HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report• GARFIELD COUNTY •
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
2014 BLAKE AVENUE
October 16, 1978
MEMO TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Los Amigos PUD
PHONE 945-8212
The first question to deal with regarding the project is the enabling
question of whether or not the County should give serious consideration to
the specifics of the PUD request to begin with. It is clear from the 1968
General Plan that Spring Valley is identified as a potential growth center.
Much of that determination took place because of the presence of the CMC
campus. As the nature of CMC developes, it is becoming obvious that while
it can serve as one economic rationale for residential development, because
of the total projected numbers of student enrollment it will not serve as
the reason or need for housing in Spring Valley. I feel the presence of
CMC serves rather as an organizing principle for development in the Spring
Valley Area. By that I mean there are only going to be so many CMC rental
units that can be attributed to a specific housing market, and thereby provide
a developer a basis for zoning approval, but the existence of the campus activity
should serve to organize various land uses as they occur in Spring Valley. Projects
must be planned to address needs beyond those directly attributable to CMC, while
at the same time arranging the various uses they propose so that their location
makes sense with the exisiting location of CMC. In my way of thinking that
generally means high density, attached residential units should be within
easy and convenient walking distrance to the campus, and commercial areas should
be located close to the major County Road servicing Spring Valley and the campus
location. Lower density residential uses should be subject to the same review
that applies in other cases on a site specific basis, but with the thought in
mind that the County has definitely outlined this area for potential growth.
The initial briefing presented to the Planning Commission on Mondya, October 9,
1978 seemed to me to show that the proposal fits the general type that will
likely take place and work in Spring Valley. The isolation of the development
areas is really an important concept, for even though the unit distribution
may change as the developer's market experience takes place, the committment has
been made_to cluster, preserve agricultural production, centrally locate potential
• •
school and commercial sites, and initially serve high density development with
appropriate utilities. One long range goal of the County inconsidering development
in Spring Valley are should be to encourage a pattern which allows for a fire
station, school facility and possibly a metro district which could serve the
cumulative needs of a number of major projects as the develop in the area. I
feel the major aspects of this PUD serve that purpose.
Various issues which are listed below, come to mind concerning project
specifics, and some raise possibly serious issues, however I do not feel that
any objections exist that prevent the County from considering this project
as a serious one. The County has given the Spring Valley area a potential
suburban designation, and the developer seems aware and open about the front-
end costs with the particular phasing scheme proposed, as well as the potential
that the projected housing mix may have to be adjusted to respond to a market
which is broader than CMC student rentals and related purchases. I think the
initial proposal showed a sensitivity to the land package as to how the physical
attributes of the land lend or do not lend themselves to development. By this
I mean the obvious steps of keeping clear of steep slopes and producing crop
land, consideration of a reasonable number of units, their relationship to an
open space system and the visual impacts they produce upon the project by their
siting and transportation requirements.
Specific issues that follow are listed as questions or initial discussion
areas which should draw some attent from the County in subsequent review.
(1) The proposal is to have possibly the duplex and definitely single-
family units served with individual sewage treatment. I have always
been skeptical about substantial numbers of units on individual sewage
treatment systems. Some definite consideration should be given to
ultimate extension of sewage treatment to the smaller single-family lots,
with individual treatment regarded on a first system basis, with eventual
replacement by central system.
(2) Replacement water is to come from Reudi or Green Mountain Reservoir
or other unnamed "source of supply". As has been discussed in the past,
this type of proposition is not necessarily an acceptable one from the
stand point of Garfield County.
(3)
Some attention should be paid to estimates of the front-end expenses
related to the 1st phase of development and the ability of the 1st phase
of development to cover the maintenance and operation of public improve-
- 2
•
ments. In conjunction with this item and the possibility of a changing
market experience with the units in Phase I, it would also be advisable
to go over those aspects of the PUD development plan which could be
changed or would be the most logical to changes.
- 3