does, but when you take the oath that's what you've got to do — you've got to balance everything and you have to come up with a true decision and I'm going to try and do the best I can and respect to all no matter how it comes out. Enough said, let's call for the question. All those in favor of the motion to approve with the amendments. In favor: McCown Opposed: Houpt — aye Martin — aye Chairman Martin — I'm not going to do so based again the issues that I have — the traffic impacts are under -reported, I think the road is in a terrible place to ahead and do so, I think the cuts are too great, I think the view shed corridor is there, I think the emergency access with wildfire, etc. are bad, I think the number of lots are too great, I still think the urban growth boundaries need to be respected at least by me, the City of Glenwood springs, the City of Rifle, New Castle, Silt requested us to do so, I still feel even though the geological survey says there's not much land movements, I still bulges and moves that will cut off land, I still think the lots are too small for the County in a transition zone and many other things that I've seen, but other that it's a great development but not in that particular location. And the other thing is we too, we made a conscious decision to preserve agricultural land in this County and we said we'd do the very best — this is prime agriculatural land and I hate to put houses on it and I have to sleep with myself at night and I have to look at the ceiling and I just can't say yes, because of that. So that's what I'm coming up with — those are my findings. Now I need a motion with findings to say no, do I have those. Commissioner Houpt — I will make a motion that we deny this application Chairman Martin — on which findings? Commissioner Houpt — based on the primary finding that it's not in character with the neighborhood or the transitional zone and many of the other things — the traffic issue, many of the other issues that you mentioned and that I've mentioned today. Chairman Martin — do I have a second. Fred — I can help you there. Commissioner Houpt — will you help me here? Fred — go to Page 51 — there are ways to do this, in addition to what your finding is by inserting the word "not" into some of these, one you could say that the practical function of notice was okay, two is that the hearings were extensive and complete, all matters, pertinent facts, issues were submitted and all parties were heard; three would be that for the above statement and for other reasons the proposed PUD is not in the best interest of the health, safety, welfare I think is a way to do it. Chairman Martin — any decision on negative must have findings and those are the findings supplied by staff Fred — one last finding, on Number 4, the application is not in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and 5, not in compliance ..... I'll leave it up to you, it's entirely up to you but that's a way to do it by looking at those findings. Chairman Martin — with the amendment added to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Issues, etc. I think that's okay. Commissioner Houpt — well I would say that its not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County and you would concur that it's not in conformance with the Zoning Regulations. Chairman Martin — that's not the staff's findings, because it has to be us because when we're challenged on a 106 action you're going to have to be able to do that. If you don't have findings then it can be overturned, etc. Commissioner Houpt — that's right, but the Comprehensive Plan is part of that, okay. Chairman Martin — you have to be fair, so those are your findings? Larry Green — I'm sorry I missed that. Chairman Martin — the findings are that it is not in the best interest of health, safety, welfare and the statement that Tresi made and Fred read off there in reference to the staff report making it a negative instead of a positive. Commissioner McCown — I cannot second that. Chairman Martin — I'll second that for discussion. Go ahead, any discussion. Commissioner McCown — I certainly support all the parties here today and they're very strong emotional positions on this development but I think this clearly has made a statement today as far as the future growth patters and what may occur in the Roaring Fork Valley and Glenwood Springs and I think that this commission has to be very careful in going forward and saying that there is housing shortage in this valley and that affordable housing is one of our primary concerns and we spend a million and a half dollar to it yet we do not follow the allowed density in PUD's when they are brought forward. So I see this becoming a Pitkin County and I would urge that all of you folks in this valley enjoy it and just please don't come before us in the BOE when your property values tend to soar and your taxes follow along, so the price of homes as you all know is controlled by the availability of homes and the availability of homes is controlled by the availability of land and as far as I know this is probably the last singe large or significant parcel of land on Four Mile road, so I think precedent has been set today and I hope the Bershyni's can make a good and prosperous living off of those two hayfields, but I don't think that's likely. I think this decision today probably created a certain amount of financial devastation for them, so that's all I have to say. Chairman Martin — I understand you're position and you're right and I also said it takes intestinal fortitude and political will to go ahead and do that in reference to affordable housing, etc. and I think housing could be allowed on this particular property but I also said that we would respect the urban growth boundaries and that if this kind of density does come forward that the cities need to step up and annex it, supply it and to make the reviews etc with their impacts and to have it acceptable within their cities, not a city outside of a city based upon all of the different costs attributed to it as well, just as another example of Edwards, a good example is that there are more people going to be in this development than on the rest of Four Mile at present time only tells me that that is going to be a city and that needs to be within the City of Glenwood Springs and that's my stance, it's not that the applicant did anything wrong, they've got a good application, but I still have to respect my position and that is, this density, this size, this close to the city using city water, city sewer needs to be in the city and that's where I'm coming from. Commissioner Houpt — well and I'm going back to the compatible with the culture of the neighborhood and the transition notion, I mean I really think this is a good application, I think that development will occur on this ranch but the density, the high density is not compatible with what, and I know Larry went through the process of the Comprehensive Plan change but the intent of that has been different and it's always hard to vote against a project that so much work has gone into but as a Commissioner in this County, I think it's really important that I pay attention to the values that we hold so dear to this area and I think we have to be careful about how we approach growth and development in this area and throughout the County. Chairman Martin — let's call for the question, all those in favor of the motion to deny with the findings that were presented. Deny In Favor: Martin — aye Houpt — aye Opposed: McCown — aye It is denied based upon those findings and we'll go forward from there — Larry it's in your court. DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, THAT THE UNDE S'T51lE `BEING SOLE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE, QF THAT REAL PROPERTY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW1/4NE1/4, THE SE1/4NW1/4, THE SW1/4 AND THE SEI/4 OF SECTION 27 AND 1N THE NE1/4 AND THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUT;', RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 88'28'35" W ALONG THE EAST -WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 27 1127.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY R ! GH T--OF-WAY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 117 (FOUR MILE ROAD), THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST -WEST CENTERLINE N 18'56'44" W ALONG SAID EASTERL Y RIGHT-OF-WAY 36.69 FEET; THENCE LAV/NG SAID EASTERLY R I GHT OF -WA Y N 73'20'59" E 38.23 FEET; THENCE N 82'06'12" E 63.31 FEET; THENCE N 86'20'37" E 270.00 FEET; THENCE N 85'10'08" E 785.86 FEET TO A REBAR & CAP L.S. #6973 IN PLACE; THENCE S 54'17'37" E 186.62 FEET TO A REBAR & CAP L.S. #6973 IN PLACE; THENCE S 53'49'22" E 151.66 FEET TO A REBAR & CAP L.S. #6973 IN PLACE; THENCE S 43'17'21" E 231.65 FEET TO A REBAR & CAP L.S. #6973 IN PLACF; THENCE S 13'45'28" 432.09 FEET; THENCE 5 09'31'33" E 752.63 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE N1/2SE 1/4 OF SA 1 D SECTION 27, A REBAR & CAP L.S. #5447 IN PLACE; THENCE S 88'26'43" E ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 337,95 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE S 01'26.34" W 750.13 FEET; THENCE S 88'24'24" E 193.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SW1/45E1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE 5 01'25'47" W ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 593.22 FEET TO THE EAST 1/16 CORNER OF SECTIONS 27 AND 34; THENCE 5 08'36'18" W 691.41 FEET; THENCE N 79'38'39" W 447.68 FEET; THENCE N 84'09'51" W 254.28 FEET; THENCE N 83'37'26" W 279.76 FEET; THENCE N 83'46'47" W 395.98 FEET; THENCE N 83'37'23" W 309.58 FEET; THENCE N 84'01'0.5'" W 354.18 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. 117, A REBAR AND ALUMINUM CAP IN PLACE; THENCE THE FOLLOWIP'G FIVE (5) COURSES ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY: 1. H 17'48'57"W, 828.56 FEET 2. ALONG' THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAV I NG A RADIUS OF 680 30 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37'20'20", A DISTANCE OF 443.34 FEET (CHORD BEARS N D7°11'40" E 435.54 FEET) 3. N 25'51'50" E 316.05 FEET 4. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 881.92 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44'40'10", A DISTANCE OF 687.57 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 03'31'45" E 670.29 FEET) 5. N 19'25'02" W 1043.51 FEET TO THE F»INT OF BEGINNING: SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 138.773 ACRES, MOPE OR LESS. THAT SAID OWNER HAS CAUSED THE SAID REAL PROPERTY TO BE LAID OUT AND SURVEYED AS FOUR MILE RANCH SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION OF A PART OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. THAT SAID OWNER DOES HEREBY DEDICATE AND SET APART ALL OF THE STREETS AND ROADS AS SHOWN ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER, AND HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND FOUR MILE RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THOSE PORTIONS OF SAIDREAL PROPERTY WHICH ARE LABELED AS UTILITY EASEMENTS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT AS PERPETUAL EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINES, .GAS LINES. TELEPHONE LINES; TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO TRIM INTERFERING TREES AND BRUSH; WITH PERPETUAL RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH LfNES. AND FURTHER DEDICATED AND SET APART THOSE PORTIONS OF SAID REAL PROPERTY WHICH ARE LABELED AS PRIVATE TRAIL EASEMENT FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLANS TO THE: COUNTY OF GARFIELD. THAT ALL MAINTENANCE OF SAID PRIVATE TRAIL EASEMENT FOR HOMEOW"ERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE FOUR MILE RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. AND FURTHER DEDICATED TO THE FOUR MILE RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THOSE ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT FOR THE USES INDICATED. SUCH EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS SHALL BE UTILIZED IN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MANNER. E CO .3073 Ci6 '0 LE 170.18' N 84'4511' E \ `� eio.\ \ 1 LOT 40 1 31. SF& 2.043 ACf 353 17 40'INGRESS/EGRESS £MERG ACCESS, UTILITY & DRAINA6'E ESM T. & PRIVATE TRAM. ESM 1 10R BENEFIT OF +.1.0..4. 77 S 8428.45 E 359,80' CL 20' SEWER FASEMEN7 REBAR & CAP LS #5447 BEARS N 86'29'1Y E 15.44' :L! 1.0 0 369.57' 5 60'25'29 W 577.2- 8C2 LOT 39 87,714. SF3 2.01J AC& LIMITS OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT (TYP.) N 54'22'45" W 8.38' .y: LOT 42 87,16.5. SF& 2001 AC3 s 80.25 20" 322.76• 5 80'25428" Y1 31 x-53 "ALL STRUCTURES PROHIBITED IN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT" 5 80'41 28" 'A 303.181 5 65'30'22" W fl 295.79' %0\ f \ '46'1 " \ \ \288132• \\ f ea \ \ \ 280 83 \\\' \\ S i.Y72•f}. \ 275.60 I Cr A SEE RER I=, 1 b C5. `F9 C57 -- LOT LOT 41 126,243. SF& 2898 AG* 4i.'7 �: 5 47'40'59" W 2.00' 11.10 -v vl: t• 4,1 LOT 43 87.120. SF3 2.000 403 14 e. C! l1ID u m 25 LOT 44 87,228 5F3 2002 AC1 LOT 45 87,232 SP1 2.002 ACE 471 20' UTTLJTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT , co WT 45' 87.254. SF4_ 2.003 4C3 LOT 47 67,129. SF& 2.000 401 ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ,f 4 7- c, LOT 50 87.409. SF3 2.006 40& LOT 48 871474 SF± 7.006 AVE 25 d7..\ 11. LOT 49 87,939 SF& 2.018 .C3 1.57' r WATER TAA EASEMENT LOT 35 88432. 513 0 2.030 •10± r- rwn O N N r — \ \ 556.58 20' UTILITY '. MANAGE E . 4SENT r,rp. 1 <3\ -157.4 1 , I I� BUILDING SETBACK' r 482,97. 20' UTILITY & - _ DRAINAGE EASEMENT? (T P.) AC12 . • ..„.7 C82 n. J 6 0 -7 A m l of LOT 54 87,207. SF4 .2003 404 \ LOT 3 87,120. 5 2.000 AI LC 67,1 2.81 ,63'. lE 197.1 1'—p• 40' O" RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS P.U.D. ROAD SECTIONS 80' 0" R.O.W. ,6'—O" (SEE NOTE 1) r • _ ASPHALT w SLOPE 0 2X 20' 0" (SEE OTE 1) M14 r x r+'7^`�u R �. Lvvvs:ANDSCAPE ISLANDYr 111111111111111111111 1.-0" 40' 0" 16' 0" 1'-0" • _ ASPHALT SLOPE 0 2R Ly.-- • — 4' 0" 6" THICK CONCRETE SHOULDER BOTH SIDES OF ROAD. •• _ OF CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE UNDER CONCRETE & PAVEMENT; COMPACTED TO 95X STANDARD PROCTOR. STRIP ALL TOPSOIL. SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE A MINIMUM OF 8" DEPTH TO 95X STANDARD PROCTOR. TYPICAL ENTRY ROAD SECTION 1) ENTRY ROADS AT FOUR MILE ROAD INTERSECTION WILL HAVE LEFT TURN LANES THAT RESULT IN A 24' LEFT SIDE TRAVEL LANE AND AND A REDUCED LANDSCAPE ISLAND OF 30' 0" 1'-0" N.T.S. 60' 0" R.O.W. — 6" THICK CONCRETE SHOULDER BOTH SIDES OF ROAD. 11' 0" 11' 0• 30' 0" ASPHALT SLOPE 0 SLOPE 0 27.2% 4' 0" -- — STRIP ALL TOPSOIL, SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE A MINIMUM DF 8" DEPTH TO 95* STANDARD PROCTOR. •• _ OF CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE UNDER CONCRETE & PAVEMENT COMPACTED TO 957E STANDARD PROCTOR. TYPICAL ROAD SECTION N.T.S. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81823 (970) 704-0311 6" THICK CONCRETE SHOULDER BOTH SIDES OF ROAD. 25019—SKETCH—PROFILES DWG 05/0 f /CS EDWARD RECEIVED APR 2 2 yotil,COMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GARFIELD COUNTY MULHALL, JR. BUILDING & PLANNING P. 0. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHER L. COYLE THOMAS J. HARTERT CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER ANNE MARIE MCPHEE DEBORAH DAVIS* SARA M. DUNN ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK AND MISSOURI VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.9769 mwmaalctuitveen.con, April 22, 2005 Mark Bean, Planning Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8' Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark: OF COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A. THULSON Re: Possible Development Applications on Bershenyi and Martino Ranches, Four Mile Creek, Garfield County, Colorado Thank you again for taking the time to meet with Chris Pates and me on Wednesday regarding the above -referenced matter. As we discussed, we would appreciate receiving staff's interpretation of two provisions of the County Code. As you are aware, the upper parcel of the Bershenyi Ranch is separated from the lower parcel by a tract of BLM land. An expert consultant has been retained to assist the development team in either (i) obtaining an easement for a public access way across BLM to development on the upper parcel, or (ii) obtaining title to the BLM parcel through a land exchange. In either case, we do not expect to have a final decision from the BLM prior to the time we wish to submit a development application for all portions of the subject property. Section 4.8.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution enumerates certain items which are to be included in a combined PUD/Sketch Plan application. Subparagraph F. of that section requires: Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to the PUD and/or documentation demonstrating access shall be acquired across a public right-of-way or easement within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access shall be vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way. BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mark Bean, Planning Director April 22, 2005 Page 2 Section 4:60 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulation enumerates certain items which are to be included in a combined PUD/Preliminary Plan application. Subparagraph C. of that section requires that the application provide: Evidence that all lots and parcels created will have access to a public right-of-way as required by Colorado State law. We interpret both of the above quoted provisions to mean that an application for the subject property would be considered in "technical compliance" with the Code so long as the application demonstrates that the BLM process requesting the easement or the land exchange has commenced, and that a final decision on the request by BLM would not be required to allow the application to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. Of course, any approval of the application would be conditioned upon a final, affirmative response by BLM. It is our understanding that you will discuss this matter with other members of staff and provide us with staff's interpretation of the two Code provisions quoted above. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. LRG/bc xc: Chris Pates April 29, 2005 Larry Green 818 Colorado Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Bershenyi/Martino Property Dear Larry: Garfield County BUILDING &PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Earlier this week, the Planning Department staff met with the County Attorney's office and discussed your request for an interpretation of the language in Section 4.08.05 (7)(f.) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. The section reads: Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from a public road to the PUD and/or documentation demonstrating access shall be acquired across a public right-of-way or easement within two (2) years of any PUD approval and said access shall be vested prior to final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right-of-way; The language that is critical to your client is "access shall be acquired...". This language states that the right-of-way or easement shall be acquired within two (2) years. We interpret that to mean that the BLM will have to provide the equivalent to a "can and will serve" letter to your clients, to be included in a Planned Unit Development application. Otherwise it would be deemed to not be in technical compliance with the application requirements and processing of the application will be suspended until a letter is included in the application. If you have any other questions about this position, you may call or write to me or Fred Jarman, at this office. Sincerely, )4-44.% Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 r---� Concept Plan for I e f e ervc a.. E.- M ..acl 1Glen ood Springs, �o 1 Meadow View Venture i s mayid Ms dd. IMO -1ammm 1 Phase 111 Lots 34-1 m 3, aae lots 1 1 rUpper MD ME Meadow 1 Lots 77 4� acrf lots ■ le m 3m Phase 1 Lots Lower Meadow 7 Preserved Historic Ranch & Hay Fields approx.135 acres Preserved Open Space approx.1000 acres MeadLot co...:\j18-', acre ,ots Property rI 1!r ■% rER, i 1 1 1 1 legiatipoLl Site information 8e5t Pfiasew iToo 11,,6S5954: Marpmpe[y. 105 ano es '-?zee mid level bts 118 shacre upper level lets 7] 1' 1 Phase II 1 to 314 acre lots - • 39 Phase 81 1 m Nacre lots .... 36 Tatallets 770 Page 1 of 5 Fred Jarman From: Mark Bean Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:01 PM To: GARCO Attorney; Carolyn Dahlgren; Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Bershanyi and Martino Ranch The latest for discussion on Thursday. For Don's benefit, Larry Green is representing these folks now. Mark Bean, Director Building & Planning Department Garfield County 108 8th St. Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 From: Swan1530@aol.com [mailto:Swan1530@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:24 PM To: Mark Bean Cc: KStrass@aol.com; patesmanagement@eagleranch.com; Julie@RMSwanson.com; chuck©rmswanson.com; erikm@westpart.com Subject: Bershanyi and Martino Ranch HARD COPY TO FOLLOW BY MAIL 1/31/05 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO. Mark, We are responding to your summary of comments to our preliminary Land Plan proposal for the Bershenyi and Martino Ranch properties on Four Mile Rd. You will find attached a revised Land Plan, which, we believe, reacts proactively to your remarks. For your information, we have retained Larry Green as our legal council and John Reed as our development consultant for this project. In fact, they have both met with the City of Glenwood Springs to discuss our proposal and identify issues specific to the community; such as sewer and water access; roadway improvements and impact fees, if any. We are also pleased report we have met with several local individuals who were identified as most "vocal" in previous petitions. The overall spirit of that meeting was positive and numerous constructive comments were shared. As a result of this and additional exploration, we are feeling more energized about our project and hope to continue that momentum. The following is our response to your comments: 2/1/2005 Page 2 of 5 Based on the site plan and information included on the site plan, you will need to have a Planned Unit Development approved per Section 4.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Depending upon the timing of submittal, you may be subject to revised PUD regulations that will tentatively be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in May or June of 2005. At this time we do not have a draft of those regulations available for review, but hope to have them available in February or March. It would be helpful if you could identify what changes are being considered to the PUD regulations that might have the most effect on our proposal. You note "attainable housing" as a part of your proposed site design. The PUD regulations require "10%" affordable housing for developments that increase the density above the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan for the property in question. It appears that your property is located in areas shown as Residential Medium (6 to <10 ac/du) and Residential Low (10+ ac/du). The entire Phase Il, Ill and IV lot areas are in the Residential Low Density area and as a piece of property meet the "no increase" criteria. The Lower, Mid and Upper Meadow lots have both Residential Low and Medium Density designations and as an area do "increase the density" above the Comprehensive Plan designations. The overall density for the entire PUD is just under 1 unit per 6 acres (1/5.989 ac.). As such, you will need to provide the 10% affordable housing per our regulations. We understood affordable housing was required regardless and wanted to show how it could be incorporated into our plan. The simple solution is to reduce the density and eliminate the requirement altogether. Please note that anyone wanting to oppose the project may note the more than 1 du/6 ac. density of the entire development and try and contest the approval based upon non -general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan density per Section 4.04 of the Zoning Resolution. It is our intention to follow the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on knowledge of the property, it appears that the area proposed for your attainable housing is going to be within a designated FEMA floodplain and regulatory wetlands subject to Corps of Engineers Section 404 approval. We are in the process of accurately identifying the boundaries of the FEMA floodplain and regulatory wetlands. Our custom is to avoid these areas altogether and in some cases, enhance the existing condition of these sensitive areas. The access to the upper property across BLM will probably require some kind of expansion of the right of access, beyond the present ranch use access. The meeting with BLM will be scheduled before our meeting on February 3rd, and we hope to share the results of that discussion. A 12 ac. school site is probably not large enough for the School District to really use, so you should probably anticipate a request for "cash in lieu of dedication of land" from them. If they accept it, it will have to water and sewer to it. The school site has been removed and we will make arrangements with the school district to meet and discuss the impact of this development, as currently proposed. 2/1/2005 Page 3 of 5 Are there preset school impact fees? Fire protection will be a huge issue for this project, particularly the Upper Meadow and Phases 11, Ill and 1V areas. If we understand you attached note correctly, you are proposing individual wells and septic for the all of the development. Lots less than 2 ac. and more than 1 ac. are allowed to have septic systems, if there is central water per our present Zoning Resolution. Lots less than 1 ac. are required to have central water and sewer. It appears that a central water supply system would be appropriate for the entire development at a minimum and central sewer for the lower ranch area. You should talk to the Fire Chief as soon as you feel more comfy <ihk:1 going public. The Fire Chief also needs to take a close look at the proposed emergency access for the upper ranch area. For Phase I we plan on proposing a central water supply system and apply for use of the city sewer line that will serve the Spring Ridge Reserve and Four Mile developments. As for phases II, III, and IV, we are in discussions with our civil engineer regarding our options. However, our preference is to not have individual septic and well systems for each lot in this area. We are encouraged by our discussions with Glenwood Springs and hope to have more clarity after our meeting with them on February 4th. In addition, Chris Pates; John Reed and Yancy Nichol met with Ron Biggers of the Fire District on January 11, 2005. The result of that discussion was very positive and we will also share the specifics at our February 3rd The Upper Meadow lots will be some of the more controversial lots, given the high visibility of the meadow to the valley. You may want to consider moving more of the proposed density into the Lower and Middle Meadow areas, which are less visible on a valley wide basis. We have taken care to limit the amount of lots in the Upper Meadow and focus development in less visible locations. You should note we were surprised to receive no comment from neighbors on this. They seemed to appreciate the clustering of "pods" or "nodes" and understood some homes may be seen. We will continue to massage the plan to address further refinement. However, in all honesty; these are our better view lots and naturally, we wish to preserve as many as possible. Any new bridge crossing 4 -Mile Creek will be at your expense, since the County has very little funding to contribute to such a project. If it is determined a bridge is needed, we understand it will be at our expense. Make sure that your title company takes a close look at the old 4 -Mile road right-of- way and railroad bed. It is staff's understanding that there may still be road and railroad rights-of-way crossing the property. This was a very big issue for the Prehm Ranch property just south and east of the Bershenyi property Our legal council, Larry Green, has been reviewing the Title and believes the Railroad Bed easement was addressed thru a Quiet Title Decree. We are confident Larry can explain in more detail when we meet. Since this is a conceptual plan of sorts, you may not have shown any intended trails system. Please be aware that there is a public trial adjacent to County Road 117 on the 4 -Mile Ranch project that would be appropriate to continue up the valley. A PUD 2/1/2005 Page 4 of 5 also includes requirements for pedestrian access through the development It is our intention to provide publicly accessible trails. They will be more clearly articulated as we get further into the process and we have no problem connecting to existing trail systems, if that is possible. Getting this or a revised plan to the City for review as soon as possible is strongly encouraged Please accept my apologies for not getting this to you sooner. We felt it was more productive to aggressively address all of your comments before responding. It was clear you did a thorough review and we appreciated the time spent. In turn, we wanted to be just as responsible in our reply. In addition to your comments, we wanted to provide a summary of notes to describe how and why we made some of the modifications to our Land Plan. They are as follows: . In our discussions with the neighbor representatives, Jim Hawkins; Dean Moffat; Sean Jeung; Michael Larime and an ex city councilman, who's name escaped us, it was suggested the existing barn structures on the East side of Four Mile Rd. might have some historical significance. Many felt the approximately 135 acres on that side could be preserved as a "Historic Ranch" and the existing buildings restored. We have been advised cattle, in the winter months, can be very problematic. In other words, the smell from the cattle's urine is extremely odorous. While we remain committed to the concept of preservation, it will have to come with reasonable restrictions on use. Nevertheless, our plan reflects preservation of this area for some kind of responsible use. • There were also comments about creating "pods" or clusters as oppose to one-sided serpentine roads. It was suggested, this might allow more opportunity for open space. We agreed to explore this recommendation and believe our latest plan incorporates that concept. • Finally, please take note of the adjustment of lot quantities in each of the phases. Simply put, we reduced the total to 270 lots and shifted the 44 Lower Meadow lots into the Mid Meadow and added 25 lots to Phases II III & IV. Thank you for your observations and comments. Again, it is our desire to move ahead and we look to our meeting on February 3rd for further direction. Sincerely, Rick Swanson 2/1/2005 Page 5 of 5 Principle WESTMINSTER SWANSON LAND PARTNERS LLC 2/1/2005