HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 12.13.2017Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits
Comprehensive Plan Amendment — FLUM Amendment
Applicant is Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch
Company LLLP
December 13, 2017
(File CPAA-09-17-8582)
Exhibit
Number
Exhibit Description
1
Public Hearing Notice Information
2
Proof of Publication
3
Mailing Receipts from Mailed Notice
4
Property Posting Photos
5
Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended
6
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
7
Application
8
Staff Report
9
Referral Comments from Rio Blanco County (dated November 7,
2017)
10
Referral Comments from the Town of Parachute (dated November 8,
2017)
11
Referral Comments from Mesa County (dated November 9, 2017)
12
Mid Valley Metropolitan District Resolution No. 2, Series of 2011 -
Inclusion Agreement for Cerise property
13
Referral Comments from Carbondale Fire Protection District (dated
November 10, 2017)
14
Email from Anne Pratt (dated November 28, 2017)
15
Email from Peter LaMorte (dated November 29, 2017)
16
Referral Comments from the Town of Carbondale (dated November
29, 2017)
17
Email from Phyllis Martin (dated November 29, 2017)
18
Email from Ron DePugh (dated November 30, 2017)
19
Email from Jackie Daly (dated November 30, 2017)
20
Email from Ron Goth (dated November 30, 2017)
21
Email from Jim Barnett (dated November 30, 2017)
22
Email from Felicia Young (dated November 30, 2017)
23
Email from Jerome Dayton (dated December 1, 2017)
24
Email from Gordon Sichel (dated November 30, 2017)
25
Letter from Zancanella and Associates (dated November 29, 2017)
26
Email from Patricia Helling (dated December 1, 2017)
27
Email from William Rinaldi (dated December 1, 2017)
28
Email from Robert Davis (dated December 1, 2017)
29
Email from Scott Brown (dated December 1, 2017)
30
Referral Comments from Pitkin County (dated December 1, 2017)
31
Email from Peggy Ball (dated December 1, 2017)
32
Email from Michael Lafferty (dated December 1, 2017)
33
Email from Jess Bates (dated December 1, 2017)
34
Email from Gerald Alpern (dated December 1, 2017)
35
Email from Jim Elliott (dated December 1, 2017)
36
Email from Lions Ridge HOA (dated December 1, 2017)
37
Email from Chris Heaphey (dated December 1, 2017)
38
Email from Gary Pax (dated December 1, 2017)
39
Referral Comments from the Town of Basalt (dated December 1,
2017)
40
Email from John and Nancy Thorpe (dated December 1, 2017)
41
Email from Carolee Murray (dated December 1, 2017)
42
Email from Matt Vickers (dated December 1, 2017)
43
Email from Matthew Hunt (dated December 1, 2017)
44
Email from Barbara Clarke (dated December 1, 2017)
45
Email from Sylvia Wendow (dated December 1, 2017)
46
Email from Stephanie Lewis (dated December 1, 2017)
47
Email from Peter Gilbert (dated December 1, 2017)
48
Email from Joan Troth (dated December 2, 2017)
49
Email from Betty and Michael Daniel (dated December 3, 2017)
50
Email from Wewer Keohane (dated December 3, 2017)
51
Email from Deborah Hutchinson (dated December 4, 2017)
52
Email from Doris Faust (dated December 4, 2017)
53
Email from Everett Peirce (dated December 4, 2017)
54
Email from John Chandler (dated December 4, 2017)
55
Email from Jeri Simon Rowars (dated December 4, 2017)
56
Email from Lawrence and Lisa Singer (dated December 5, 2017)
57
Letter from the Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA (dated December 4, 2017)
58
Email from Peg Klein (dated December 6, 2017)
Ste)
C wig:41 �'.•-^r I --sCv ti l<p'13 tc,chei DeC , 'F. , ?e• A)
60
Leoe- -c-,-, P) F - (dc, h"cf AJov z I, 7c,,*)
6 1
6-,,,,,1 -PC,4 ./tiv,-,,,,, /#ci rCsf,e/G :1 e > I I, ( o/7J
(.. e.
i:,,,,,..., `Ftp -7--:-, /44,1.,s / - C : 4c( D-,,,, 11,?c,' / 7)
c'3
z,✓hIr,,ll / -cie"7Li GCthcifcc(/ (A4c4 �,f(. 11,70/7)
ILI
/Ili4 I.„1{ic.-✓, -51-etU(,./. J(//r/iI ( :Dec. /1, ?"f)
&S
4,-""1c,, 1 ;c-, �j(i-./fify,, -4(4 erns (rt,:fcf :)f-(. lz, 101 1)
t
(4..l' -I Ic.A-) svi' h,i (',-(e. i-eci J. II 7c + f)
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF REVIEW:
APPLICANT:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (FLUM)
Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch
Company LLLP
REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Arnold
PROPERTY SIZE: 41.64 Acres
CURRENT COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium (6-10 Acres / Dwelling Unit)
PROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Village (5-10 Dwelling Units /
Acre
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The Applicant has submitted an application requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan of 2030
Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This application proposes to redesignate a parcel located
northeast of the Highway 82 / County Road 100 intersection at Catherine Store (Parcel Number
239131100013) to a newly created designation, Residential Village (RV). The purpose of the
redesignation is to allow the property owner to pursue a residential density higher than what is
allowed under the currently available designations. It is anticipated that the development would
consist of a lease -hold manufactured home (tiny home) community that would be permitted by a
subsequent PUD review, however this specific type of development is not guaranteed with the
approval of this FLUM amendment application.
It is worth noting that as the request to create the new Residential Village designation is scheduled
to be heard by the Planning Commission immediately prior to this hearing for redesignation of the
Cerise property, the analysis within this Report is based on the information as presented in the
application, including and with recommended changes by Staff and does not anticipate any
potential changes by the Planning Commission or a denial by the Commission of the text
amendment application. Should the Commission deny the request to create the Residential
Village designation, then the below review and recommendation cannot move forward. Similarly,
should changes be made to the Residential Village designation that make this redesignation
impossible, then this Staff recommendation and analysis may require modification.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Vicinity Map
v
Town of
Carbondale
Subject
Parcel
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
4.
c
/44
o�
l_
Urban Growth Area
Industrial
Mixed Use
Commercial
Res H (1/3 TO <2 Ac/Du)'
Res MH (2 TO <6 Ac/Du)'
Res M (6 TO <10 Ac/Du)
Res L (10+ Ac/Du)
Resource Production: Natural
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Specifically, the Applicant has proposed to designate the subject parcel Residential Village (RV),
as is outlined below with Staff recommended amendments from application CPAA-09-17-8583.
• Land Use Designation: Residential Village (RV)
• Description: Residential work force neighborhood with the following attributes; a)
located within % mile of a Village Center and transit stop location, as one would
walk to encourage walkability and bikeability to the supporting commercial /transit
facility, b) has internal walk and bike facilities as well as be connected by such
infrastructure to supporting commercial / transit facilities, c) utilizes clustering to
maximize open space, parks and trails, d) is -within could feasibly be served by a
centralized, special district or municipal water and sewer service area, and e) with
little geohazard risks- 1) housing is to be available as long term work force housing
(dwelling units -1500 square feet or less) and is not be utilized as short term
rentals (rented 30 days or less), and q) the developer should make a financial or
other contribution to the transit service provider to help offset impacts of the
development at the time of development approval.
rango to bo dctorminod by amount of clustoring, dogroo of altornativo
• Compatible Zoning: Residential Urban (RU), Planned Unit Development (PUD)
• Density: 5-10 du per acre determined by amount of clustering, degree of
alternative transportation access, and public benefit. Density is capped at a
Maximum of 3 du per acre without central water and sewer service provided by
special district or municipality.
• Example:
3I
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Aerial Map
II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The process and standards required for amending the Comprehensive Plan 2030 are included in
Chapter 4, Amending the Plan. This Chapter lays out the process and standards for amending
the Comprehensive Plan text and Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
A response to the list of standards of approval is found in the application and staff has provided
an evaluation of these required findings in the Staff Analysis section of this report.
III. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS
Referral comments were sent to the following agencies as required by Colorado Revised Statutes
and the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. General comments are included below with additional
detailed comments incorporated into this report where relevant.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Referral Comments
Eagle County:
Mesa County:
Pitkin County:
Rio Blanco County:
Routt County:
Uintah County:
Grand County:
City of Glenwood Springs:
City of Rifle:
Town of Basalt:
Town of Carbondale:
Town of DeBeque:
Town of New Castle:
Town of Parachute:
Town of Silt:
Town of Carbonate:
Carbondale Fire Prot. Dist.:
Colorado Parks and Wildlife:
No response received.
Indicated that the County has no comment. (See Exhibit 11)
Indicated that the County does not support the creation of the
Residential Village designation as it would encourage urban level
development outside an Urban Growth Boundary. The County
also expressed concern regarding the precedent that such an
approval could set for the area and vehicular traffic impacts.
(Exhibit 30)
Indicated that the County has no comment. (See Exhibit 9)
No response received.
No response received.
No response received.
No response received.
No response received.
Indicated that the Town does not support the creation of the
Residential Village designation as it would encourage urban level
development outside the Urban Growth Boundary and it is
otherwise not in general conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Town also expressed concerns regarding impacts to
roads, school districts, fire districts, the cost of a bicycle /
pedestrian underpass, and childcare.(See Exhibit 39)
Indicated that the Town does not support the creation of the
Residential Village designation as it would encourage urban level
development outside the Urban Growth Boundary and it is
otherwise not in general conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Town also expressed concerns regarding impacts to
roads, school districts, fire districts, and whether the housing
would truly be affordable or workforce housing. (Exhibit 16)
No response received.
No response received.
Indicated that the Town has no comment. (See Exhibit 10)
No response received.
No response received.
Indicated that the District has no comment. (See Exhibit 13)
Indicated that due to wildlife fencing on Highway 82 and the
existing use of the property as a hay field, the use of the parcel for
higher density development should not have substantial impacts
on wildlife. CPW did make development specific
recommendations that are application during development review.
(See Exhibit 15)
5 l a g e
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Public Comments
Anne Pratt: Indicated concerns with change in character of neighborhood,
impacts to water supply, impacts to wildlife, vehicle impacts, and
noise / light impacts. (See Exhibit 14)
Peter LaMorte: Indicated concerns with density, development expectations, traffic,
water quality, type of development, and proximity to services. (See
Exhibit 15)
Phyllis Martin: Indicated concerns with density, vehicle traffic, and water quality.
(See Exhibit 17)
Ron DePugh: Indicated concerns with compatibility, vehicle traffic, and property
values (See Exhibit 18)
Jackie Daly: Indicated concerns with vehicle traffic, and water quality. (See
Exhibit 19)
Ron Goth: Indicated concerns with vehicle traffic, and water quality. (See
Exhibit 20)
James Barnett: Indicated concerns with density, compatibility, provisions for
services, location of workforce (affordable) housing, impacts on
habitat, water quality and quantity. (See Exhibit 21)
Felicia Young: Indicated concerns with vehicle traffic and infrastructure. (See
Exhibit 22)
Jerome Dayton: Indicated concerns with compatibility, and growth. (See Exhibit 23)
Gordon Sichel: Indicated concerns with compatibility, vehicle traffic, water quality,
wildlife, and precedence. (See Exhibit 24)
Zancanella and Assoc.: Provided letter on behalf of Lionsridge HOA outlining possible
impacts of development on Lionsridge water well. (See Exhibit 25)
Patricia Helling: Indicated support for affordable housing with concerns with
outdoor storage, excessive vehicles, and owner occupancy. (See
Exhibit 26)
William Rinaldi: Indicated concerns with wildlife, development expectations, and
compatibility. (See Exhibit 27)
Robert Davis: Indicated concerns with County public notice standards, and
general objection. (See Exhibit 28)
Scott Brown: Indicated concerns with development of a mobile home park,
distance from services, and compatibility. (See Exhibit 29)
Peggy Ball: Indicated concerns related to vehicular traffic, impact on schools,
and compatibility. (See Exhibit 31)
Michael Lafferty: Indicated concerns related to the quality of services available,
compatibility, and vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 32)
Jess Bates: Indicated support for high density development so long as
services are provided and it does not impact vehicular traffic. (See
Exhibit 33)
61PaEe
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Gerald Alpern:
Jim Elliott:
Lions Ridge HOA:
Chris Heaphey:
Gary Pax:
John and Nancy Thorpe:
Carolee and David Murray:
Matt Vickers:
Matthew Hunt:
Barbara Clarke:
Silvia Wendrow:
Stephanie Lewis:
Peter Gilbert:
Joan Troth:
Betty and Michael Daniel:
Wewer Keohane:
Deborah Hutchinson:
Doris Faust:
Everett Peirce:
John Chandler:
Jeri Simon Rowars:
Lawrence and Lisa Singer:
Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA:
Peg Klein:
Indicated concerns with density, vehicular traffic, visual impacts,
and wildlife impacts. (See Exhibit 34)
Indicated concerns with development in valley, and vehicular
traffic. (See Exhibit 35)
Indicated concerns with consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, a lack of change in the area, impacts to County as a whole,
respect for initial Comprehensive planning process. (See Exhibit
36)
Indicated concerns with density, scope, and tiny homes. (See
Exhibit 37)
Indicated concerns with water quality. (See Exhibit 38)
Indicated concerns with density, water availability, vehicular traffic,
and compatibility. (See Exhibit 40)
Indicated concerns with vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic,
and visual impacts. (See Exhibit 41)
Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic, continuation of
development approvals in Roaring Fork Valley. (See Exhibit 42)
Indicated concerns with compatibility, expectations of continued
rural character, vehicular traffic, impacts on RFTA service, access,
water availability, fire / police / school impacts. (See Exhibit 43)
Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 44)
Indicated concerns with impacts to RFTA infrastructure, and
vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 45)
Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic, compatibility, and
maintaining agricultural feel. (See Exhibit 46)
Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 47)
Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 48)
Indicated opposition. (See Exhibit 49)
Indicated concerns with density and compatibility. (See Exhibit 50)
Indicated concerns with compatibility, loss of open space, type of
development, and visual impacts. (See Exhibit 51)
Indicated support for the development of workforce housing. (See
Exhibit 52)
Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 53)
Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic, and compatibility. (See
Exhibit 54)
Indicated concerns with compatibility. (See Exhibit 55)
Indicated concerns with compatibility, and change of character.
(See Exhibit 56)
Indicated concerns with compatibility, and keeping urban density
within municipal Urban Growth Boundaries. (See Exhibit 57)
Indicated concerns with overdevelopment. (See Exhibit 58)
7IPa ge
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
The adopted Comprehensive Plan 2030 states that a Plan Amendment shall demonstrate that
the proposed text or designation addresses errors in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) or
Comprehensive Pian or meets the following criteria. As the proposed amendment is not to
addresses errors in the Pian, the application is required to meet the review criteria.
1. The existing comprehensive plan and/or any related element thereof are in need of the
proposed amendment.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. According to the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for
Village Center, "Village Centers are areas where there is a concentration of
residential development, and, commercial development that is intended
primarily for the convenience needs of surrounding residential development."
The Compatible Zoning of the Village Center Land Use Designation includes
the Residential Urban (RU) Zone District comprised of high-density urban
residential uses, including multi -family developments.
b. The attributes of the subject parcel are in accordance with the requirements of
the new Residential Village (RV) Land Use Designation.
c. In the Plan Element - Housing, the Goals include; 1) To bring about a range of
housing types, costs, and tenancy options, that ensure for our current and
future residents affordable housing opportunities in safe, efficient residential
structures, and 2) Mixed use Rural Centers are encouraged in locations that
can be serviced by transit. The proposed Plan Amendment makes progress
towards accomplishing those goals.
d. In the Plan Element - Housing, the Policies include; Encourage provision of
affordable housing closer to where jobs are located. The Plan points out that,
"A significant amount of the county's employment is found in the upper Roaring
Fork Valley, whereas the most significant supply of less expensive homes is
found in the western part of the county --resulting in long commutes (and
attendant time and costs), traffic congestion (especially through the constricted
SH 82 corridor in Glenwood Springs) and road impacts." Additionally, it points
out, "Long-range commuting affects not only the well-being of the county's
workforce, it also affects the ability of the county to attract business that will
increase the diversity of employment and the long-term stability of the county
economy." This proposed FLUM amendment would position affordable
housing as close as possible to the jobs in the upper Roaring Fork Valley,
within walking distance to the Easternmost bus stop in the county, reducing the
commute times and increasing the diversity of employment and long-term
stability of the county economy.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
The southwest corner of Highway 82 and County Road 100 (Catherine Store) is identified
within the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 as a 'Village Center'. While a Village Center is not a
land designation, it can be interpreted as a designation intended to inform future land
designations within that area. According to the Comprehensive Plan, "Village Centers are
areas where there is a concentration of residential development and commercial development
that is intended primarily for the convenience needs of surrounding residential development.
This mix of uses may include educational, institutional and civic uses." While the
Comprehensive Plan has several land designations that allow for higher density residential
development (see comparison chart, below), the Mixed Use (MU) designation requires the
development to have a combination of commercial, school, and employment uses and does
not contemplate a strictly residential development. Meanwhile, it is understood that the
Residential High (RH) designation does not provide enough density to offset the costs of high
land and development costs. As a result, the Applicant has submitted the prior application to
create the Residential Village (RV) designation that allows for higher residential development
densities that are proximate to and served by a degree of transportation and service
infrastructure.
It is worth noting that the Comprehensive Plan does not identify the extent of influence
intended for a designated Village Center, or (as discussed by the Town of Carbondale, Exhibit
14, and Pitkin County, Exhibit 28) explicitly state whether the designation is intended to serve
only existing surrounding residential or is intended to promote surrounding new residential
development. However, Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan has a section titled "Growth in
Designated Centers" where it is stated that "There are small concentrations of commercial
and business uses throughout Garfield County that primarily serve the needs of surrounding
rural residents and rural businesses. These centers add to the economic diversity of the
county. The ongoing viability of these existing centers, as well as new ones, is encouraged
provided they have suitable access and services and that they meet the general guidelines
identified below for the various types of centers envisioned." (See Designation Comparison
table below for description of Village Center)
Designation Comparison
Land Use
Designation
Description
Compatible
Zoning
Density of
Residential
Uses
Residential
Residential neighborhood with the
Residential
5-10 du
Village
(RV)
following attributes; a) located
within 3/4 mile of a Village Center
Urban (RU)
per acre
As
and transit stop location to
Planned Unit
Proposed
encourage walkability and
bikeability to the supporting
commercial / transit facility, b) has
internal walk and bike facilities as
well as be connected by such
infrastructure to supporting
commercial / transit facilities, c)
utilizes clustering to maximize open
space, parks and trails, d) is within
Development
(PUD)
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
101' -€
a centralized, special district water
and sewer service area, and e) with
little geohazard risks. Density within
the designated range to be
determined by amount of clustering,
degree of alternative transportation
access, and public benefit.
Mixed -Use
(MU)
Suburban and urban neighborhood
including parks and trails and
school with employment uses and
commercial uses intended to serve
the surrounding residential areas.
Density within the designated range
to be determined by amount of
clustering and public benefit.
Residential
Urban (RU)
Commercial
Limited (CL)
Commercial
General
(CG)
Planned Unit
Development
(PUD)
2 to 12 du
per acre
Village
Center
Village Centers are areas where
there is a concentration of
residential development and
commercial development that is
intended primarily for the
convenience needs of surrounding
residential development. This mix
of uses may include educational,
institutional and civic uses.
Residential
Urban (RU)
Commercial
Limited (CL)
Commercial
General
(CG)
Planned Unit
Development
(PUD
Rural (R)
5 du per
acre
Residential
High
Criteria for determining RH
density within the allowed range
will be specifically determined by
the Planning Commission and
will be based on "degree of public
benefit", considering factors such
as: amount of affordable housing
including a mix of housing types,
amount of parks/trails/ open
space, energy conservation,
fiscal impacts on the County,
preservation of views, providing
for schools and other public
needs, etc.
Residential
Suburban
(RS)
Residential
Urban (RU)
Residential
Mobile Home
Park
(RMHP)
Planned Unit
Development
(PUD)
3 du per
acre to 1
du per <2
acres
101' -€
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Based on 41.64 Acre Parcel Size
2. Strict adherence to the Plan would result in a situation neither intended nor in keeping with
other key elements and policies of the Plan.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Strict adherence to the Plan would discourage development of a range of
housing types, costs, and tenancy options, that ensure for our current and
future residents affordable housing opportunities in safe, efficient, residential
structures in areas where urban services are available and cost-effective
transportation exists to lower the overall cost of living.
It is Staffs opinion that while the requirements for incorporation of commercial and employment
centers within the MU designation are good for larger developments where commercial
services are not already proximate, a designation that allows more than 3 dwelling units per
acre could help promote varying housing types of higher densities to take advantage of these
existing services. Similarly, in order to increase the efficiency of public investment in transit
services, higher density around these locations can increase utilization rates and decrease
overall vehicular traffic demands when compared to rural low density development.
While the proposed amendment appears to support certain aspects of the goals, objectives,
visions, strategies, and actions, it does not support all. While it has been well documented that
more workforce housing is necessary throughout the Roaring Fork Valley and has resulted is
a severe workforce housing shortage, the Plan does not encourage urban level development
outside of Urban Growth Areas. As a result, while this proposal could help support aspects of
the Plan related to increasing the amount, type, and tenancy of housing in Garfield County,
this designation is not necessarily consistent with all current land use designations within the
proposed % mile radius. This said, when considering all of the goals, objectives, visions,
strategies, and actions together, the proposal appears to be predominantly neutral (see below
chart).
Of particular concern and as previously discussed in the Staff Report to create the RV
designation, is Section 1, Goal 4: "Retain rural character outside of UGA limits." The
111
Current Zoning
and
Residential
High Density
Proposed
Residential
Comprehensive
Comprehensive
Village
Plan Designation
Plan — PUD
Comprehensive
- Subdivision
(Rezone)
Plan — PUD
(Rezone)
2 acre
Maximum of 6
Min Lot
Maximum
Min Lot
Maximum
Min Lot
Lots with 2 Acre
Size
Density of 126
Size
Density of 416
Size, 6-10
Minimum Lot
Determined
with Minimum
Determined
(126 without
Acres per
Size
by PUD, 3
Lot Size
by PUD, 5-
connection to
Dwelling
Dwelling
Determined by
10 Dwelling
central
Unit
Unit per
PUD
Units per
water/sewer) with
Acre
Acre
Minimum Lot
Size Determined
by PUD
2. Strict adherence to the Plan would result in a situation neither intended nor in keeping with
other key elements and policies of the Plan.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Strict adherence to the Plan would discourage development of a range of
housing types, costs, and tenancy options, that ensure for our current and
future residents affordable housing opportunities in safe, efficient, residential
structures in areas where urban services are available and cost-effective
transportation exists to lower the overall cost of living.
It is Staffs opinion that while the requirements for incorporation of commercial and employment
centers within the MU designation are good for larger developments where commercial
services are not already proximate, a designation that allows more than 3 dwelling units per
acre could help promote varying housing types of higher densities to take advantage of these
existing services. Similarly, in order to increase the efficiency of public investment in transit
services, higher density around these locations can increase utilization rates and decrease
overall vehicular traffic demands when compared to rural low density development.
While the proposed amendment appears to support certain aspects of the goals, objectives,
visions, strategies, and actions, it does not support all. While it has been well documented that
more workforce housing is necessary throughout the Roaring Fork Valley and has resulted is
a severe workforce housing shortage, the Plan does not encourage urban level development
outside of Urban Growth Areas. As a result, while this proposal could help support aspects of
the Plan related to increasing the amount, type, and tenancy of housing in Garfield County,
this designation is not necessarily consistent with all current land use designations within the
proposed % mile radius. This said, when considering all of the goals, objectives, visions,
strategies, and actions together, the proposal appears to be predominantly neutral (see below
chart).
Of particular concern and as previously discussed in the Staff Report to create the RV
designation, is Section 1, Goal 4: "Retain rural character outside of UGA limits." The
111
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Comprehensive Plan also goes on to define 'rural character' as follows:
Rural character - In general, following characteristics describe rural
character:
o Natural, open landscapes, grazing and cultivated land predominate over
the built environment.
o Compatible with the use of the land by wildlife (wildlife habitat and/or
migration routes).
o Generally does not require the extension of urban governmental services.
o Consistent with the protection of fish habitat, natural surface water flows
and ground water surface water recharge and discharge areas.
Rural areas have overall a low density of development, as well as forests,
mining areas, outdoor recreation and other open space activities.
Commercial uses are small in scale and will provide convenience services
to the rural neighborhood. Industrial uses are generally those that are
related to and dependent on natural resources such as agriculture, timber
or minerals (source: Winston Associates, Inc.).
While the proposed designation could encourage development that is not consistent with the
retaining rural character outside the UGA limits, this goal is pitted against the County's goals
for workforce and affordable housing and the area being designated as a Village Center. For
reference, Chapter 2 of the Plan provides the following explanation of Growth in Designated
Centers:
There are small concentrations of commercial and business uses
throughout Garfield County that primarily serve the needs of surrounding
rural residents and rural businesses. These centers add to the economic
diversity of the county. The ongoing viability of these existing centers, as
well as new ones, is encouraged provided they have suitable access and
services and that they meet the general guidelines identified below for the
various types of centers envisioned." (See Designation Comparison table
above for description of Village Center)
It is worth noting that the Comprehensive Plan does not weigh any single goal, objective, vision,
strategy, or action greater or less than any other. As a result, Staff considers each to be
weighted the same. As the Comprehensive Plan is a guidance document adopted by the
Planning Commission, the Commission has the ability to apply varying weights to each of the
goals, objectives, visions, strategies, and actions based on interpretation, intent, and public
input. It is also worth considering the current state of housing within the Roaring Fork Valley
and the need for more workforce housing in order for Garfield County be economically
competitive.
3. The proposed FLUM amendment is compatible with the surrounding area, and the goals and
policies of the Plan.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Correct. The FLUM amendment is near a Village Center (Catherine Store),
accessible by urban water/sewer services (Mid Valley Metropolitan District),
within walking distance of bus transit services (RFTA bus stop at the comer of
12
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Catherine Store Rd and Hwy 82, approximately the length of one football field
to the parcel), and with little geohazard risks. The parcel is adjacent to Hwy 82.
The surrounding area consists of residential, commercial and agricultural uses.
b. This proposed FLUM amendment would position affordable housing as close
as possible to the jobs in the upper Roaring Fork Valley, within walking distance
to the Easternmost bus stop in the county, reducing the commute times and
increasing the diversity of employment and long-term stability of the county
economy.
While the parcel is currently utilized for agricultural purposes, the area is proximate to
Catherine Store and an area identified by the Comprehensive Plan as a Village Center. In
addition, directly across Highway 82 from this parcel is the TCI Lane Ranch PUD that was
approved for 89 dwelling units in 2008 and is designated Residential High Density. While other
residential developments in the area include Blue Creek, Aspen Equestrian Estates, St.
Finnbar, and Ranch at Roaring Fork are located across Highway 82 from the subject parcel,
they are also predominantly high end single family developments that are outside the income
range for the majority of residents within the Valley. This said, on a whole, the designation
appears to be overall neutral when it comes to compliance with the goals, objectives, visions,
strategies, and actions of the Plan (See chart below).
In addition, based on referral comments and public input received, it appears that overall
neighborhood sentiment is that the proposed redesignation is not consistent with maintaining
the current rural / suburban character of the area. Instead, it is suggested and supported by
the Comprehensive Plan Section 1, Goal 4, that such development be targeted for areas
within municipalities or Urban Growth Areas of municipalities. This said, as is stated
previously, the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are intended to be considered
in aggregate, including the goals for growth of areas around designated Village Centers.
4. The proposed FLUM amendment will have no major negative impacts on transportation,
services, and facilities.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Correct. The FLUM amendment is in accordance with the Residential Village
Land Use Designation providing for access to urban water/sewer services and
bus transit services.
As proposed the development will have access to Highway 82 via an anticipated frontage road
to CR 100. At the time of development review, final access that is acceptable to CDOT and
the County will need to be determined. Further, as is a requirement of the proposed RV
designation, the development must be within ' of a mile of transit service. As this property
meets this requirement, it is expected that such a development will have a relatively high
transit ridership rate, generally decreasing the per capita impact on the State and County road
network.
This said, any development will have vehicular traffic impacts and considering the potential
size of this development, those impacts could be significant, particularly at the County Road
100 and Highway 82 intersection. While the exact impacts will not be known until development
13 Hage
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
review, this redesignation does have the potential to allow a development that could have
significant impacts both on vehicular and transit infrastructure. While the County has road
impact fees that are collected at the time of building permit throughout the County, similar fees
for transit impacts are not routinely collected. In addition, Garfield County is not currently a
member of RFTA. As this designation is expected to have significant impacts on local RFTA
service, as is required by the RV designation (per the Staff recommendation), the developer
should be prepared to provide financial and/or other support to RFTA to help offset those
impacts should the redesignation be approved.
5. The proposed FLUM amendment will have minimal effect on service provision, including
adequacy or availability of facilities and services, and is compatible with existing and planned
service provision.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Correct. The FLUM amendment is in accordance with the Residential Village
Land Use Designation providing for access to urban water/sewer services.
As is a requirement of the RV designation, the development must be connected to central
water and sewer service in order to be eligible for a density of more than 3 dwelling units per
acre (per Staff recommendation). The Applicant has provided an inclusion agreement with the
Mid Valley Metropolitan District for water and sewer service to the property (see Exhibit 12).
With this Agreement, it is Staff's opinion that it is reasonably feasible that the property will be
connected to central services. In addition, Carbondale Fire Protection District responded that
they have no comments on the proposal. Other impacts on the school system and police /
emergency services could be impacted. While it is worth noting that increased impacts will
likely occur should the property develop under the RV designation, the extent of these impacts
would be determined at development review.
6. The proposed FLUM amendment will result in a logical and orderly development pattern and
expansion of services and will not constitute spot zoning.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Correct. The FLUM amendment is in accordance with the Residential Village
Land Use Designation providing for a location near a Village Center.
Due to the presence of the Village Center designation in the area (should the Commission
determine that the VC designation is intended to inform surrounding development) and
Residential High designation for the TCI Lane Ranch PUD across Highway 82, it appears that
the designation of the parcel to RV would not constitute a spot designation. Similarly, should
the Commission determine that the Village Center designation is intended to inform
surrounding land use decisions, such a redesignation could be considered compliant and
within the orderly development pattern as found in the Comprehensive Plan of 2030.
7. The County or the general area in which an FLUM amendment is proposed has changed or
is changing to such a degree that the amendment is in the public interest.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
14 1 P a o
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
a. As highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan, a significant amount of the County's
employment is found in the upper Roaring Fork Valley, whereas the most
significant supply of less expensive homes is found the western part of the
county ---resulting in long commutes, traffic congestion, and road impacts. The
FLUM amendment will allow for affordable community housing within walking
distance to a bus transit stop, reducing commutes, reducing traffic congestion,
and improving local housing options.
The intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82 has been the focus of development
interest for many years. In the 2000's, several developments including TCI Lane Ranch and
Blue Creek were approved on the southeast side of the intersection (designated High Density
Residential and Medium High Density Residential, respectively). While Blue Creek was
developed before the Great Recession, TCI Lane Ranch was not. It is understood that due to
the Great Recession, both purchasing power and consumer preference has shifted away from
this predominantly high end single family development and as a result TCI Lane Ranch was
never developed as approved in 2008. In fact, an application to reduce the number of units in
preference for polo fields is scheduled for the January 10, 2018 Planning Commission.
This said, the area north of Highway 82 has not changed significantly in many years and has
remained more rural. While development pressures are increasing in this area, certain
restraints such as difficult access to Highway 82 and availability of central water and sewer
services have limited the feasibility of such development. It appears from public and referral
agency comment that the sentiment is to maintain a rural character north of Highway 82. So
while the greater area has changed and is in the process of changing the area north of 82 has
changed more slowly. As a result, such a redesignation of the Cerise property could be
precedent setting for this area.
Furthermore, as was noted in the previous application to create the RV designation, Garfield
County and particularly the Roaring Fork Valley are facing a severe workforce housing
shortage. While the Comprehensive Plan encourages urban level development within Urban
Growth Boundaries and it is understood that municipalities within the Valley have made efforts
to provide this type of housing and Garfield County has implemented inclusionary zoning that
requires deed restricted affordable housing within subdivisions of 15 lots or more, based on
the current housing shortages these efforts do not appear to be meeting demand. While
providing workforce housing is a goal of the County Comprehensive Plan, ensuring an
adequate supply of workforce housing could be considered in conflict with other
recommendations of the Plan such as encouraging urban level development within municipal
UGAs.
8. The proposed amendment has a significant public benefit; will promote the public welfare and
will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and
the elements thereof.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Correct. The proposed amendment has a significant public benefit and will
promote the public welfare. It addresses a number of issues highlighted in the
Comprehensive Plan, particularly in the areas of housing, transportation, and
economics and employment. It will allow for the development of affordable,
energy efficient, environmentally sensitive, single family housing near a Village
151P a g e
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
Center, within walking distance to bus transit services and close to urban
services. It will reduce the commuting time for residents, assist area
businesses in finding employees, help to diversify employment, and improve
the long-term stability of the county economy.
As noted previously and outlined in the chart of Comprehensive Plan goals, strategies, and
policies (see below in Section 9), the proposed FLUM amendment appears to be generally
neutral. The amendment falls short in Section 1, Goal 4: "Retain rural character outside of
UGA limits" as well as Section 2, Strategy / Action 6: "In areas designated or appropriate for
Village Centers, allow and encourage subdivision of existing large lots into smaller lots (with
neighborhood input and support)". While the applicability of Section 2, Strategy / Action 6 may
depend on whether the Commission feels that the Village Center designation is intended to
encourage surrounding development or not, it appears that such a redesignation has limited
neighborhood support, as required.
On the other hand, as proposed, a development on a piece of land designated RV would be
encouraged to connect to central water and sewer services, and provide a clustered
development with protected open space and trails (Section 5, Goal 1; and Section 7, Policy
5, respectively). Similarly, the proposal promotes several of the Housing Goals and Policies
within Section 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, notably Goal 1, Policy 4 and Policy 5 (See chart
below). Several other goals, policies and objectives were found to meet some points while
not satisfying others.
As a result, it would appear that the public benefit may not be considered "significant", as is
required. As is noted previously, as the Comprehensive Plan is a guidance document adopted
by the Planning Commission, the Commission has the ability to apply varying weights to each
of the goals, objectives, visions, strategies, and actions based on interpretation, intent, and
public input.
9. The proposed designation on the FLUM is in compliance with the Goals, Strategies, and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement
affecting land use or development.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided the following explanation regarding this standard.
a. Correct. The FLUM amendment is in accordance with the Residential Village
Land Use Designation. There is no applicable intergovernmental agreement
affecting land use or development.
List, Staff Ranking, and Staff Comment on Comprehensive Plan Visions, Goals, Policies,
Vision, Goal,
Policy, Strategy or
Action Section
Vision, Goal, Policy, Strategy or
Action Text
Staff Comment
Section 1 - Urban
Growth Areas
and
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Goal 2. Encourage future
development requiring urban
services to be located in areas
where these services are or can
readily be made available.
As written, the RV designation
would require connection to central
water and sewer, and proximity to
transit and limited commercial
(designated Village Center).
However, this level of service is
16 1Page
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
17 I ,.
generally minimal throughout the
County and is more readily available
within municipal UGAs.
Goal 4. Retain rural character
outside of UGA limits.
Could encourage higher density
residential development outside of
UGAs in areas that are currently
more rural in character. It is worth
noting that other developments
including Aspen Glen, Aspen
Equestrian Estates, TCI Lane
Ranch, Blue Creek, Ranch at the
Roaring Fork, and River Edge have
all been approved residential
developments that generally do not
meet the definition of rural character
in the Comprehensive Plan and are
located outside a municipal UGA.
Section 2 -
Housing
Vision. Garfield County has
encouraged a diverse stock of
housing available to a variety of
incomes and requires new
residential development to provide
a portion of affordable housing.
Housing is located near existing
infrastructure and amenities so
that families can live, work and
play in their communities.
As written, the RV designation
would require proximity to an
existing Village Center designation
that includes access to transit and
limited commercial. This designation
could help diversify the County
housing stock, although there is no
guarantee that the housing type
would vary significantly from existing
stock or be considered affordable. It
is worth noting that the County is
currently facing a severe workforce
housing shortage while such a
designation could assist in
alleviating the supply side of the
housing shortage within the Roaring
Fork Valley.
Goal 1. To bring about a range of
housing types, costs, and tenancy
options, that ensure for our current
and future residents affordable
housing opportunities in safe,
efficient residential structures.
Provided increasing land prices
throughout the County, the
increased density could help
increase the diversity of housing
types, costs, and tenancy. Currently,
the Roaring Fork Valley is facing a
severe shortage of workforce
housing. However, there is no
guarantee that provided as a result
of this designation would diversify
the existing housing stock.
Policy 4. Encourage providing
affordable housing in areas where
cost-effective transportation exists
(as appropriate to income scale).
As written, the RV designation must
be within walking distance to transit,
however the housing is not
guaranteed to be 'affordable' as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
17 I ,.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
181-.
In addition, this designation would
encourage workforce housing in the
Roaring Fork Valley where the
demand for housing severely
outstrips the supply, as opposed to
providing workforce housing in Rifle
or Parachute where cost-effective
transportation is less available.
Policy 5. Encourage provision of
affordable housing closer to where
jobs are located.
While the RV designation is written
to provide higher density housing in
areas with transit access that could
be convenient to up valley jobs, due
to the limited commercial
development associated with the
Village Center designation, the
number of jobs immediately
proximate to the housing are likely
to be minimal. In addition, there is
no guarantee that the housing
provided would meet the definition
of `affordable' within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Strategy / Action 6. In areas
designated or appropriate for
Village Centers, allow and
encourage subdivision of existing
large lots into smaller lots (with
neighborhood input and support).
While a designation to RV may not
necessarily result in subdivision, it
could result in higher density
residential development that is not
subdivided. Implementation of this
Strategy / Action, however, requires
neighborhood support which, based
on existing feedback is minimal.
Section 5 -
Recreation, Open
Space, and Trails
Goal 1. Assure that new
residential development provides
recreation opportunities for county
residents that are appropriate to
the density and type of
development or that contribute
land and/or funding to a county
wide trail and recreation system.
As written, the RV designation
encourages clustered development
with access to open space and
trails.
Section 7 - Water
and Sewer
Services
Policy 5. Higher density
development, with exception of
conservation subdivision in rural
areas, should be located in areas
where central sewage treatment
facilities are either currently
available, or feasible in the future.
As written, the RV designation
requires that such designation have
access to special district central
water and sewer systems.
Strategy / Action 2. Encourage
special districts to expand
services to development of any
new "centers" in the
unincorporated areas.
Currently, many of the `centers'
identified in the Comprehensive
Plan, such as the Village Center
designation at Catherine Store do
not have ready access to a central
181-.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
V. STAFF COMMENTS
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 is to designate the identified parcel
to the new land use designation (RV). Numerous public comments have been received on this
application. Most of the public comments appear to be in opposition to the requested text
amendment for many reasons with the most stated being urban development in otherwise rural
areas as well as potential vehicular traffic increases.
Several referral comments were also received from the Town of Carbondale, Town of Basalt, and
Pitkin County. Each of these jurisdictions expressed concern and opposition to the proposal.
Concerns from these jurisdictions include many of those voiced by adjacent property owners and
other comments from concerned citizens including growth outside of an Urban Growth Boundary,
strains on services, and general incompatibility with the goals and objectives within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Similar to the previous application for the text amendment to create the RV designation, Staff
would like to note several issues worth considering in relation to this proposed FLUM amendment:
1. The Comprehensive Plan does not weigh any single goal, objective, vision, strategy, or
action greater or less than any other. As a result, Staff considers each to be weighted the
same. As the Comprehensive Plan is a guidance document adopted by the Planning
Commission, the Commission has the ability to apply varying weights to each of the goals,
objectives, visions, strategies, and actions based on interpretation, intent, and public input.
2. Garfield County and particularly the Roaring Fork Valley are facing a severe workforce
housing shortage. While the Comprehensive Plan encourages urban level development
within Urban Growth Boundaries and it is understood that municipalities within the Valley
have made efforts to provide this type of housing and Garfield County has implemented
inclusionary zoning that requires deed restricted affordable housing within subdivisions of
15 lots or more, based on the current housing shortages these efforts do not appear to be
meeting demand. While providing workforce housing is a goal of the County
Comprehensive Plan, ensuring an adequate supply of workforce housing is occasionally
in conflict with other recommendations of the Plan such as encouraging urban level
development within municipal UGAs.
3. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify the extent of influence intended for a
designated Village Center. In other words, is the Village Center intended to legitimize
19 I Page
water and sewer system. The
creation of higher density residential
that is required to be connected to a
special district for these services
could increase accessibility to these
currently designated `centers'.
However, simply because the
utilities may be proximate to these
developments does not mean that
connection will occur.
V. STAFF COMMENTS
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 is to designate the identified parcel
to the new land use designation (RV). Numerous public comments have been received on this
application. Most of the public comments appear to be in opposition to the requested text
amendment for many reasons with the most stated being urban development in otherwise rural
areas as well as potential vehicular traffic increases.
Several referral comments were also received from the Town of Carbondale, Town of Basalt, and
Pitkin County. Each of these jurisdictions expressed concern and opposition to the proposal.
Concerns from these jurisdictions include many of those voiced by adjacent property owners and
other comments from concerned citizens including growth outside of an Urban Growth Boundary,
strains on services, and general incompatibility with the goals and objectives within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Similar to the previous application for the text amendment to create the RV designation, Staff
would like to note several issues worth considering in relation to this proposed FLUM amendment:
1. The Comprehensive Plan does not weigh any single goal, objective, vision, strategy, or
action greater or less than any other. As a result, Staff considers each to be weighted the
same. As the Comprehensive Plan is a guidance document adopted by the Planning
Commission, the Commission has the ability to apply varying weights to each of the goals,
objectives, visions, strategies, and actions based on interpretation, intent, and public input.
2. Garfield County and particularly the Roaring Fork Valley are facing a severe workforce
housing shortage. While the Comprehensive Plan encourages urban level development
within Urban Growth Boundaries and it is understood that municipalities within the Valley
have made efforts to provide this type of housing and Garfield County has implemented
inclusionary zoning that requires deed restricted affordable housing within subdivisions of
15 lots or more, based on the current housing shortages these efforts do not appear to be
meeting demand. While providing workforce housing is a goal of the County
Comprehensive Plan, ensuring an adequate supply of workforce housing is occasionally
in conflict with other recommendations of the Plan such as encouraging urban level
development within municipal UGAs.
3. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify the extent of influence intended for a
designated Village Center. In other words, is the Village Center intended to legitimize
19 I Page
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
existing commercial, institutional, and recreational facilities to serve only existing
surrounding residential, or is it intended to promote surrounding new residential
development. Should it be determined that the intent of the Village Center designation is
to simply legitimize existing commercial, institutional, and/or recreational developments
scattered throughout unincorporated Garfield County, then this could significantly impact
the compatibility of the request with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, visions,
strategies, and actions. Similarly, should it be determined that the Village Center
designation is intended to influence surrounding land use designations, as this proposed
redesignation is approximately' of a mile from a designated Village Center, it is unclear
from the Comprehensive Plan whether this is within the intended influence area for the
Village Center designation.
The RV designation (as recommended by Staff) also requires that the parcel to be redesignated
meet certain criteria. These criteria are outlined below.
a) located within % mile of a Village Center and transit stop location, as one would
walk, bike, or drive, to encourage walkability and bikeability to the supporting
commercial / transit facility,
The parcel is located within % of a mile from the Village Center designation at
Catherine Store and is also within 3/4 of a mile from transit stops operated by RFTA
at the intersection of CR 100 and Highway 82.
b) has internal walk and bike facilities as well as be connected by such
infrastructure to supporting commercial / transit facilities,
The RV designation encourages that at the time of development the proposal be
reviewed for internal walk and bike facilities and connections to supporting
commercial and transit facilities. Such connections appear to be feasible and will
require further review at the time of development.
c) utilizes clustering to maximize open space, parks and trails,
The RV designation encourages that at the time of development the proposal be
reviewed for open space, parks, and trails. These development attributes will be
reviewed at the time of development.
d) could feasibly be served by a centralized, special district or municipality water
and sewer service area, and
The Applicant has provided an inclusion agreement with the Mid -Valley
Metropolitan District (See exhibit 12). Considering this agreement and proximity to
the District's service boundary, centralized water and sewer service appears to be
feasible for future development of this parcel.
201 ge
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
e) with little geohazard risks.
Based on familiarity with the parcel along with information from County GIS, the
parcel is generally flat with limited natural or geohazard risk. It is understood that
the northeast portion of the property may have moderate soils related hazard while
wildfire hazard is considered high. It is Staffs opinion that based on the limited
information available to this point that natural and geohazard risks appear to be
within manageable levels. At the time of development review, further geohazard
and natural hazard risk analysis will be necessary.
t) housing is to be available as long term work force housing and is not be utilized
as short term rentals.
The RV designation encourages the housing provided within this designation be
available for workforce housing and not as short term rentals (aka: VRBO, Airbnb).
At the time of development review, implementation of such restrictions will be
encouraged to be implemented appropriately for the development.
g) the developer should make a financial or other contribution to the transit service
provider to help offset impacts of the development at the time of development
approval.
As the location of this higher density is required to be within % of a mile from both
an existing Village Center designation and a transit stop, it is expected that impacts
on transit services will be higher than through a Residential Medium density. As a
result, the RV designation encourages the developer to make a financial or other
contribution to the transit service provider that is commensurate with the level of
impact. The specific contribution and level of impact would be analyzed and
determined at the time of development review.
h) Density: 5-10 du per acre determined by amount of clustering, degree of
alternative transportation access, and public benefit. Density is capped at a
Maximum of 3 du per acre without central water and sewer service provided by
special district or municipality.
Should the development not obtain connection to Mid Valley Metropolitan District
or other central system for whatever reason, then the development density on this
parcel would be capped at 3 dwelling units per acre. The specific density would be
analyzed and determined based on these criteria at the time of development
review.
VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was complete and that all interested parties
were heard at that meeting.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2017
CPAA-09-17-8583
3. That the proposed FLUM amendment to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is [is not]
in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the outcome of the previous application to create the RV designation, the Planning
Commission has a couple options available based on public input and interpretation of the goals,
objectives, visions, strategies, and actions within the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. Generally,
these options are to:
1) Approve the request to change the FLUM for this parcel from Medium Density Residential to
Residential Village (RV) designation, or
2) Deny the request to change the FLUM for this parcel from Medium Density Residential to
Residential Village (RV) designation.
If the Planning Commission moves to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a
motion should follow to:
1) Authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution thereby amending the Comprehensive Plan 2030;
2) Authorize the Chair to sign the letters certifying the amendment to the BOCC, municipalities
and the surrounding counties; and,
3) Authorize the secretary to sign the Future Land Use Map, as amended.
221-
EXHIBIT
g
a
Garfield County
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the
described action.
EaMy application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
owners.
Mailed notice was completed on the �� ` day of , 2047
All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
>J All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list]
■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice.
My application required Published notice.
Notice was published on the 9/4 day of " c/, 20
■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram.
My application required Posting of Noti
1./L.Notice was posted on the 3 r4 day of . fJ✓lt",i y, 20% 7
v
Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
I testify that the above information is true and accurate.
•/
Name: /,(/
Signature:
Date: � r//l/7/�
Ad #: 0000142671-01
Customer: EAGLE VALLEY ENTERPRISE/LEGALS,
Your account number is: 2927005
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
I, Randy Essex, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the
RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM, that the same weekly
newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the
County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general
circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published
continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield
for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next
prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or
advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to
the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions
of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and
that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified
for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the
meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every number of
said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that
the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said
newspaper dated 11/9/2017 and that the last publication of
said notice was dated 11/9/2017 in the issue of said
newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
11/10/2017.
Randy Essex, Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for
the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this day 11/10/2017.
c.ouht-q ›le.44,5
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019
PAMELA J. SCHULTZ
NOTARY PUBLIC.
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID N19994030915-
t,4gCommisalcn Expires November 1. 2014
EXHIBIT
c
PUBLIC NOTIC
TAKE NOTICE that Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise
Main Ranch Company LLLP has applied to the
Planning Commission, Garfield County, State of
Colorado, to request approval for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan of 2030.
Legal Description:
The Land referred to herein is located in the County
of Garfield, State of Colorado, and described as
follows:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 1 AND 8
OF SECTION 31 AND IN LOT 5 OF SECTION
32, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87
WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING NORTH-
ERLY OF AND ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE
HIGHWAY NO. 82 AND BEING MORE PARTICU-
LARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE
WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 8
AND THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
SAID HIGHWAY NO. 82 WHENCE A STONE
FOUND IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS CORNER
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 31 BEARS N 41°44'10"E 1355.70 FEET;
THENCE S 79°55'52"E 2351 .84 FEET ALONG
SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A
POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK
514 AT PAGE 870 AS RECEPTION NO. 288099
OF THE RECORDS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDER, ALSO BEING A
POINT IN A FENCE AS Built AND IN PLACE;
THENCE ALONG SAID FENCE ON THE FOLLOW-
ING FIVE(5) COURSES:
N 00"33'36"W 538.41 FEET; THENCE N
01°36'00"W 43.77 FEET;
THENCE N 03°34'31"W 79.03 FEET;
THENCE N 00°00'38"E 208.86 FEET;
THENCE N 6112'52"W 238.22 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID FENCE ON A COURSE
BEARING NORTH FOR 4.31 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID
LOT 5 IN SAID SECTION 32;
THENCE WEST 1835.42 FEET ALONG THE
NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINES OF SAID LOT 5
IN SAID SECTION 32 AND LOT 8 IN SAID SEC-
TION 31;
THENCE N 6044'03"W 298.63 FEET;
THENCE S 0002'13"E 723.71 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING
Practical Description: 16411 Highway 82, Carbon-
dale, CO 81623 (Parcel Number 239131 1 0001 3)
Description of Request: The Applicant has request-
ed to change the designation of the 41 .64 acre
property as identified within the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan of 2030 from Residential Me-
dium Density (6 to <10 Acres / Dwelling Unit) to a
new designation called Residential Village. An appli-
cation for a text amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan of 2030 to create the Residential Village desig-
nation is to be decided upon immediately prior to a
determination as to whether to redesignate this
identified parcel.
All persons affected by the proposed Comprehen-
sive Plan amendment are invited to appear and
state their views, protests or support. If you cannot
appear personally at such hearing, then you are
urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning
Commission will give consideration to the com-
ments of surrounding property owners, and others
affected, in deciding whether to approve, approve
with conditions or deny the request. The application
may be reviewed at the office of the Planning De-
partment located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Gar-
field County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado. Alternatively, the application can be
viewed at https://records.garfield-county.com/WebLi
nk/Browse.aspx?startid=3635316 (File No. CPAA-09
1 7-8582).
A public hearing on the application has been
scheduled with the Planning Commission for
December 13, 2017, at 6:00 P.M. in the Commis-
sion Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration
Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado.
Community Development Department
Garfield County
Published in the Citizen Telegram November 9, 2017
0000142671
U.S. Postal Service'
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
Otomestic Au, .4,
US. Postal 8o vke.
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
oanm,. Nwo,w
U.S. Postal Service'. '
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
Oortorsli H
1'3.35
'SLo•
lb.
210V0222017
• 10.R'iAs�.il�✓s6.59
Ari- Co of Rine eo, 91114
,� 202Rynnnwonec`•
H12 W llroad Avenue
✓ e..• Aa
wrlPu• afN,CO 81650
t. 5
JISTA
CP/v `Se -
F ue1 .4m
EXHIBIT
U.S. Postal Servi
CERTIFIED MI
U S. Postal Servlce"
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
nonTs Med
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
aumnnc u.nony
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL• RECEIPT
wh,
FiRatiFfi
•-r0. r..'-4333
400.4488 'Eagle Counts,
�
� CFO Planning Co' .. I.r
Ir a P O. Bea 850
E le:CO 81631
0 2 7017
U.S. Postal Service •
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
iDorntot lc Mall Only
iffeii
/VISTA
J
08NIOv022017
tl/OI/20y
OV 0 2 2017
002A,
nr-
2000%5140
N. SNOWMASSw1
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
U.S. Postel Service -
CERTIFIED MAIL• RECEIPT
TOM
162S�o1 GN
G/O Planning Dlr
001 W 1 '5- C0 81601
°+->r' GIcrN•a°d Springs.
U.S. Postal Service -
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Jant.
10.49
"16.59 own 01 Car
C/0 Planning D
511 Colo•edo Avenue
Ca•600d.o. CO 81613
U.S. Postal Service'
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
40.44 ._flOv
10.49
14021RON,D N R�
�.•+� 142 LIONS R00 -'•'•
r , " wa>." CARBONDALE, CO 8162
U.S. Postal Serylce
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
Dora.. Msuo+y
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
0 . 40NCw2OM•
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT
110.1. 1Y
m , YQ ...10.49
41_ X14oa°n of Peach.' 43
rri�-
C/O Plannng Dire
,:....uN. a':. P 0. Bol 100
4244 0." Parachute, CO 81635
U S. Foetal Service'
(ERI IFIED MAIL RECEIPT
...._uan nay
m
CA "''' CEI CO 21623
53 ..35 07
p .7, x2 t
:18::::"--:-":""---
°..•'».M== --' Iv 0270/7
T 50.49
11/02/20
'
AND SAN
-3--59SI FAMRT
ILYT'M f C
46160 & NANCY I T' • Ygg0g611s
✓ 6663 16400 NWT 82
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
a4"awlony
U.S. Postal Service -
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
,n,,, M.uony
%STAv,
:00 Nov 02 win
11101/ '
.59
Town
❑ SE own o'Saun •Cir .
.r•I6 UO Planning puss
Or l•^`. • .. . T01144100 Avenue
U.S. Postal Servide
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
Ooron..�x PV1S
uV 02 2027
11/01/
G: E
1/ 5598 Lee
I_
a yg,..,n..er•++a •
r YI
o 044-2.2422•22.
▪ dm•w+.•,r5049 ._
t{{5o.'��f��99�
o - 281777, LAME'
f r' REVOCABLE
r'221;34.'1. PO BOX 1479
.'3'.`43•:' CARBONDALE, CO 81623
U.S. Postal Service -
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
Domesrlc Nell Only
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED 11 Only
MAIL" RECEIPT
ASPEN,
,1
lu 1. 3>
cr
10.49 1/01/101
o s 1
Oitkln County 4•773.7.999,00f
cC/O Planning Commis.•
• 530 East Main Street, 3 6ko
ra' 2244804 Aspen, CO 81611
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
1,1:11 7
411,7
O ❑rnes�.w,.._ ,3
A..
7;7:
-�
n Ufa 59 .6.197•'
pA C3.66/'.
100 0orth
" • .222:• 9 Ve/021rnal, Ur 840/6
A AL C '1613: 7
.715?Ag
N+ •• 1
775
O 0a..• wnr.wo... •
0 Cww•o.•+•
;0019 02201%
/00�.""44�9
6'CA?DWELL,
P0 800 725 '099805
F « ▪ "-'40317'17'73 CA1005DALE, C0 81623
'a•s:xs•'�'
r..rar x40. �bn'p
U.S. Postal Service''r�
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT
as suc Man Dnty
ABMM� 7'LCr. gtx2ctl
13.3566
Y.
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
DomeaOc&won',
• 081669.. CO 81041
726*
10
58.49 IV02201/
.PiY9 11/02/2017
VISTA
"7.7
o ` 16.59
Rio Blanco
„yb;4 555 anning(• r.r�
e6i.a'w:lv.. 555 Main Street
Meeker, CO 81641
10.49
▪ ^6.5 i'Sand county
° c/o Community Oev
04244/ n+e. 125E Center St
tl4i'46',' Ma• Mose, UT 84532
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
DOmusl6 Mai/ On'y
o Is
U.S. Postal Service"'
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
00664010830005
1043000127
'... 10.49
tip -y .16.59
Route County
,,,,,,w C/0 PlanninOCO
P.O.Bok773598
695.60016 5104915041 Springs, CO 80477
GLENU085 3881N '•
.
0*.°Pw•� Be NOV 0'21011
.. ..4� 10.49. 122l
t/o00woa and
o•
c/o Town of Carho`LIS`
Cathy Queen - Town -Clerk
1011 Grand Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
IliMMIIIMIE;13M1111MOMA:.-Am
David Pesnichak
From: Melanie Godwin <melanie.godwin@rbc.us>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 2:45 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Re: GarCo Cerise Comp Plan - Text Amd and FLUM Amd - Referral Request
Thank you for your referral
I have no comment at this time
Melanie Godwin
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
Building Division
Planning Division
970-878-9456
melanie.godwin(a rbc.us
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:20 PM, David Pesnichak <dpesnichak(&,,garfield-county.com> wrote:
Hello Melanie. It looks like some of our email addresses for referrals were out of date — hopefully this updated
email works. Please see the referral request below.
Best,
Dave
David Pesnichak, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County
Community Development Department
1
David Pesnichak
From: Stuart McArthur <stuartmc@parachutecolorado.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 3:43 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Re: GarCo Cerise Comp Plan - Text Amd and FLUM Amd - Referral Request
EXHIBIT
2 /
' r
�
Town of Parachute has no comment.
Stuart S. McArthur
Town Manager
Town of Parachute
970.285.7630, x-106 - Office
303.513.5555 - Cell
THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, copying of or taking action in reliance of the contents of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the
original message immediately. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:09 AM, David Pesnichak <dpesnichak@a,garfield-county.com> wrote:
Hello,
The Garfield County Community Development Department has received an application for a Text
Amendment and an application for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment to the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan of 2030. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes and the County Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are required to be referred out to all
jurisdictions within 3 miles of Garfield County and all municipalities within Garfield County. The two
submitted amendments are summarized below. In general, the Applicant has proposed to 1) create a new
designation that allows for higher density residential development in areas served with certain services
("Residential Village"), and 2) redesignate a specific parcel located northeast of the intersection of Highway 82
and County Road 100 near the Town of Carbondale to the new "Residential Village" designation. As the Text
Amendment application is being run in tandem with the application for the FLUM amendment, the FLUM
amendment application is dependent on approval of the text amendment. Since these two applications are so
closely related , they have been referred to the same list of referral recipients.
- Text Amendment - The Applicant has requested to create a new land use designation called "Residential
Village" that may be applied, at the discretion of the Garfield County Planning Commission, to appropriate
properties throughout the County.
1
David Pesnichak
b
EXHIBIT
�l
From: Kaye Simonson <kaye.simonson@mesacounty.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 8:39 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Re: GarCo Cerise Comp Plan - Text Amd and FLUM Amd - Referral Request
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Future Land Use Map and text amendments. Mesa
County has no comments.
Kaye Simonson, AICP
Lead Senior Planner
Mesa County Planning Division
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:16 PM, David Pesnichak<dpesnichak@garfield-county.com> wrote:
Hello. It looks like some of our email addresses for referrals were out of date — hopefully these updated emails
work. Please see the referral request below.
Best,
Dave
David Pesnichak, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County
Community Development Department
108 8th St Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-8212
dpesnichak@garfield-county.com
http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/
1
Recorded Electronically
ID 1=- H0247't
CountyAtzF D
Date ri /a% I i Time II: 5 c Da_
Simplifile.com 1300.460.5657
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. ; L.
SERIES OF 2011
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MID VALLEY
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT APPROVING THE PETITION FOR INCLUSION
OF OSCAR AND WILMA CERISE MAIN RANCH COMPANY, DIRECTING
THE ATTORNEYS OF THE DISTRICT TO TAKE SUCH ACTIONS AS ARE
REQUIRED BY STATUTES FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT INCLUSIONS, AND
APPROVING AN INCLUSION AGREEMENT.
EXHIBIT
a
WHEREAS, Mid Valley Metropolitan District (hereinafter "District") is a Colorado special
district formed and functioning by authority of C.R.S. § 32-1-101 et seg.; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 32-1-401 et seq. contains requirements and procedures for inclusion of
new areas within special districts; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors received a Petition for Inclusion dated February 25,
2011, within the District from Oscar and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company, which is the fee and
equitable owner of one hundred percent (100%) of the real property sought to be included within the
District, which real property is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "Property"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-401(1)(b), Notice ofa Public Meeting to consider the
Petition will be published in The Glenwood Springs Post Independent and The Aspen Times Daily
newspaper on March 13`h, 14`h, 1 5th, 1611, and 17`h, 2011; and
WHEREAS, no municipality or county which may have been able to provide service to the
property proposed for inclusion, or any person in the existing District, filed a written objection to the
inclusion of the Property or appeared in person to object thereto; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 32-1-401(3) provides that letter notification ofa meeting to consider a
Petition for Inclusion shall not be necessary where the Petitioners represent one hundred percent
(100%) of the property owners in the area to be included; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors held a public hearing to consider the Petition on March
17, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors conceptually approved said inclusion at the meeting on
March 17, 2011, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-401(1)(c)(I), subject to the terms and conditions of an
Inclusion Agreement to be entered into between the parties; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors finds that the District is capable of providing water and
sewer service to the property proposed for inclusion and deems it to be in the best interest of the
District to include said property within the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Mid Valley
March 16, 2011
Metropolitan District that:
1. The Petition for Inclusion of the Oscar and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company is
hereby granted to include within the District the Property subject to the terms and conditions of the
Inclusion Agreement between the parties.
2. The attorneys for the District shall take such actions as are necessary and proper under
state law to formalize the inclusion of said property within the District, including the filing of a
Motion and proposed Order with the Eagle County District Court and filing a copy of the resulting
Order with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, subject to the terms of Paragraph 7 of the
attached Inclusion Agreement.
3. The Inclusion Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby approved, and the
President and Secretary are authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the District. The
Inclusion Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder.
Read and adopted this 17th day of March, 2011, by the Board of Directors of Mid Valley
Metropolitan District by a vote of 5 to (% .
ATTEST:
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
By
President
secretary
Much 16, 2011
-2-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION —NORTHERLY CERISE PARCEL,
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 1 AND 8 OF SECTION 31 AND IN
LOT 5 OF SECTION 32, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST.OF
THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING
NORTHERLY OF AND ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF SAID LOT 8 AND THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID
HIGHWAY NO. 82 WHENCE A STONE FOUND IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS
CORNER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31 BEARS N
41°44'10°E 1355.70 FEET; THENCE S 79°55'52"E 2351.84 FEET ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED N B00K 514 AT
PAGE 870 AS RECEPTION NO. 288099 OF THE RECORDS OF THE
GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, ALSO BEING A POINT IN A
FENCE AS BUILT AND IN PLACE; THENCE ALONG SAID FENCE ON THE
FOLLOWING FIVE(5) COURSES: N 00°33136"W 538,41 FEET; THENCE N
01°36'00W 43.77 FEET; THENCE N 03°34'31°W 79.03 FEET; THENCE N
00°00'38"E 208.86 FEET; THENCE N 81°12'52°W 238.22 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING SAID FENCE ON A COURSE BEARING NORTH FOR 4.31 FEET TO
A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID
SECTION 32; THENCEWEtiST 1835.42 PEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY LINES OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID SECTION 32 AND LOT 8 IN SAID
SECTION 31; THENCE N 60°44'03°W298.63 FEET; THENCE S 00°02'13"E
723.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 41.64 ACRES
MORE OR LESS.
ExhlbIt A
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
OSCAR AND WILMA CERISE MAIN RANCH COMPANY
INCLUSION AGREEMENT
( T1 \ This inclusion Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") is made and entered into this ,41 -Dt
day tif-Mareht; 2011 by and between the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, a Colorado special district
whose address is 0031 Duroux Lane, Suite A, Basalt, Colorado 81621 (hereinafter the "District"),
and Oscar and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company, whose address is 0086 County Road 104,
Carbondale, CO 81623 (hereinafter the "Petitioner").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the District and Petitioner desire to set forth their understandings and
agreements concerning the inclusion of the Petitioner's property, known as the Oscar and Wilma
Cerise Main Ranch Company and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, (hereinafter, the "Property") into the District and the provision
of sanitary sewer and water services to the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration ofthe mutual covenants and promises ofthe
parties, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties, on behalf of themselves and their successors, assigns, devisees, or transferees, agree as
follows:
1. District Rules and Regulations. The Petitioner hereby consents to be bound by, and
agrees that the Property itself shall be subject to, the District's Rules and Regulations adopted April
15, 2008, as amended from time to time (the "Rules and Regulations"). Additionally, upon entry of
an Inclusion Order the Property shall be subject to all taxes, fees, rates, tolls, and charges now in
effect or which may later be levied or collected by the District. Further, all connections to the
District Water or Sewer Systems and all lines for water or sewer service on the Property shall be
made in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and technical specifications of the District.
2. Water and Sewer Tap Fees / Connection. The District and Petitioner acknowledge
that, for each Lot on the Property, Petitioner or its successor Lot buyer(s) shall submit an Application
for Water and Sewer Service to the District pursuant to, and at the time required by, the Rules and
Regulations, pay the District's Water and Sewer Tap Fees then in effect, and connect to the District's
Water and Sewer Systems. The parties further agree that as a condition of inclusion of the Property,
Petitioner shall enter into a System Development Fee Purchase Agreement with the District
providing for one half of the total Tap Fees owed for all development to occur on the Property, to be
paid on an equal, phased basis over a five year period commencing in the first calendar year after the
recording of the first Final Subdivision Plat for the Property. The System Development Fee
Purchase Agreement to be executed by the parties prior to the first Final Subdivision Plat approval
for the Property shall address the terms and conditions of this obligation in greater detail. In the
event that each Lot is served by raw water irrigation as provided in Paragraph 4 below, the total
1
amount owed to the District in Water Tap Fees shall be discounted as provided in the Rules and
Regulations of the District.
3. Line Extension Agreement. At or prior to the first Final Subdivision Plat approval for
development of the Property, Petitioner shall be required to enter into a standard Line Extension
Agreement with the District, which Agreement shall also implement the relevant provisions of this
Agreement.
4. Raw Water Irrigation. Petitioner shall comply with Article XI of the District's Rules
and Regulations regarding raw water irrigation. Unless the District grants an exemption based on
extraordinary or unique circumstances pursuant to Section 11.04(C), the Property shall be served
with raw water to be used for all lawn, garden, park and open space irrigation purposes. If the
Property is not approved by the District to be served with raw water for such purposes, then the
Petitioner hereby acknowledges and agrees that it shall pay the District's full Water Tap Fee and
shall not irrigate more than 2,500 square feet of lawn and gardens for each Lot. Such limits shall be
specified in the covenants to be adopted for the Oscar and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company
homeowners association and approved by the District. In the event the Property is irrigated by raw
water, Petitioner shall be eligible for discounted Tap Fees and cash in lieu of water rights dedications
fees as set forth in the Rules and Regulations.
5. Easements.
a. Utility Easements. Petitioner shall convey to the District, for no additional
consideration, utility easements on and across the Property or as otherwise necessary
to provide service to the Property as required and approved by the District, which
easements shall be particularly described on the deed and final utility plan, if
applicable. Petitioner agrees to dedicate the above-described easements to the
District via special warranty deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances which
would interfere, as determined by the District, with the District's use of the
easements. All easements to be dedicated shall be general utility easements of a
width determined by the District. The District hereby agrees that any and all District
utility easements will be located outside of the building envelopes of the Oscar and
Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company Lots as shown on the Final Subdivision Plat(s).
b. Well Easements. As part of Petitioner's Preliminary Plan submittal, Petitioner and
the District shall mutually agree upon the location of one potential well site on the
Property and easements providing access and utility connection to such site, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however, that the parties
agree the District is only entitled to construct a well and appurtenant facilities
(including required treatment facilities).
6. Water Rights Dedication. The parties agree that as part of the Line Extension
Agreement for the Property, Petitioner shall agree to either dedicate sufficient water rights to the
District for in-house use and irrigation of up to 2,500 square feet per single family residence or, at
the sole discretion of the District, to pay cash in lieu of such dedication in the amount then in effect
2
at Final Subdivision Plat pursuant to Section 10.03 of the Rules and Regulations. A reduction in
water rights dedication cash -in -lieu fees shall be granted if Petitioner installs a complete raw water
system and submits covenants prohibiting use of potable water for non in-house purposes to the
District for its review and approval.
7. Filing of Inclusion Order. The District agrees to file the proposed inclusion Order
with the Garfield County District Court immediately after submittal of the first Final Subdivision
Plat application deemed complete by Garfield County fbr any portion of the Property. Petitioner
hereby consents to such filing at that time.
8. Construction of Water and Sewer Facilities. As to be further detailed in the Line
Extension Agreement, Petitioner shall construct water and sewer facilities to serve the Property.
Final plans and specifications for the water and sewer facilities shall be approved by District in the
form of a Line Extension Agreement to be executed by the parties prior to approval of the first Final
Subdivision Plat for the Property.
9. Cost Recovery. The Line Extension Agreement for the Property shall include cost
recovery provisions to be paid by Petitioner pursuant to the Cost Recovery Agreements then in effect
which are applicable to Petitioner's property. The District has entered into an Inclusion Agreement
dated February 18, 2009 with TCI Lane Ranch, LLC, which contains cost recovery provisions.
10. Binding Agreement / Covenant. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, heirs, devisees, or transferees. The parties
agree and intend that this Agreement shall run with the Property and be a burden and covenant on
that Property.
11. Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire and complete agreement
of the parties on the subject matter herein. No promise or undertaking has been made by any party,
and no understanding exists with respect to the transactions contemplated, except as expressly set
forth herein. All prior and contemporaneous negotiations and understandings between the parties are
embodied and merged into this Agreement.
12. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to damages and reasonable
attorney fees and costs.
13. Authority to Bind. The persons signing below represent and warrant that they have
the authority to sign on behalf of and to bind the entity they represent to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year set
forth next to their signatures.
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Date: .A 17ni` 2.1):W)11 By
Attest
ecre
President
OSCAR AND WILMA CERISE MAIN RANCH COMPANY
By: F eRD CERISE
eneral Partner
4
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF LiGy�L
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this ;,2. 5t day of A
2011, by .1\11.(.4_ L.vupei' ,asPresident, andJe-WreLj Or ,as Secretary, on
behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. J I
WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: `1/,off/ac 13
Notary Public
/1/172 --
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF G-ct-fekd )
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this Id d y of 1 pri
2011, by Clifford Cerise, as General Partner of the Oscar and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: /- -13 07OJ07.� .
5
/11 ar2,01.7L)
Notary Public
ANNE M. CANAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
My Commission Expires 12/1312012
LEGAL DESCRIPTION — NORTHERLY CERISE PARCEL
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 1 AND 8 OF SECTION 31 AND IN
LOT 5 OF SECTION 32, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST.OF
THE 614 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING
NORTHERLY OF AND ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF SAID LOT 8 AND THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID
HIGHWAY NO. 82 WHENCE A STONE FOUND IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS
CORNER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31 BEARS N
41°44'10°E 1355.70 FEET; THENCE S 79°55'52"E 2351.84 FEET ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 514 AT
PAGE 870 AS RECEPTION NO. 288099 OF THE RECORDS OF THE
GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, ALSO BEING A POINT IN A
FENCE AS BUILT AND IN PLACE; THENCE ALONG SAID FENCE ON THE
FOLLOWING FIVE(5) COURSES: N 00°33'36"W 538.41 FEET; THENCE N
01°36'00"W 43,77 FEET; THENCE N 03°34'31"W 79.03 FEET; THENCE N
0D°00'38'E 208.86 FEET; THENCE N 61°12'52"W 238.22 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING SAID FENCE ON A COURSE BEARING NORTH FOR 4.31 FEET TO
A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID
SECTION 32; THENCE WEST 1835.42 FEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY LINES OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID SECTION 32 AND LOT 8 IN SAID
SECTION 31; THENCE N 60°44'03"W 298.63 FEET; THENCE S 00°02'13"E
723.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 41.64 ACRES
MORE OR LESS.
Exhibit A
David Pesnichak
EXHIBIT
i3
From: Bill Gavette <gavette@carbondalefire.org>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 3:39 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Cerise Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment,
CPAA-09-17-8582
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
David,
I have reviewed application for the Cerise Comprehensive Plan. I have no issues with the proposal.
Thanks,
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
www.carbondalefire.org
970-963-2491
FIRE IMS -RESCUE
1
David Pesnichak
From: Anne Pratt <annie@skybeam.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 5:22 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Protest against Cerise Land Proposal
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
Hi Dave - I spoke with you some time ago when the Application was first posted in the pasture near our property.
Please be advised that my husband, Jim Pratt, and I have numerous concerns regarding these horrible development
plans.
When we built our home in 1987 (described as Property Description #239131100018, Garfield County Assessor
account #R011623, Section: 31 Township: 7 Range: 87 A TR I N LOT 1) this was primarily a rural area. We had
mules, donkeys and horses on our property that were consistent with the area.
The intersection of Highway 82 and County Road 100 has been quite dangerous and the scene of many accidents for
many years. We had two in one day this past summer. The volume of traffic generated by a high density area is
incomprehensible. There is no current road access to this property. This new district would be a burden to both law
enforcement and medical districts. Water and sewer are major concerns. Wildlife in the area would be negatively
impacted.
Since the building of our home in 1987, we have been on a domestic water system with the Lion's Ridge Subdivision.
The main source of our water is located next to County Road 100 (Catherine's Store Road). The water line feeding
our property and that of several other homes runs directly under the proposed roadway of this requested
subdivision. Ground water contamination is a huge possibility with the runoff from traffic, oil, gas and whatever
trash may accumulated on the site. That, in itself, is a huge concern.
In addition, if this development/new districting as requested is approved, we will also be negatively impacted by
considerable noise from traffic & the influx of people, the lighting of streets & homes and the general devaluation
of our property.
I, Anne Pratt, and Jim Pratt respectfully request that the Cerise Comprehensive Plan Amendments be denied.
Thanks for your consideration.
X
Virus -free. www.avast.com
1
11/21/2017
COLORADO
Parks and Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources
Glenwood Springs Area Office
0088 Wildlife Way
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P 970.947.2920 I F 970.947.2936
David Pesnichak
Senior Planner
Garfield County Development
108 8th St. Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cerise FLUM Amendment (CPAA-09-17-8582)
EXHIBIT
I
a S
Dear David,
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the referred application to change
the zoning designation for a 41.64 acre parcel of land located at 16411 Highway 82 in
Carbondale. This parcel falls within the following mapped habitats according to CPW's
Species Activity Mapping (SAM) database: mule deer winter range, severe winter
range, and winter concentration area; and black bear fall concentration area.
The subject parcel is entirely within 1/4 mile of Highway 82 and mostly consists of
agricultural pasture/hay fields. These factors, coupled with the wildlife exclusion
fencing along the highway, greatly reduce the effectiveness of this parcel as wildlife
habitat. The rezoning of this property to allow for higher density residential
development should not have substantial impacts on the mapped habitats present.
However, CPW would recommend the following measures for any subsequent
residential development of this parcel:
1. Implement "bear aware" regulations (i.e. bear -proof dumpsters, storing of pet
food, composting food waste, etc.) for the subdivision through an HOA or other
governing body to reduce attractants for black bears and other wildlife species.
Animals do become habituated to anthropogenic food sources, and oftentimes
there are few options other than euthanasia of these animals.
2. Prohibit fruit, nut, and berry producing vegetation from landscaping plans
(CPW staff can work with the applicant to determine what species may or may
not be attractants for bears).
3. Ensure any new fencing adheres to CPW's Fencing with Wildlife in Mind
document located at:
http: / /cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/FencingWithWildlifelnMin
d.pdf#search=fencing
Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Colorado Parka and Wild fe • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. &ay • Marie Hackett • Carrie Hauser
John Howard, Viae -Chair • Marvin McDaniel • Dale Pial • Jim Spehar • James Vigil • Dean Wingfield • Michelle Zimmerman, Secretary • Alex Zipp
• 1816
4. Implement an effective noxious weed monitoring and treatment program for
the parcel following any soil disturbance.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to review and submit
comments for this project. If there are any questions or needs for additional
information, don't hesitate to contact Land Use Specialist, Taylor Elm, at (970) 947-
2971 or District Wildlife Manager, Matt Yamashita, at (970) 947-2931.
Sincerely,
Perry We , Area Wildlife Manager
Cc. Matt Yamashita, District Wildlife Manager
Taylor Elm, Land Use Specialist
File
David Pesnichak
From: Peter LaMorte <ps153@yahoo.com>
Sent:. Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:51 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Catherine's Store Area Development
David,
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this application. Here are my thoughts on this matter.
1. Density The Zoning in place is consistent with the surrounding developments ON THE
NORTH side of the highway there is no precedent for that density going east the
closest density to the proposed development would be The Crawford Trailer Park in El Jebel.
Going West it would be the Trailer Park just west of The Lumber Yard, by the CMC turn-
off.
2. Zoning Existing residents of the area, chose to make their life here and build a
community because of the Zoning in place and the Rural Lifestyle it afforded. To
change that to an uncharacteristic high density would be a betrayal of the trust we had in the
Zoning Regulations.
3. Traffic To place 150 cars (at the low end) onto Lions Ridge Rd, would be a disaster.
Lions Ridge Rd comes down at a very steep pitch and then makes a switch back. To place any
kind of intersection at that point would cause a major traffic hazard. In icy and snowy
weather it would be difficult to stop at best. No traffic study has been done and without that,
to state no negative impact on traffic can't be made.
Having 50 to 100 people cross at the Catherine's Store intersection would be dangerous and
cause traffic delays. Who will pay for the Pedestrian tunnel that will need to be build, Just
like El Jebel, Basalt and Aspen has done.
4. Water Well Our well sits at the intersection of Hwy 82 and CR 100. A high density
development would cause pollution to the surface water which would be detrimental
to the health of that well and all of the citizens who drink from it.
5. Tiny House Development is a new age word for Trailer Park, which is unacceptable
and doesn't enhance the areas' appeal to the existing community. Who will own these lots,
Gatorcap or home owners?
6. Goods and Services There are virtually no stores in the area all shopping
would be in Carbondale and El Jebel This kind of Development is urban and
therefore better suited to those URBAN areas not a rural one. To call Catherine's Store a
Village Center is erroneous, it's a Gas Station and Liquor Storc.
2
November 27, 2017
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 COLORADO AVENUE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
b
43
EXHIBIT
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Garfield County Referral — Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Amendment to
the Land Use Plan — Residential Village.
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for referring the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Amendment to the
Land Use Plan to the Town for review and comments. The application is two -fold:
1. Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land use
designation within the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. The new designation would
be called "Residential Village" that may be applied to properties throughout the
County.
2. Request to change the designation of the 41.64 acre properties currently
identified as Residential Medium Density (6 to <10 acres/du) to the new
Residential Village designation.
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its November 16, 2017 meeting. This
letter is intended to convey their comments.
This 41 acre parcel at Highway 82 and County Road 100 is currently zoned Rural which
requires 2 acre lot size, or would allow roughly 20 units.
The highest density the Comprehensive Plan currently has is high density which would
require 1/3 acre per dwelling unit. Under this zoning, the property could have 124
dwelling units.
The applicant proposes to construct 300 dwelling units which is more than double the
density allowed in the County's high density zone district. As a result, a new designation
(Residential Village) to allow that level of density is being requested in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
Page 21, Chapter 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, includes the following
overall vision:
Garfield County is dedicated to managing and directing growth to dedicated Urban
Growth Areas and other areas that can accommodate growth cost-effectively, in order
to create thriving communities while promoting a diverse, sustainable and health
economy, protecting wildlife maintaining or improving the quality of our natural
environment, and preserving the county's rural and western heritage.
Page 23, Chapter 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan includes the following
language:
New unincorporated communities are discouraged.
Page 24, Chapter 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan states that:
Village Centers are areas where there is a concentration of residential development and
commercial development that is intended primarily for the convenience needs of
surrounding residential development. This mix of uses may include educational,
institutional and civic uses.
Page 38, Chapter 3 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Section 1, Goal 4
states:
Retain rural character outside of the UGA limits.
The Town's Planning Commission agreed that this Comprehensive Plan and
amendment to the Land Use Plan would allow urban density outside of the Urban
Growth Area. They also noted that this would allow higher density than the County's
high density zone district.
It was also noted the definition of Village Center does not encourage increasing
residential density near existing Village Centers. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan
appears to note that the Village Center is there to serve existing residential
development.
Other concerns expressed by the Planning Commission included impacts on:
.- Highway 82, particularly mid -valley
Katherine's Store Road
School and fire districts
Is it truly affordable or workforce housing?
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
Garfield County has expended a significant amount of time and resources in developing
and adopting the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code. The proposed
amendment and amendment to the Land Use Map does not seem to align with the
sections of the Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan cited above. The Planning
Commission would respectfully request that the County deny the application due to non-
compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.
Michael Durant
Chairperson
Town of Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
David Pesnichak
From: Phyllis Martin <phyllis_day_martin@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:46 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: lionsridgehoa@gmail.com
Subject: December 13 6 PM hearing on proposed zoning change
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
> Dear Mr Pesnichak,
EXHIBIT
.7-
> I bought my home in Lions Ridge as a place to retire. A major attraction was the openness of the area and the size of
the lots in the area North of Hey 82. The beauty of the area is the low density which was much preferable to other
developments in Colorado. To see this destroyed would be a travesty and would ruin a beautiful part of Colorado.
> As for traffic, Lions Ridge Road was not designed to, and will not be able to, handle the proposed increase. The lack of
safety in winter as the Hill portion of the road spills into lower traffic jams in winter is an invitation for accidents due to
the steepness of the hill.
> The construction in such proximity to the Lions Ridge water supply is a health issue that needs to be studied
thoroughly and addressed adequately before any construction is improved.
> The current zoning is appropriate for the area and I strongly oppose the proposed change. The proposed development
is much more suited for other high density areas in the state. Let's not allow something beautiful to be ruined.
> I am having hip replacement surgery so will not be able to attend the hearing but want to express my concerns and
strong opposition to the proposed zoning change.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Martin
605 Lions Ridge Rd
> 240-602-7467
1
David Pesnichak
From: Ron DePugh<rondp@rockymountainmoggers.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:51 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Proposed Development of Tiny Houses
Hi, David Pesnichak-
EXHIBIT
I am a property owner in the Lions Ridge subdivision above the land on which this development is proposed.
The proposed Tiny Houses development along Highway 82 is completely out of place. The zoning does not allow it.
There is no density like that in this area. The amount of traffic it will create on Lions Ridge Road is completely beyond
what that road should have.
My main concern is the effect it will have on my property value.
Thank you.
-Ron DePugh
Boulder, Colorado USA
David Pesnichak
EXHIBIT
D A
From: Jackie Daly <jdphoto@sopris.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:00 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: Peter LaMorte; Gary Pax; Gordy Sichel; Jim Barnett; Tom Smith; Don Glenn
Subject: Proposed Tiny Home Development & Garco Comprehensive Plan
Hello David,
My name is Jackie Daly and my husband, Larry Swift and I own a single familly home at Lions Ridge Estates located near
the intersection of Catherine Store Road and Highway 82.
I am writing you and your fellow Garfield County planners to let you know that we are vehemently opposed to any change
in the current "rural" zoning in our neighborhood and the surrounding areas in Missouri Heights and the Hwy 82 corridor.
The infrastructure including highway access is very limited via Lions Ridge Road and the proposed "Gatorcap"
development would dramatically impact the traffic flow and create gridlock as Catherine Store Road is the only access to
Highway 82 for residents in the upper Catherine Store/Missouri Heights areas that wish to drive to the upper areas of the
Roaring Fork Valley including Aspen, Snowmass Village and Basalt.
Additionally, Lions Ridge Estates HOA obtains its residential drinking water from a community well that is located on the
valley floor at Catherine Store Road. Lions Ridge residents and tenants are limited to 9,999 gallons of water per month
including irrigation water for yard and lawnscaping.
Lions Ridge Estates has been a very careful and judicious steward of the local water supply as we all know that good
drinking water is of vital concern for the Western Slope of Colorado and the greater American West as witnessed by
droughts and global warming pervasive in this region of the country.
Please do not allow a Florida based developer to turn Catherine Store and its rural environs into a gridlocked residential
area with possible groundwater contamination and increased competition for good drinking water that will most certainly
occur with such a high density development.
Please call me with any questions or comments at 970-309-4775 and thank you in advance for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
Jackie Daly
Jackie Daly
Broker Associate Coldwell Banker Mason Morse
970-309-4775
jackie@masonmorse.com &jdphoto@sopris.net
1
David Pesnichak
From: Ron Goth <rgoth@discovercompass.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:41 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Proposed tiny house development by Catherine Store
This proposal is ridiculous. This development would destroy the mid valley appearance. The existing Lions
Ridge Road and County Road 100 can not possibly handle the influx of traffic from 300 homes. There is a
major water availability and contamination issue. I urge you to deny the re -zoning of this property. Thank you
for listening.
Ron Goth
Aspen Community School
Woody Creek, CO
1-970-923-4080
5-6 Teacher
1
David Pesnichak
From: Jim Barnett <jim@thebarnetts.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:34 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: 'Peter LaMorte'; 'Gary Pax'; 'Gordy Sichel'; 'Tom Smith'; 'Don Glenn'; jdphoto@sopris.net;
Nancy Barnett; annie@skybeam.com; Jim Pratt; msread2l@hotmail.com; 'Marty
Stouffer'; stevefitz@sopris.net; rgoth@discovercompass.org; Ken Robinson;
tomertzner@yahoo.com; tomheuer49@gmail.com; Diane@wildamerica.com;
phyllis_day_martin@yahoo.com; Nelsonsplumbing@sopris.net; Dee Benson
Subject: Gatorcap vs. the 2030 GarCo Comprehensive Plan
EXHIBIT
David,
My wife, Nancy, and I own a single family home on the north side of the proposed Gatorcap
development. We moved here from a major metropolitan area in 1980 to escape urban density
before "urban density" was even a term. We wanted a place in the country. We found the perfect
place for us in the beautiful Colorado Rocky Mountains. We built our home on this site in 1981. We
want to retire in peace in our country home. A zoning change of any type on the Cerise property
will make that impossible for us.
I am confident that you want to protect our constituency from intruders. I'd like to assist you in that
effort by pointing out a few locations where the proposed development is in direct conflict with the
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Pages A-4 & 5 County Services
Garfield County has been structured to provide rural services (sheriff, roads, bridges) primarily
to the unincorporated areas, as well as a variety of health and human services to both
incorporated and unincorporated areas. This means that the county can service growth at
rural densities (essentiallyfarm densities). However, it also means that the county is not in
the "urban" business; it does not have the departmental structure nor the tax structure to
provide the level of services typically associated with urban (suburban) development, such as
parks, water/sewer infrastructure, extensive street paving and maintenance, etc. Growth at
suburban/urban intensity puts a fiscal strain on county for which it is not cu rrently structured.
This impact has largely been masked by the large subsidy the county gets from oil/gas
I would highlight the appropriate parts above except that every word above is in direct conflict with
the proposed development.
Page A-6 Housing
If a new development occurs in the unincorporated area of the county, should the required affordable
units be constructed nearer to city services, or in the development?
Where are opportunities to locate community housing? What housing mix is appropriate in
commercial and/or mixed -used developments?
How do the county's regulations relate to those of individual communities?
Can the county be the unifying force and enact regulations that are consistent with the towns
and that guide growth towards the existing service areas?
There are NO city services in the area. "Rural" isn't even mentioned as an option for locating
community housing. Not even one"individual community" in the county would allow such a
development within their boundaries. The stated goal of the county is to guide growth towards
existing services. There are no existing services in the proposed area of development.
1
Page A-7 Sensitive Habitats
Since the writing of the Plan in 2003, it has become necessary to install game fencing along both
sides of Highway 82 in front of the proposed development area to contain the Elk and deer
populations. Placing high density urbanization in this habitat area would obviously be detrimental to
the health and welfare of our wildlife. Our wildlife is a significant part of the reason most of us are
here.
Page A-8 Water
With the exception of major towns and cities, most domestic and residential water use in Garfield
County is, and will need to be in the future, via wells, not by surface water.
Having lived in this area through drought periods, I know full well (pun intended) that the ground
water in the proposed development area is woefully inadequate for the needs of this proposed
development. Even if the proposed development somehow magically obtained sufficient water, I
expect that the existence of that development in that location would render our existing well adjacent
to 100 Road unsuitable for human consumption in less than two years' time.
Water supplies in the upper Colorado River watershed, including Garfield County, are over
appropriated. A reliable legal supply of water can be readily secured within the boundaries of
existing regionally approved augmentation plans. New water uses outside of these regional
augmentation areas will likely require the adjudication of individual water right plans for
augmentation which rely on senior irrigation water rights or reservoir storage.
From where does this proposed development plan to obtain "augmentation" water? From where
does one obtain an infinite amount of a finite commodity?
Page A-10 Water
The map and Legend on page A-10 show this area to be "Typically Poor Quantity and Quality
Groundwater Supplies". Even if the proposed development somehow magically obtained sufficient
water, why would you, as our senior planner, even consider high density polluting of the existing
wells in the area that you have known for years are struggling to support your constituency?
Pages B-5 through B-16 NEGATIVE effects of growth
If you open the plan to any one of those 12 pages of citizen expressed negative effects of growth
and randomly placed a finger on the page, the negative effect expressed at your fingertip would
apply to this proposed development. It has them all; without exception.
Page B-18 Land Use Decisions
Regarding decision-making about land uses, the majority of respondents (59%) feel Garfield County
should have a plan and only depart from it when there is significant public benefit.
Garfield County has a written, published plan. We have placed our faith in you and planned our
futures based on our written, published plan. Don't let someone come in and try to change the rules
after the game has begun. That's not acceptable behavior in anybody's rulebook. Plain and simple:
not acceptable. The only"public" that would "benefit" from this change of plan is a Florida
corporation. David, your children go to school with my children; not theirs.
Page B-19 County Focus
The top five categories rated as needing the most emphasis are maintaining/improving water quality
in streams and rivers, assuring adequate water availability for future growth, more effectively
managing the location and quality of growth, preserving rural character and preserving open space.
2
Clearly, not only does the proposed development do nothing to elevate the current state of any of
these top five categories needing county emphasis, it is actually quite the opposite of the desired
direction of movement in every category.
I'm only 32 pages into a 205 page document. I'd be shocked to find a complete reversal of plan
expressed in the remaining pages. This proposed development is clearly not in keeping with the
expressed intent of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
I could go on but I want to get this to you in time for you consider it's contents prior to the
December 13th hearing. I do plan to be there to observe the actions of the people involved.
Please, do your job and protect your constituency from this proposed canker on our community.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Jim Barnett
James C. Barnett
16400 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
jim@thebarnetts.com
970/379-9009
3
EXHIBIT
David Pesnichak
From: Felicia Young <youngfj@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:03 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Re zone property at hwy 82 ( cerise)
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
We are respectfully writing to you regarding the re zoning of the above property. The description of
development is very lean but does repeat "high density" 300 tiny trailer dwellings. I am sure more details will
become available after the 12/13 meeting. I certainly understand the need for housing but would hope and
request this property be developed with great thought and appreciation for our neighborhoods. We would like to
hear what the infrastructure plan is for such a huge concept. Must everything be " Go big or go home.". The
intersection at Catherine Store and Hwy 82 is already a deadly intersection, how can it survive this concept. The
maps and pictures provided show little thought and no detail. Who would the architect and builder be? We are
deeply concerned and thank you for your ear,
Andy and Felicia Young
270 Ponderosa Pass
Blue Creek Ranch
Sent from my iPad
i
David Pesnichak
From: Jerome Dayton <jeromedayton@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 8:01 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Re: Catherine store housing development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr Pesnichak-
I forgot to add that I am a Garfield County resident.
Jerome Dayton
315 Oak Run Rd
Carbondale, CO
1
a
EXHIBIT
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Jerome Dayton <jeromedayton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr. Pesnichak-
>
> Changing the zoning from 6 houses to 300 houses is simply not in character for this portion of the valley and
unbelievably unfair to the people who already live there and bought based upon the original zoning.
> I simply don't want to see a housing corridor in the Roaring Fork of 100,000 people.
> Jerome Dayton
1
David Pesnichak
From: Gordon Sichel <gordonsichel@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:18 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Opposition to Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
iq
Dear David,
My name is Gordon Sichel. My family has owned our home at 482 Lions Ridge Road since 1993.
am writing you to voice my opposition to allow A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the FLUM of the
Comprehensive Plan of 2030 on or near the Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company LLLP property
consisting of 41.64 acres.
I believe that high density development in this area is inappropriate. The Catherine Store is not a "village center.
The county road(s) and Highway 82 intersections at this location cannot handle the large increase in traffic.
Our community well is located at the County Road 100 and Highway 82 intersection. We are greatly concerned that high
density development will contaminate our only water source.
A large development here will disrupt wildlife migration.
An amendment to the current Plan will attract more developers to introduce more inappropriate projects in inappropriate
locations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Gordon Sichel
482 Lions Ridge Road
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(970) 456-2334
1
P.O. Box 1908
1011 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs,
CO 81602
/`<\
Z4NC4NELL4 4ND 455004TES.I1.4C.
ENGINEERING CONSULT4NT5
November 29, 2017
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Community Development
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear David:
b
EXHIBIT
We are writing on behalf of the Lions Ridge Estates homeowners that are served by a
single well located at the intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82, see attached
map. The well has successfully served the subdivision since 1988. There were several
prior unsuccessful attempts at drilling wells on the Lions Ridge property. The wells
resulted in poor water quality and quantity. The well is actually located in the Garfield
County road right-of-way. The well, Lions Ridge Well 3, is relatively shallow and is
completed in the Roaring Fork alluvial deposits. (See attached well completion report.)
The Lions Ridge HOA is requesting that the county consider the source water of the Lions
Ridge Well 3 and take steps to protect the source water supplying the well. The proposed
zoning change to allow high density development on the Cerise property is significant
because there are little or no options for alternative water sources to serve the Lions
Ridge Estates Subdivision.
The proposed development would change the runoff characteristics of the property.
Currently most of the drainage exits the property towards the northwest. Changing these
drainage patterns in quality or quantity may result in additional treatment being required
for the Lions Ridge Well 3.
The cost of providing an alternative source of water to the Lions Ridge HOA such as
connection to Mid Valley Metro District even on a meter basis, keeping their existing
system, would result in 22 lots x $5130/EQR = $112,860 plus water rights dedication
fees.
Therefore, we ask that if the Lions Ridge water supply is adversely impacted, the
developer will supply an alternative water resource option.
Very truly yours,
Zancanella and Associates, Inc.
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E.
Zancanella & Associates, Inc.
November 30, 2017
Page 1
z:\400's\444 lions ridge \2017\garfield-county.docx
Z:\400's\444 Lions Ridge\GIS\Lions_Ridge_Well_Locations_2.mxd
Legend
O Well Locations
Lions Estates Ridge Subdivision
ill Parcels Served by Water System
Lions Ridge Well No. 2
-Plugged and Abandoned -
Alternate Well No. 1
-Plugged and Abandoned -
Lions Ridge Well No. 3
-Currently Used -
Lions Ridge Well
Locations
DATE:
Nov. 30, 2017
DRAWN BY:
JAW
CHKD BY:
TAZ
APPD BY:
TAZ
CLIENT:
Lions Ridge
�/\<\ ZANCANELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
POST OI'FTIC II BOX 1908- I(111 GRAND AVENUI'.
GLENW OOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-570(1
FIGURE No:
1
PROJECT: 3444
WJA-N-7't,
TNpIS7FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED
WITI IN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION
OF THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE-
ON, TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK
INK.
COLORADO DIV SIGN OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street • Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT
PERMIT NUMBER ,_ 2.517.P'
WELL OWNER L3►ons Ridge Estate Homeowners Y. of the
ADDRESS c/o Dan Keret, 302 8th St., Suite 310
Glenwood Segs., 00 81601
DATE COMPLETED February 22
T. 7
RECEW D
FEB 2 9 1898
(NATER MOl1
ihs6• MOW
COM
Y. of Sec. 3,t
S _ R 87
, 19 88 HOLE DIAMETER
WELL LOG
Water
From To Type and Color of Material Loc.
z6
36
38
26'
36'
39'
S2'
River Boulders
Sand, Gravel, & Boulders
Clay
Evaporates
TOTAL DEPTH 52'
Use additional pages necessary to complete log.
26'
36'
W 6th P.M.
13 in from 0 to 52
ft
in from to ft
in from to ft
Cabletool
DRILLING METHOD
CASING RECORD: Ptain Casing
Size10 VA kind Step*/ _ from 0 to 26 ft
Size10 3/44 kind .... ,eel from 36 to 52 ft
Size & kind from to ft.
Perforated Casing
Size11 1/4 kind SS SoreeDfrom 26 to 36 ft
Size __ ..-... & kind from _ to ft
Size & kind from to ft,
GROUTING RECORD
Material
Intervals
Placement Method
Cement
GRAVEL PACK: Size
Interval
TEST DATA
Date Tested
5 — 20'
Gravity
February 22
Static Water Level Prior to Test
20'
,1988
ft.
Type of Test Pump B . ler;
Length of Test
Sustained Yield (Metered) r 10 + GPM
Final Pumping Water Level!y-__, 19'
David Pesnichak
From: patricia Helling <p.helling@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 7:33 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Tiny homes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
I think tiny homes are a great alternative to affordable housing. I'd like to see strict covenants such as nothing stored out
of the unit and limit Cars. I think it should be important that they are owner occupied only.
Pat Helling
Glenwood Springs co
Sent from my iPhone
1
EXHIBIT
David Pesnichak
From: William Rinaldi <aspenfloorcovering@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 9:19 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Cerese Property
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
David, In regards to rezoning the Cerise property off highway 82 near Catherines Store Road. I am sitting here
thinking trying to figure out a solution to the housing crunch we all face for the workers of the valley. As a
business owner I also look for ways to house my employees. I have bought trailers in trailer parks in Glenwood,
co signed loans for houses in Rifle an also other options. I try to put my head around how do we work thru these
situations. I live in Equestrian Estates behind Catherines store for about 10 years now and have helped to
irrigate the properties just west of the proposed site. During those years of watering those fields I have run into
alot of wildlife in those fields. Fox, deer, coyotes, elk, eagles, hawk & even bobcat. I think to myself when do
we try to balance out the eco system where we include the wildlife ? And when do we try to stick to why we
zoned these areas the way we did in the first place ? There is a balance in what we need to do with taking care
of rural areas. I do not see any reason why we need to cram all those homes onto this parcel. Let the wildlife
have a place to call home also otherwise where do they go ? Thank you for your time & I hope the right
decision is made for this property. Keep it zoned the way it is. Bill Rinaldi
Bill Rinaldi
Aspen Floorcovering, Inc
227 Cody Lane
Basalt, CO 81621
970-927-2447
aspenfloorcovering cAgmail.com
Virus -free. www.avast.com
1
David Pesnichak
From: Robert Davis<rdavis@davisrcd.onmicrosoft.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 9:16 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: Scott Bayens
Subject: Cerise zoning application
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
David,
EXHIBIT
I am writing as an individual property owner at Blue Creek Ranch. This week I explained to you that we had
not received notice of this application due to the county's defective 200 foot rule which effectively
discriminates against adjoining properties where roads and easements create a buffer. This must be addressed
by the county.
Due to the lack of notice we did not have time to engage legal counsel and prepare a complete and accurate
objection to the two pending applications before the arbitrary county imposed deadline of yesterday Nov. 30.
For the record I officially object to both the requested new zoning category and the 300 unit density being
requested for this site. If the county approves either or both requests at the Dec. 13 hearing we will join all
other affected property owners to seek legal redress.
rdavis0245@_,gmail.com
970 963 9574
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse any typos and errors
1
David Pesnichak
From: scott brown <figure-11@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 9:14 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Catherine's store development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello David,
EXHIBIT
I just wanted to share my thoughts on the proposed development near catherine's store and Hwy82. I know
tiny homes are a trendy new concept but it is just a new name for an old concept. What is being proposed is
another mobile home park (MHP). The problem with a MHP at this location is that the residents will live far
from services and will have to drive everywhere. MHP's are fine but should be located so that residents can
walk or cycle to the grocery store and restaurants. So a new MHP near Willits or Carbondale would be
preferable to one out in the boonies where residents will have to drive everywhere. The Catherine store
location is a great location for housing horses, cows, pigs and chickens but not for those who must drive
everywhere. High density residential development should be located near services and businesses. The idea
that residents will be able to bike or will want to, to carbondale or willits is pure fantasy as most are much too
lazy.
Thank you for reading my comments,
Sincerely,
Scott Brown
1
EXHIBIT
.3V
Ellen Sassano,
Senior Long Range Planner
Pitkin County Community
Development Dept.
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
December 1, 2017
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 BhStreet, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO
81601
Re: Garfield County Referral - Comprehensive Plan Text and Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) Amendment to Allow for a Residential Village Land Use Designation.
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for referring the Comprehensive Plan Text and FLUM Amendment to
Pitkin County for review and comments. The application is two -fold:
1. Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create a new land
use designation within the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. The new
designation of Residential Village" could be applied to properties throughout
the County.
2. Request to change the Future Land Use Map designation of the
subject 41 acre propertycurrently identified as Residential Medium
Density (6 to <10acres/du) to the new Residential Village
designation.
The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners discussed this item at its
November 30, 2017 meeting. This letter is intended to convey their comments.
The 41 acre parcel at Highway 82 and County Road 100 is currently zoned Rural
and is designated as Residential Medium Density on the FLUM. Based on the
Residential Medium Density designation, the property could be developed to a
maximum of roughly 7 units.
The highest density Comprehensive Plan designation available is Residential High
Density, which allows densities of up to 1/3 acre per dwelling unit. Under this
zoning, the property could be developed with up to 124 dwelling units.
1
The applicant proposes to construct 300 dwelling units, which is more than double
the density contemplated under any rural land use designation identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the applicant seeks to create a new designation
(Residential Village) to accommodate urban level densities in the rural area.
Garfield County expended a significant amount of time and resources in
developing and vetting the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, prior to adoption.
The proposed text and Future Land Use Map amendment do not appear to align
with the direction of Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan.
First and foremost, the Plan does not support urban level densities outside of
urban growth boundary areas, as stated in the following sections:
Page 21, Chapter 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, includes the
following overall vision:
Garfield County is dedicated to managing and directing growth to dedicated Urban
Growth Areas and other areas that can accommodate growth cost-effectively, in
order to create thriving communities while promoting a diverse, sustainable and
healthy economy, protecting wildlife maintaining or improving the quality of our
natural environment, and preserving the county's rural and western heritage.
Pa•e 23 Chaster 2 of the Garfield Count Com rehensive Plan includes the
following language:
New unincorporated communities are discouraged.
Page 38, Chapter 3 of the Garfield County Com rehensive Plan Section 1 Goal 4
states:
Retain rural character outside of the UGA limits.
Furthermore, the applicant's identification of the Catherine's Store land use
designation of "Village Center" as a basis for developing urban level densities
across the Highway is mis-directed. The Comprehensive Plan definition of Village
Center does not encourage increasing residential density near existing Village
Centers. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan appears to note that the Village Center
is there to serve existing residential development, as it has historically.
Page 24, Chapter 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan states that:
Village Centers are areas where there is a concentration of residential
development and commercial development that is intended primarily for the
convenience needs of surrounding residential development.
Finally, in addition to the issues raised in previous paragraphs, the Pitkin County
2
Commissioners are concerned about the following regional implications of the
proposed amendment:
1. If adopted as a Plan amendment and applied to this site, the Village
Residential designation sets a precedent for urban level densities outside of
urban growth boundaries anywhere in Garfield County. Urban level
densities are best served within municipalities or UGA's where
infrastructure, services, employment and commercial centers can
accommodate demand.
2. While the proposed development site is within close proximity to a RFTA bus
stop, residents will inevitably drive to and from Carbondale or Willits, Glenwood
and beyond for shopping and schools, and to Glenwood, Carbondale, Basalt
and/or Aspen for employment. Adding urban level density to the mid -valley in
addition to the Tree Farm, Fields Subdivision, Willits and other approved,
unbuilt development in this area, will exacerbate congestion and safety
concerns on Highway 82.
As this proposal does not appear to comply with the intent of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, runs counter to rural comprehensive plans throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley, and may result in significant impacts to the broader region,
the Pitkin County Commissioners respectfully recommend denial of the
Comprehensive Plan Text and FLUM amendment request.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.
Ellen Sassano,
Pitkin County Senior Long Range Planner
3
David Pesnichak
From: Peggy Ball <peggy@durginelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 10:32 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: tiny houses
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
To Whom It May Concern:
Please do not let a developer over saturate our roads, schools and everyday life with overdevelopment of a RURAL area.
Say NO to changing the zoning on Catherine Store Road property.
Peggy Ball
Accounting
a
DURGIN
ELECTRIC
181 N. 12th Street
Carbondale, CO 81623
Office: 970.704.9473
peggy(durginelectric.com
1
David Pesnichak
From: Michael Lafferty <laff@sopris.net>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 11:00 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: no zoning change
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
I am absolutely against any change in the rural zoning for the proposed high density development at the Catherine Store
parcel or any other along Highway 82.
Just because there is a bus stop doesn't mean it makes sense to have 200+ homes in this area. I work with developers
every day, but this is a sugar coated bad idea and only
promotes even more congestion along the 82 corridor.
Michael Lafferty, PLS
Rocky Mountain Surveying
970.379.1919
laff@sopris.net
4133 Crystal Springs rd
Carbondale, CO 81623
1
David Pesnichak
From: Jess Bates <jessbates@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 11:05 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: tiny houses near Catherine's store
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
1 3.3
YES, we need high-density tiny house developments!
BUT only if they have their own grocery store, laundromat, drugstore,
services.
DON'T need more cars on HWY 82!
Jess Bates
Glenwood Springs
David Pesnichak
From: Gerald Alpern <alpern2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 11:58 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Please consider NOT re-zoningT
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To David Pesnichak, Garfield P& Z planner
EXHIBIT
31
Please consider rejecting the re -zoning request at Hwy 82 and
Catherine Store. The density caused by such re -zoning would
not only significantly lower the quality of life for nearby
residents but cause congestion in traffic as well as compromise
the beauty of the natural environment and well being of our
coveted wildlife.
Developers are interested in personal financial gain but use all
manner of "community benefit" arguments to hide their
personal greed. Please carefully evaluate the impact of their
proposal
Thank you for your attention. If there is any further way I can
help defeat this re -zoning request, please let me know.
Sincerely, Jerry Alpern
Gerald D. Alpern , Ph.D.
41 Choke Cherry Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
Mobil: 970 319 1763
David Pesnichak
From: Jim Elliott <profjelliott@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 12:27 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Website inquiry -Community Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Jim Elliott has sent you a message:
Proposed Zoning Change Cty Rd 100/Hwy 82
9459567
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
EXHIBIT
I believe there is no viable reason to change the zoning in this area from Rural to High Density. This mid valley area has
already been impacted by previous development. In addition Eagle County has approved the development of the land at
the old tree farm. Enough is enough! The infrastructure, especially traffic, is not supportive of another high density
development. If the developer wants to build according to the current rural zoning, that is fine with me.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Jim Elliott
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
1
1'() 1t„� ;3S11
29 Midland Ace.
R.ualt, l.O 81(621
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY Al. LAW
December 1, 2017
EXHIBIT
TcI. 970-718-2044
Cell. 970-379-7101
tom@`tlsmithla\ .corn
dpesnichak@garfield-county.com
Garfield County Planning Commission
108 8th Street, Ste. 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Gatorcap Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Future Land Use Map and Text
Amendments)
Dear Commissioners:
I represent the Lions Ridge Homeowners' Association ("the HOA") in connection with the above -
referenced application which is scheduled for a hearing before you on December 13, 2017. I have just
been retained by the HOA, and so this letter does not reflect a complete analysis of the application. We
will present additional comments at the hearing, but we wanted to meet the submittal deadline for
including written information in the packet in advance of the hearing.
Lions Ridge Estates consists of 22 residential lots two (2) acres or larger located in the immediate vicinity
of the project proposed by Gatorcap. The Lions Ridge homeowners would be substantially affected by
this proposed development.
Both the Town of Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town of Basalt Planning
Commission have recommended to you that this application be denied. The HOA concurs with these
recommendations, and we support the reasons set forth by both commissions as the basis for their
recommendations. In addition, we ask that you consider the following:
1. The Preface to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 ("the Plan") states that is "has been
developed to provide a general statement of direction for land use planning in unincorporated Garfield
County...," that "The Plan is long-term in nature;" and that "It projects land use needs to the year
2030...," in order "...to provide a steady, predictable direction over the next 20 years." The Gatorcap
applications are in direct conflict with these statements from the Plan, and Gatorcap has provided no
reason for ignoring these policies.
2. The Plan addresses the amendment process: "It is intended that a review of the Plan be conducted
every 5 years (unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission) to determine whether an update
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
is warranted." In making such determination, "a prime consideration should be the magnitude of the
changes that have occurred since the Plan was last updated." The five (5) year period has not run, and
Gatorcap has not identified the changes or the magnitude of the changes that would justify an
amendment as significant as this proposal.
3. Amending the Plan cannot be justified based upon the desires of one developer. The best interests
of the County as a whole must be considered, and the applicant has not done that. The applicant
proposes a new Residential Village Land Use Designation, that would potentially triple the allowed
density of the County's Residential High -Density Designation. There is nothing comparable to what is
being proposed in the County's Land Use Code. The current zoning of this 41 -acre property, Residential
Medium Density, would allow six (6) dwelling units, which is consistent with density in the immediate
area. The applicant's proposal would allow 50 times the zoned density. This dramatically increased
zone density would, of course, be available for other properties in the immediate area as well as in other
parts of Garfield County. Something of this nature should not be undertaken without considering the
impacts it would have on the County as a whole, and certainly that has not been done by this applicant.
4. The applicant is proposing urban densities in a rural area. This is a fundamental violation of good
land use planning, and it is in direct conflict with the policies of the Plan and the development pattern in
this area. The Plan states that "The county is not currently set up to be in the 'urban' business — to
provide urban services to residential and commercial areas." However, this application would require
just that. Urban development of this type belongs within the County's municipalities and their Urban
Growth Areas and not in the County's rural and medium density areas. We urge you to consider the
provisions of the Plan regarding "Cost of Growth' "and "Uncoordinated Growth" on page 18 of the Plan,
and "Growth in Urban Growth Areas," pages 22 and 23 of the Plan. Fundamental policies of the Plan
would have to be changed in order to accommodate this proposal. The Plan, at pages 14 and 15,
identifies the extensive process of citizen participation that resulted in the 2013 update. Approval of
this application would be inconsistent with the results of that extensive process, and it should not be
undertaken without the same high level of public involvement across the County.
We ask you to deny the Gatorcap applications for Future Land Use Map and Text Amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan 2030. Thank you for your consideration.
cc: Lions Ridge HOA
2
Very truly yours,
Thomas Fenton Smith
David Pesnichak
From: Chris Heaphey <CJHeaphey@hollandhart.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 1:20 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Cerise Main Ranch Company/Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan from Medium
Density to Residential Village
EXHIBIT
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Pesnichak,
I live in Blue Creek Ranch. Please include my objection to the application referenced above in the meeting packets. The
request is outrageous in the scope of the increase in density requested. Also, tiny homes are an unproven response to
housing needs. It is far from certain how the individual homes and their communities will wear over time. This
development could easily not age well --as is the problem with many trailer parks. It could easily become a burden on
public that is not worth the benefits. I request that the Board deny the application.
Thank you,
Christopher J. Heaphey, Esq.
Holland & Hart LLP
555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202-3979
Aspen Office:
600 East Main Street, Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 925-3476
Fax: (800) 962-1998
Email: cjheaphey@hollandhart.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in
error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error; then please delete this e-mail. Thank you.
1
David Pesnichak
From: Gary Pax <garfi@sopris.net>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 1:41 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: gordonsichel@gmail.com; peter; jdphoto@sopris.net
Subject: zoning chg request near hwy 82 and cr100
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Pesnichak and other GarCo Planning Commissioners,
EXHIBIT
3g
My family lives in Lions Ridge Estates and I want to highlight one specific concern.
Well water is a primary reason I carefully chose my home site to raise a family. Our water manager (Zancanella) has
submitted a letter to you regarding our well. But to further expand on this issue, our subdivision well is very shallow and is
located down hill from the proposed re -zoning property. Imagine what will happen every time we get a downpour and all
that water washes off driveways (with cars leaking oil) and over fertilized lawns and flows to the ditch at the end of the
field at CR 100 where our well is located.
Even if the developer said he could connect us to mid valley metro district, municipal water is not a (lack of) quality of life
choice I want for my family. Mr. Zancanella also informed the LRE homeowners that to purify our well water if
contaminated with surface water it would cost $150,000 to $200,000. for the filters necessary plus the cost of a building to
house those filters plus ongoing maintenance costs for those filters. That is something that should be the responsibility of
the Developer, should you recommend approval of this rezoning, of which I and my family are extremely against (for not
just the water issue but all the many issues highlighted by other constituents).
Thank you,
May the Golden Rule guide you in your decision.
Gary Pax
Fiona ODonnell Pax
0434 Lions Ridge Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
970-404-2783
i
December 1, 2017
Garfield County
Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
EXHIBIT
3`7
BASALT
Re: Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map Amendment, PUD for
16411 Highway 82
Dear Mr. Pesnichak:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your referral on the proposed application
related to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map Amendments and
specifically, the proposed use for the property at 16411 Hwy 82 in Carbondale, CO.
The Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the materials and
provides the following comments:
Comments:
1) The proposed development on the Cerise Ranch property is a significant
increase to the residential density in this area, and will have substantial impacts that
should be carefully considered. The Town of Basalt strongly objects to the development
of such a dense development concept as proposed on the Cerise property for all of the
reasons stated in his letter. The Town remains open to other development ideas but
encourages a more thoughtful proposal for this location that would avoid or mitigate the
items described in this letter.
2) If such a Residential Village (RV) land designation is approved, it should be
applied to properties within designated Urban Growth Boundaries of existing Towns
within the County so that residents may benefit from a true Village Center around which
the development is to be created. The Town of Basalt supports compact development
and a separation of urban and rural uses. The subject site is located in a rural area,
outside of the urban fringes of both Basalt and Carbondale. The Town Planning and
Zoning Commission believes that the characterization of Catherine Store as a Village
Center is disingenuous and that the store is not a true concentration of residential and
commercial development. The proposed level of urban development may be more
appropriate adjacent to a municipality or true Village Center, but Staff does not find this
level of density appropriate for the rural area in which it is proposed. This is consistent
with (attached) referral comments provided by Basalt Planning Staff in 2013 to Garfield
County in regards to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan update.
101 MIDLAND Ave. • BASALT, GO 81621 • 970-927-4701 • FAX 970-927-4703
3) The Applicant has indicated that the RV land use designation would require
being within % of a mile of an existing Village Center. This is a rural area of the mid -
valley. Catherine Store, a single commercial business, is the only business within the 3/4
mile requirement, and this cannot be considered a Village Center. It is our opinion that
the designated site fails to meet the requirements of the new land use designation
proposed by the Applicant.
The development that is being proposed at the Cerise Ranch property is essentially a
new bedroom community that will have to rely on neighboring urban centers for
services, and those services may already be thin or lacking.
4) The proposed level of density can be expected to create significant constraints
and impacts on area schools, childcare, emergency services, vehicular congestion, and
transit services.
5) The proposed density will significantly increase the number of vehicles on the
road, and those pulling onto Highway 82. CDOT may require access to the
development from County Road 105, which would dramatically change the nature of this
lesser used County road.
6) The Applicant has indicated this to be an appropriate area for the proposed
development based on the site's proximity to RFTA's existing bus stops, as well as the
park-and-ride. However, the RFTA park-and-ride lot across from Catherine's Store is
limited in size, and the bus stops in this location are only served by the local bus route,
rather than bus rapid transit (BRT). Recent referrals from RFTA on other development
applications have expressed concerns regarding their potential to keep up with service
for additional ridership. The proposed development would potentially have a great
impact on transit services. Additionally, Highway 82 is a high-volume arterial road that
poses dangers to pedestrians. Many improvements would need to be considered to
ensure the safety of pedestrians traveling to the bus stops. The Town of Basalt recently
spent several years creating a pedestrian underpass beneath Highway 82, which cost
around $7,000,000. A project in this location, with its dependence on the existing RFTA
stops, would warrant consideration of a similar underpass.
7) This parcel of land is in an automatic aid agreement area for the Basalt and
Rural Fire District, whose response area covers approximately 500 square miles. This
proposed development, together with the likely future commercial and residential
buildout of the tree farm project in El Jebel and other development proposed in the mid -
valley, has prompted the fire marshal to express concern about the District's ability to
respond to all calls. However, the District remains committed to its mission and to
working with the Carbondale Fire Department.
8) Childcare throughout the Roaring Fork Valley is already exceptionally
challenging, and the proposed project will exacerbate the situation.
2
The comments above are referral recommendations made to Garfield County. The
Town recognizes that it does not have jurisdictional authority to make decisions on
these issues.
If you have questions about the above comments or need clarification, please contact
Susan Philp or James Lindt in the Town Planning Department at 970.927.4701.
Sincerely,
William C. Maron, Chair
Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission
Cc: Basalt Town Council
Tom Smith, Town Attorney
3
David Pesnichak
From: John and Nancy <thorpejet@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 2:04 PM
To: David Pesnichak; dpesnichak@garfield-county.org
Subject: Zoning Change Request
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
This e-mail is regarding the request for a zoning change to the property located at the corner of Hwy 82 and
CR 100.
As long time homeowners at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, we are very much opposed to this request from the
landowner to change the designation from Rural, allowing 6 homes, to High Density (124 homes ) with an
additional change in High Density to allow 300 homes. This area cannot support the amount of density as
proposed - including available water, highway carrying capacity and impact on the already dangerous
Catherine Store intersection.
I would hope that the Garfield Planing and Zoning Commission recognizes the importance of keeping some of
the valley floor more rural in nature, rather than turning it into a highly developed and congested area as is
happening further up -valley in El Jebel. There is a limit in what the valley can handle - let's plan intelligently
for the future.
We will be unable to attend the Zoning Commission meeting on December 13 but hope you make a
considered decision.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Nancy and John Thorpe
38 Stagecoach Circle
Carbondale, CO 81623
970-704-9968
1
David Pesnichak
From: Carolee Murray <zgcarolee@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 2:41 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Keep It Rural -Cerise Zoning Change
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This is a horrible idea. The Rural zoning should not be changed.
EXHIBIT
Lf /
We have lived on 100 Road for 12 years. The amount of traffic and noise increase is appalling especially because of
the transfer station or whatever it's called and it's decrepit garbage trucks, recycling trucks, dump trucks, etc., running
back and forth. Rush hours traffic is non-stop; in fact, traffic is non-stop all day long. There is very little police
monitoring.
We have RFTA buses and dump trucks and garbage trucks running the red light on the intersection of Hwy 82 and 100
Rd/Catherine Store Rd. No further congestion is needed. Each little house will have at least two vehicles...and they WILL
be driving. It's absurd to think they'll do anything else...kids to school, tools to Aspen, to the grocery
store...DRIVING...not shelping 3/4 mile to get on a bus.
We have cyclists galore, Rio Grande Trial users galore, rafters, fisherpeople, dog exercisers, etc, fighting for space with
dump trucks, garbage trucks, fast drivers in all states of mind, to get over the bridge. We don't need anymore.
I am thinking mostly of safety issues. There are many more. The esthetics alone of 300-400 small homes is mind-
boggling. Have you looked by Eagle Crest Nursery?
Keep It Rural.
Regards,
Carolee Murray
David Notor
Blue Creek Ranch
David Pesnichak
From: matt@sculpturedealer.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 3:33 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Zoning Change in eastern Garfield County
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
s
Hi David,
My name is Matt Vickers, and I live at 0168 Cotton Hollow Ln., Carbondale. For the record, my home is
located many miles from the proposed home sites.
I just wanted to voice my concerns over the proposed zoning change along Hwy 82 and County Rd.
100. Recently, the Roaring Fork Valley experienced the very contentious approval (via Eagle County) of
two medium and high density residential projects on the valley floor, in The Fields and the Tree
Farm. The two projects are going to have a tremendous impact on the valley infrastructure that, as yet, is
not entirely understood. It needs to be very clearly noted that the Roaring Fork (hwy 82) corridor is
vastly different than the I-70 corridor, and these continual approvals are going to put incredible pressures
on an already taxed corridor.
The Roaring Fork Valley sits in an odd confluence of three counties. My hope, is that the Garfield County
Board will take into consideration the recent approvals made by the Eagle County Commissioners, and
take pause before approving such dramatic change of zoning, as is being requested. This constricted
valley just can't continue to absorb high density projects. It is important to maintain, not just the
character of the valley in that regard, but also insure the continued mix of zoning for healthy and
sustainable growth.
I hope the Board takes this into account.
Regards,
Matt Vickers
1
David Pesnichak
From: Matthew Hunt <matthew.hunt@huntcompanies.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:06 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Comments for proposed Gatorcap (Ken Arnold) development and proposed zoning and
FLUM amendments
EXHIBIT
N
3
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Pesnichak,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed zoning amendment to Residential High Density and subsequent FLUM
amendment and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment for the proposed Gatorcap (Ken Arnold) housing development
on Tax Parcel # 239131100013. My opposition is based upon the following reasons and unanswered questions:
1. A Residential High Density zoning in addition to a proposed new zoning which would allow up to 300 dwelling
units is completely out of character with the neighboring properties and rural setting of this area. There are no
properties within the surrounding area that get even close to this density.
2. Many property owners in this area, including myself, purchased property in part because of the rural character
of this area. This will not only have a great impact on our neighborhood setting, but our property values as well.
3. There will be a great impact on traffic and pedestrian safety in an already busy intersection. To suppose that
this would not impact traffic by relocating commuting workers from down valley is completely hypothetical.
would hope that an independent traffic impact analysis is required for a proposed development of this size. A
conclusion that there will not be traffic impacts should not be based on hypotheticals.
4. The use of the nearby RFTA park and ride as a benefit to promote this type of development is unfounded and
not thought out. How will residents access the bus stop? Will they walk along the busy highway to the
stoplight? Do they have an easement through the neighboring property to avoid walking along the
highway? Will they build a pedestrian underpass and walk along the southern frontage road to access the park
and ride? The park and ride may be nearby, but how would you access it without compromising pedestrian
safety and impacting vehicular traffic?
5. How will the property be accessed by vehicle without impacting traffic? Will a right turning lane be
added? How will vehicles access the highway if they need to go towards Aspen? Will they have to do a u -turn at
the light? Will there be a turnaround on the Catherine store road? Are there easements in place with
neighboring property owners?
6. A development of this size will place a large burden on infrastructure and resources. Is there enough
groundwater to support 300 dwelling units? What are their plans for sewage? Is there enough capacity for the
fire and police departments to take this on? Is there enough capacity in our schools for their children?
I hope you take my initial comments and questions into context as you review their application.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Hunt
1
Home owner and resident of Blue Creek Ranch
A : Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
This e-mail, including all information contained therein and any attachments, is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not an intended recipient, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you have received this
email in error. In such event, please immediately (i) notify the sender by reply email, (ii) do not review, copy, save, forward or print this email or any of its
attachments, and (iii) delete and/or destroy this email and its attachments and all copies thereof. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, any e-mail sent in error, including all information contained therein and any attachments, by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. Please visit our website at www.huntcompanies.com for important information about our privacy policies. For your protection,
please do not transmit account information or instructions by e-mail or include account numbers, Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, passwords or
other personal information.
2
David Pesnichak
EXHIBIT
Yci
From: Barbara Clarke <mtnbclarke@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:11 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Please, please—no 300 tiny homes (with the accompanying 400 cars)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
I live in Missouri Heights and have for 26 years. I drive 100 road just about every day. It's already bad at the intersection
of Highway 82 at Catherine Store, and I cannot imagine how that one field can successfully sustain 300 tiny homes, nor
the 400-500 vehicles that will have to be around those tiny homes.
There are people and things that must accumulate to make the cost of those 300 tiny homes pay the ambitious
developer. It's just unthinkable.
Please, please do not allow this obscenity to occur.
Thank you,
Barbara Clarke
970 618-5791
Missouri Heights
1
David Pesnichak
From: Sylvia Wendrow <sdw,jds@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:34 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: letters@postindependent.com
Subject: Housing Develpment at Catherine Store
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Pesnichak:
EXHIBIT
`1r S
Although the develper'$ plan$ for the hou$ing development at Catherine Store $ound all the right note$ --compact
and efficient homes with smaller foot prints, proximity to bus routes which would reduce traffic on Highway 82, etc-- the
reality is this: even if you could convince most or all of the residents of 124-400 homes to ride RFTA, the park 'n' ride lot
at Catherine Store is almost always at capacity already. It has also been reported that Highway 82 --the only real way at
this time for vehicular traffic to navigate up and down the Roaring Fork valley-- is already at capacity much of the time.
This does make me wonder if the members of the various planning commissions in Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield county have
found a way to repeal the laws of physics and have discovered how to put an infinite number of residents and vehicles
into the finite amount of space and natural resources available here. Perhaps the Aspen Center for Physics should be
contacting you.
Sylvia Wendrow
Garfield County Resident
1
David Pesnichak
From: Stephanie <Stephanie@aspensnowmassliving.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:44 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Tiny house development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
David,
EXHIBIT
cl
I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that I am a against the tiny home development located on the 41
acres Cerise property across from TCI Lane Ranch and down Highway 82 from the Catherine Store Road. As a
Blue Creek Ranch resident, I cannot support this development for many reasons.
1. Access onto the Highway would be a huge issue. I am sure you are aware, there is no frontage road on this
side of the hwy and I'm positive the owners on the corner off hwy 100 won't grant them an easement. If we
have developments like this accessing the highway, we will no longer have a highway.
2. It is not compatible with adjacent land use. The proposal was for 300 home on 41 acres, this is
ridiculously. I will leave it at that. TCI would have 42 homes on 100 acres and Blue Creek has 47 homes on
100 acres. Using this scale, this 41 acre property should have 18 home maximum.
3. It would need open space along the highway, to be compatible with the area and the agricultural feel.
4. Anyone who would call the Catherine store a "village " in their proposal is clearly reaching.
Thanks so much for your consideration. I can be reached at 970 948.7219 if you have any questions.
Warm Regards,
Stephanie Lewis
44 Chokecherry Ct
Carbondale, CO 81623
Stephanie Lewis
Aspen Snowmass
Sotheby's International Realty
970.948.7219 cell
Stephanie@AspenSnowmassLiving.com
AspenSnowmassLiving.com
1
David Pesnichak
From: Peter Gilbert <peterlgilbert2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 5:01 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Oscar Cerise zoning change proposal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
EXHIBIT
The proposed zoning change required to allow the construction of 300 houses is a very bad idea.
The intersection of Hwy 82 and CR 100 is already a very dangerous spot with up and down valley traffic that
has caused numerous and serious life threatening accidents. The increased traffic will only exacerbate that
hazardous condition.
The current owner has the right to build six homes on the property. There is no reason to change that.
Sincerely,
Peter Gilbert
4480 County Road 100
1
David Pesnichak
From: Joan Troth <jktroth@rof.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 8:56 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: No zoning change, please
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
EXHIBIT
It 2
Please deny Oscar Cerise's request to change zoning from Rural to High Density. The continual growth in our valley will
soon result in gridlock on Hwy. 82 just like during the bridge detour. One day as we sit on Hwy.
82 without moving, we'll wonder why so much development was approved with no thought for the future
result. Thanks, Joan Troth, GWS
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/urI?u=https-
3A_www.avast.com_antivirus&d=DwIDaQ&c=euGZstcaTDIlvimEN8b7jXrwg0f-v5A_CdpgnVfiiM M&r=K-
i5njfDgI8wkHy9icbHzJoyHlKseSnutogrWwZQ4Bs&m=xPYlyXSzjAJHV01ba5SFsttiDs0aKwO4F9VwmVGtrJ4&s=KqfajaWaW
d s h l u4 j u Dgo b p M -M k7Jj OvZsAQn 75vd 7 a Q&e =
1
David Pesnichak
From: Betty Daniel <bison341@q.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 5:11 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Rezoning to allow high density
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
Small across from Catherine store? NO. JUST NO!
Betty and Michael
1
David Pesnichak
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Wewer Keohane <wewer@wildblue.net>
Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:33 PM
David Pesnichak
Carbondale/Cerise land
FollowUp
Flagged
It is vital to the rural community that the property at
of Catherine Store Road/highway 82 continues to be
one house per 6 acres. Please do not turn our valley
some other dense cityscape. This is not the property
Thank you. Wewer
the northeast corner
rural. No more than
into Los Angeles or
to build densely.
Wewer Keohane,Ph.D.
Creative Arts/Dream Psychology
Artist/Author
Oneirica Art Ranch, Cattle Creek, Colorado
970.945.7929
www.wewera rt.com
What do we live for; if it is not to make life Tess difficult for each other? — George Eliot
Virus -free. www.avg.com
1
EXHIBIT
C)
David Pesnichak
From: dogdazease <dogdazease@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 9:44 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Cerise development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
51D 5
Dear Sir, I think we need to decide what kind of population we want to attract to our valley. If you have been
inside a tiny house, you know that most people would not consider them to be a viable option to settle down in
and raise a family. If we want transient, seasonal workers who have no interest in contributing to a sustainable
community, then they are probably a good solution. Please require some formidable landscaping in this process
so they are at least asthetically a pleasant environment for the residents. We need to be extremely careful in how
or if we develop the few remaining large tracks of land we have. I was born in Aspen and have watched those
big tracks of land wrung out for all the money possible and then we are stuck, forever with sometimes, very
"care less" development. Not everyone can live exactly where they want to be. I drive a fair distance for my
work as a Paramedic and I'm fine with that. I would rather drive a bit more and have those beautiful open spaces
that characterize this area. I took a patient to Denver in the middle of the night last Sunday. What a mess that
city has become. It can happen on any scale. Thank you for your time.
Best, Deborah Hutchinson
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
1
David Pesnichak
From: Doris Faust <doristhefaust@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 12:06 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Tiny houses
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
I don't care what it looks like. Too bad for the whiners! I have labored 37 years in Pitkin county. I live at seasonal
housing in the winter. I am a 65 year old woman and being homeless for 4 months a year due to lack of housing is
getting OLD!!! The police , sheriff, state trooper & forest service officials is relentless now. This will be my 8th summer
coming up on living in my van down by the river (with my college degree) I raised a son in valley solo and he moved
away 3 years ago because there was no housing. I have been on the waiting list at Carbondale senior housing for 6 years
and I am #36 I will be dead before I get year round housing. Sorry Gary Pax, if you don't like the idea of tiny houses.
You know me from Hang Gliding days. Doris Faust
Sent from my iPhone
1
David Pesnichak
From: everett peirce <epeirce7@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 12:54 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Proposed Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
33
David - just to register strong opposition to proposed high density development near Catherine Store. Traffic on 82 is
already a huge problem and adding the additional traffic that this proposal would create would be another step towards
total gridlock.
1
David Pesnichak
From: John Chandler <johnc@flatironsllc.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 1:00 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Potential Development of 41 acres near Catherine Store
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
1 s9
l
I am writing in opposition to the potential development density near the Catherine Store. I have a home on
approximately 1 acre in the Ranch of the Roaring Fork. The potential to have 300 residential homes built on 41 acres
does not seem to be in the best interest of the county, towns or residents of the Roaring Fork Valley. I understand that
people need a place to live but allowing lot sizes of 1/8 acre in our mountain rural area is a bad use of our precious space
and will contribute even more to the congestion we experience on Highway 82. Land is a precious commodity in this
area and that is why owning in the Ranch is a special thing. All of the open space that has been set aside for recreation is
a treasure. I would hope that Garfield County would take that into consideration when considering this matter. Thank
you.
John Chandler
Ranch at the Roaring Fork
1
David Pesnichak
From: Jeri Simon Rowars <jerisimon@me.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 5:43 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: 300 Tiny Houses
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
I am horrified that this can even be possible on a rural zone area.
Inappropriate would be a mild way to put it.
Please do not allow this to occur. The concept of tiny houses is good can't an appropriate location be found?? I'm so
tired of the endless creed in our valley.
Jeri Simon
Sent from my iPad
1
David Pesnichak
From: Lawrence and Lisa Singer <Lssinger@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 12:34 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Website inquiry -Community Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
Lawrence and Lisa Singer has sent you a message:
Keep Carbondale/Cerise land at Hwy 82 & CR 100 RURAL
720-220-8400
Dear Dave,
Please do not allow the Rural designation of the land on the north side of Hwy 82 and East of CR 100 to be changed.
This land should remain rural and not have its density designation changed from the current rural character for the
community in this area.
Please notify us of any discussions or projections planned for this area.
Thank you,
Lawrence and Lisa Singer
2621 County Road 100
Carbondale, CO 81623
720-220-8400
1
December 4, 2017
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning Commission
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Future Land Use Map and Text Amendments)
Dear Commissioners:
EXHIBIT
a
8
We are writing in opposition to the Gatorcap applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land
Use Map. We believe high density developments, as proposed, should be kept in the urban areas of the County and are
inappropriate for this parcel. The current Rural zoning of the Cerise property is the appropriate designation for this part
of the Roaring Fork Valley.
It is our understanding that the Town of Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town of Basalt Planning
Commission have recommended to you that this application be denied. We agree with these recommendations.
We thank you for your consideration.
The Board of Directors
Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc.
14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81623
David Pesnichak
From: Peggy Klein <peggy.klein2005@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 12:35 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Flag Status: Flagged
EXHIBIT
Hello David I am adding my voice to what will be a controversial move on Garfield County's eventual
misstep in looking at excessive housing near Catherine's Store on Hwy 82. I just don't get out of state
developers (LLCs) who feel powerful enough to come to our valley and create a mini L.A. Not going to
happen. Just because Cerise owns large tracks of land doesn't mean they should be developed. What do we
have to do to convince Planning and Development employees of how precious and beautiful our corridor in the
Roaring Fork Valley is. Yea....more money in your coffers obviously but the quality of living will be changed
dramatically. Why can't you people see that. Such blindness. Both Eagle and Garfield counties believe they
can get away with overbuilding. And don't get me started on Battlement Mesa for the commissioners to be so
unenlightened regarding what fracking will do to that area is unbelievable. It's all about money when it comes
right down to it. I am finding corruption of government to be a sad commentary as to where we are headed. As
an aside this valley can change in a heart beat. It is a recreational/tourist haven when the worker bees
leave what becomes of this valley. You are overbuilding to accommodate a dream. I am utterly disappointed in
government as we now see it. Peg Klein
1
David Pesnichak
From: Priscilla Kern <pdkern@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 8:17 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Gatorcap Applications
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
EXHIBIT
As a homeowner at 0470 Stagecoach Lane in Carbondale, I am writing to express my opposition to the
Gatorcap applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. I agree with the
reasons put forth by the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc. Board of Directors in their letter
to you dated December 4, 2017 and respectfully request that this application be denied.
Thank you for your consideration,
Priscilla Densmore Kern
Priscilla Densmore Kern
617-281-3448
1
Date:
RE:
Jurisdiction:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Owner/Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Dwelling Units:
Lot Size:
a
EXHIBIT
RATA
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
11/21/17
RFTA Referral Comments
Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan Text and FLUM Amendments Application
Cerise Ranch, SH 82/CR 100
Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise, Main Ranch Company LLLP
Ken Arnold of Gatorcap, LLC
https://goo.gl/maps/RkgnfGCfa5E2
Change from 6 ac per DU to > 1/3 acre per DU (desire 300 units)
41 acres, Cerise Ranch Subdivision
Project Summary:
The applicant is considering a residential land lease development on a 41 acre parcel located
north of Highway 82 and east of the County Road 100 intersection (Cerise Ranch). The parcel is
currently zoned Rural. Under the current designation, the property may have a density of 6.83
dwelling units (6 acres per dwelling unit) and have a minimum Lot size of 2 acres. The density
proposal exceeds the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Medium Density
(6-10 acres per dwelling unit). As a result of the anticipated nature of the development and
number of dwelling units (300), the applicant is considering a:
1. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendment
2. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
3. Subsequent PUD for the property (if amendments are approved)
According to the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for Village Center,
"Village Centers are areas where there is a concentration of residential development, and,
commercial development that is intended primarily for the convenience needs of surrounding
residential development." The Compatible Zoning of the Village Center Land Use Designation
includes the Residential Urban (RU) Zone District comprised of Page 1 of 3 high-density urban
residential uses, including multi -family developments. However, the existing Comprehensive
Plan does not have a Land Use Designation that allows for such 'concentration of residential
development' near a Village Center. The Comprehensive Plan is in need of the proposed Plan
Amendment in order to allow future growth which is compatible with the goals and policies of
the Plan.
The highest density Comprehensive Plan designation available is Residential High Density,
which allows densities up to 1/3 of an acre per dwelling unit. Currently, the Residential High
Designation is located across Highway 82. Under this Residential High designation, the property
may have a density of 124 dwelling units on the 41 acres. As this is well shy of the proposed 300
dwelling units, the applicant will also need to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
to create a new Land Use Designation in Chapter 2: Future Land Use. Presumably, this new Land
Use Designation would allow for this type of density on the proposed parcel.
The purpose of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment is to create a new Land Use
Designation in Chapter 2: Future Land Use, as follows:
• Land Use Designation: Residential Village (RV)
• Description: Residential neighborhood with the following attributes; a) located within
mile of a Village Center and transit stop location to encourage walkability and bike
ability to the supporting commercial / transit facility, b) has internal walk and bike
facilities as well as be connected by such infrastructure to supporting commercial /
transit facilities, c) utilizes clustering to maximize open space, parks and trails, d) is
within a centralized, special district water and sewer service area, and e) with little geo-
hazard risks. Density within the designated range to be determined by amount of
clustering, degree of alternative transportation access, and public benefit.
• Compatible Zoning: Residential Urban (RU), Planned Unit Development (PUD)
• Density: 5-10 du per acre
RFTA Transit & Trail Comments
RFTA's role as a referral agent is to provide comments on how a proposed project may impact
the existing and future transit system and the Rio Grande Railroad Corridor/Rio Grande Trail
(RGT). The proximity to bus stops/stations and trails are qualifications for the existing Village
Center land use designation in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the
proposed new land use designation of Residential Village (RV). The FLUM amendment
application states "this proposed FLUM amendment would position affordable housing as dose
as possible to the jobs in the upper Roaring Fork Valley, within walking distance to the
Easternmost bus stop in the county (Catherine Store local stops and park -n -ride), reducing the
commute times and increasing the diversity of employment and long-term stability of the
county economy."
The Catherine Store bus stop is a local stop, served at roughly 30 -minute intervals by buses that
may make up to 57 stops along the SH82 corridor. RFTA does not have the capacity or the
ability to serve every new development with the appropriate level of service and amenities. In
unincorporated areas, especially those outside of RFTA's jurisdictional boundaries, it will be
incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that transit infrastructure and service levels will be in
place, Tong -term, to serve this community. Transit oriented developments would be better
served at the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations located within existing urbanized areas, where
there is a combination of local and express transit services and existing commercial services,
schools, and other amenities in place. Transit service investments are more likely to be
prioritized within these existing, developed areas, particularly within RFTA's member
jurisdictions.
Another concern is the at -grade crossing of SH82. This project will likely increase the incidence
of bicyclists and pedestrians crossing SH82, at grade, along a stretch of SH82 with a high design
speed. The existing at -grade pedestrian crossing is located at a signalized intersection. In
Summer 2016, the Catherine Store upvalley and downvalley stops had a combined average of
35 daily boardings and alightings. Last winter, average daily boardings and alightings totaled 26.
While signalized intersections are safer for pedestrians than unsignalized, the additional transit
demand for the Catherine Store bus stops could create more potential conflicts with bicyclists
and pedestrians crossing SH82 at grade. Grade separation of SH82 for bicyclists and pedestrians
is recommended. In addition, the project should incorporate safe bicycle and pedestrian paths
between the development and the SH82 crossing.
Thank you for allowing RFTA to submit referral comments on projects with regional
significance. Please feel free to contact us with additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
David Johnson
RFTA Planning Director
970-384-4979
djohnson@rfta.com
Jason White
RFTA Assistant Planner
970-384-4968
jwhite@rfta.com
David Pesnichak
From: Marcee Hobbs <marceehobbs@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 10:00 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Catherine Store
Hello David,
EXHIBIT
I am writing to request you deny the application to rezone the field on highway 82 and CR 100 from Rural to
High Density. There are multiple reasons why I am adamantly urging you to deny this rezoning application.
The main reason is to not change zoning from Rural to "High Density".
I was born and raised in Colorado. We have lived in Garfield County for over 30 years. The Carbondale area is
a beautiful rural and agricultural area. I want to thank Garfield County for spending "significant time and
resources in developing and adopting" the Comprehension Plan and Land Use Code. This has preserved
much of the rural and agricultural beauty of the area. So, adding 100 to 400 TINY houses and changing the
Rural to High Density zoning not only sets precedent for future rezoning, but will negatively impact our
county.
My family built our house 28 years ago on CR 112, a few miles up from 82 and CR 103. We witnessed the
Cerise family selling their property on the corner of 82 and 103 to the "gravel pit". After this was allowed by
the County Commissioners, with tremendous disapproval from our community, the road and area is now
inundated with cement trucks, dump trucks, noise and air pollution. I understand this was a commercial zoning
issue and different than the Catherine Store issue, but the quality of life of our community has been negatively
affected.
Ken Arnold, the potential developer states that in addition to the Catherine Store area being an "ideal location
for an outdoor lifestyle community that is walking distance from a bus line" he also stated "more people will
move in from Rifle area to work in Aspen than out of the county". How can Arnold guarantee this and I
question how 400 more houses would not impact our roads. Prove to me that his planning will be a
"collaborative process with the county, staff, and stakeholders to come up with a project that benefits the
community." I only see another "gravel pit" community on hwy 82.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We will see you at the Planning meeting December 13.
Sincerely,
Marcee Hobbs
1
David Pesnichak
From: Tim Hobbs <th@hmcpa.net>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 10:46 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: FW: Oppose Hwy 82 & CR 100 change
From: Tim Hobbs [mailto:th@hmcpa.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 10:21 AM
To: 'dpesnichak@garfieldcounty.com' <dpesnichak@garfieldcounty.com>
Subject: FW: Oppose Hwy 82 & CR 100 change
From: Tim Hobbs [mailto:th@hmcpa.net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:11 AM
To: 'dpesnichak@garfield_county.com' <dpesnichak@garfield county.com>
Subject: Oppose Hwy 82 & CR 100 change
EXHIBIT
David Pesnichak: re: Rural zoning at Hwy 82 & CR 100, Cerise Property. My name is Tim Hobbs, I live at 769 County Rd
112, about 1.5 miles from Hwy 82 & CR 100. I oppose any change in zoning from rural to high density. The change is
not in character with the existing zone. The negative impacts outweigh any perceived affordable housing. The mid
valley is rural. Please don't allow dense growth to ruin its character. The master plan does not allow for high
density. The residents of the Mid Valley have invested in this plan. It is wrong to change direction after so many have
followed the path the county has adopted. Tim Hobbs
1
David Pesnichak
From: Lindsay Krol
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 4:01 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: FW: [FWD: Apposition to Cerise' ranch subdivision]
From: jpg@huntercreekgroup.com [mailto:jpg@huntercreekgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:47 PM
To: Lindsay Krol <Ikrol@garfield-county.com>
Subject: [FWD: Apposition to Cerise' ranch subdivision]
Thanks so much for your help! If u can please forward this letter the proper person. Warm Regards joe
Gebhardt
Original Message
Subject: Apposition to Cerise' ranch subdivision
From: <jpghuntercreekgrouo.com>
Date: Fri, December 01, 2017 5:35 am
To: Colorado@huntercreekgrouo.com
Cc: "Joseph P Gebhardt" <jpg(ahuntercreekgroup.com>
Joseph Gebhardt
14927 Bonaire ct
Fort Myers FL 33908
970-456-5477
To whom this may concern. My name is Joseph Gebhardt and I own the Roaring Fork Ranch
the 80 acres that boarder the east side of the Cerise's property located in Garfeild county. We
understand that comments are being welcomed on the further use of the property and how it
might alter the potential use of our land. First off my company ownes the road that services my
property and 6 homes off Hwy 82. The Cerise's have no easmant to use my road and signs have
been posted in this respect and phone called have been made to Tony Cerise has been notified on
mail and by phone messages on more than one occasion! I will not give them access to there
property through my property! Also and large scale development would be a henderance to one
safety while pulling out onto Hwy 82 not to mention the traffic problems this would cause!One
huge concern is our water quality as well! I grew up in the valley and after selling our businesses
a few years back bought our slice of paradise and would like to keep it that way! Now a
Miami devoper who has no ties to the valley besides spending a winter in Aspen back in the early
80s wants to come to town and devopiope our beautiful country side into 200 to 400 1500 sq ft
homes! Leave Garfeild beauty alone!
Sencerly Joseph Gebhardt Roaring Fork Ranch
David Pesnichak
From: Steev Wilson <swilson@forumphi.com>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:49 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Planning Commission - Letter of Support
EXHIBIT
6/
TO: David Pesnichak, Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development Department
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of Garfield County in support of the proposed amendment to the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan to allow for a Residential Village land use, of 5-10 dwelling units per acre, on the 41 acres East of
Catherine Store Road.
As an employer of more than 30 people with families in the area, I think allowing for denser zoning along our existing
infrastructure is the best way to allow for attainable workforce housing without relying on our already taxed subsidized housing
system. People want to feel like they can make their own way without a handout, and zoning to allow for density, creating more
smaller homes would be a great way to support our middle-class families.
The location is across the street from an existing bus stop, on the valley floor, and with good access to water, sewer, and other
utilities making it an ideal location to minimize the ecological impact of our growing need for housing. If the number of homes in
this location were reduced, it would cause development to spread to more rural lands, further from the highway, which would, in
turn, increase the impact on habitat areas, and lengthen the required drive times just to get to public transportation.
Consolidating development to areas along our transportation corridors with access to public transportation is exactly what the
LEED Neighborhood Development standards would suggest we do.
I know building a community, rather than a few isolated homes in this area would be desirable to the folks in my office looking to
put down roots in our valley. Too often it seems like the local zoning is doing its best to push our families out of our valley, and
this project is a great way to show them we want them to stay, raise their children, and belong to our community. I urge you to
allow the zoning requested for this parcel, it will be good for our environment, our businesses, and our community.
Thank you,
Steev Wilson, AIA
Partner
x
Architecture 1 Interiors 1 Planning
I p. 970.279.41091f. 866.770.5585
Aspen: 715 W. Main Street, #204 Aspen, CO 81611
Basalt: 104 Midland Ave, #202 Basalt, CO 81621
Outside Magazine 12017 + 2016 #1 Best Place to work
CH&L 1 2017 The Fabulous List
AIA Colorado 1 2017 Young Architect of the Year
CH&L 1 2017 FiveUnderForty
PSMJ 1 2017 Circle of Excellence Award
Aspen Chamber 1 2016 Business of the Year
1
David Pesnichak
From: Sheryl Bower
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:09 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: FW: Website inquiry - BOCC
Sheryl L. Bower, AICP
Garfield County
Community Development Director
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO
81601
(970)945-1377
Original Message
From: Tom Jankovsky
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Sheryl Bower <sbower@garfield-county.com>
Subject: FW: Website inquiry - BOCC
Original Message
From: Jo -Anne Ahrens [mailto:jbwalker@sopris.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 1:12 PM
To: Tom Jankovsky
Subject: Website inquiry - BOCC
EXHIBIT 1
Jo -Anne Ahrens has sent you a message:
Proposed land use designation change near Catherine Store
970-379-3100
Dear Tom, I am writing to oppose this "shoot for the moon" request for a land use designation change at the parcel near
Catherine Store. It's far too dense and out of context with the area. I would consider support of a multi -unit dwelling
instead of a single family home, built with the current rural zoning of at least six acres per "home", along with the
financial commitment from the developer to fully pay for the planning of and improvements to the Hwy. 82 and County
100 Road intersections, construction of better RFTA bus stops on both sides of Hwy. 82 , and construction of an
underpass at this intersection for safety. Thank you for listening, Tom.
1
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P() Box .3811
229 Midland Ave.
Basalt, CO 81621
December 13, 2017
Garfield County Planning Commission
108 8th, Ste. 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1e1. 970-718-2044
Cell. 970-379-7101
tonl R tfssmithiaw. com
Re: Gatorcap Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Future Land Use Map and Text
Amendments)
Dear Commissioners:
This additional letter is submitted to you on behalf of the Lion's Ridge HOA in opposition to the above -
referenced application. This letter specifically addresses the Standards for Approval identified in the
Comprehensive Plan for review and approval of Plan Amendments.
The applicant has submitted two applications. One is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a
new land use designation, identified as Residential Village (RV). The second is for an amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Maps (FLUM) to assign the proposed RV designation to the subject
property, owned by Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company, L.L.L.P. Staff has identified
standards/review criteria 1, 2, and 8 as applicable to the proposed Text Amendment, and all 9 of the
standards/review criteria as applicable to the FLUM Amendment. This letter follows that analysis.
A. TEXT AMENDMENT
1. NEED FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The applicant states that the creation of a new RV
designation is necessary to "allow future growth" and allow a "range of housing types, costs, and
tenancy options." However, the applicant does not offer any information to justify a conclusion that
existing land use designations do not allow future growth and a range of housing types. The applicant
simply makes conclusory statements without support for them.
The staff report does the applicant's work for him. It provides a description of each Land Use
Designation for comparison. However, we disagree with the staff conclusion that "none of the existing
designations allow for solely higher density residential development that is proximate to some degree of
services and transit. " Medium High Density Residential and High Density Residential zoning, both
present in the immediate area, allow for higher density residential development whether or not it is
proximate to services and transit. Numerous properties in the area surrounding the applicant's property
have such zoning, including Ranch at Roaring Fork, Aspen Equestrian Estates, Blue Creek, and TCI Lane
Ranch. In addition, the Village Center Land Use Designation is available for areas where there is mixed
use development at higher densities. We disagree with staff's statement that Village Center is not a
specific Land Use Designation but rather a description. Page 31 of the Plan identifies it as a Land Use
1
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Designation. There is no explanation for the insufficiency of these designations except that the
applicant wants more density. That does not justify the conclusion that a Plan Amendment is necessary.
We also disagree with staff's statement that "While the Residential High Density Designation
does allow for a higher residential density, it is understood that this density is not high enough to
accommodate the Applicant's plans and offset the cost of central water and sewer connections" It is not
the purpose of the Plan to accommodate the applicant's plans or the plans of any other single property
owner. It is also not "understood" that the Residential High Density Designation is not high enough to
cover basic services. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this broad conclusion.
In summary, we see no need for the proposed Text Amendment except to accommodate this
applicant's desire for a high density project beyond anything contemplated by the Plan.
2. STRICT ADHERENCE TO PLAN. The applicant contends that strict adherence to the Plan
discourages the development of a range of housing types. This is incorrect. The Plan itself permits a full
range of housing types, and the applicant can seek rezoning to a category that permits a range of
housing types, including affordable housing. It should be clear that the applicant simply wants very high
density and somehow believes this is self-justifying.
We do not agree with staff's statement, "that when considering all of the goals..., "etc., "the
proposal appears to be predominately neutral." It may be fair to conclude that providing affordable
housing and proximity to the RFTA bus line are positive considerations, but there are numerous goals
that are not met by this proposal. The goals of the Plan are violated in the following ways:
• loss of agricultural lands;
• loss of rural character;
• requiring urban services in a rural area;
• uncoordinated growth (municipal opposition);
• incompatible with surrounding density;
• outside UGA's;
• not near employment centers; and
• major impact on County roads.
With respect to housing, the Plan identifies a strategy for housing that encourages development
within Urban Growth Areas that can best provide affordable living (p.42).
In summary, this proposal should not deemed neutral when considering the Plan as a whole.
8. PUBLIC BENEFITS. We take issue with the staff comment that where goals or policies of the
Plan are in conflict they should be weighed against one another. This suggests that it may be
appropriate to "cherry pick" a policy or goal as outweighing others in order to justify approval. The first
consideration, which is the case with any legal document, should be to read and apply the goals so that
they are consistent with one another. So, for example, the Plan encourages workforce housing and it
encourages urban development within UGA's. These policies are not inconsistent. The Plan should be
read to support work force housing within UGA's where municipal services and other facilities are
2
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
available. It is not necessary to disregard the repeated statements in the Plan that urban levels of
development should occur with URA's in order to support the need to address workforce housing.
The applicant identifies transportation as a public benefit, but being near a bus stop falls far
short of addressing everything involved in transportation, including increased traffic, impact on County
roads, impacts on Highway 82, and increased demands on RFTA. The applicant also states that
economics and employment are public benefits, but there is no information submitted to support these
claims.
B. FLUM AMENDMENT
1. NEED FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The applicant's claim that designating this property as
a Residential Village would place affordable housing near jobs in the upper Roaring Fork Valley is
patently false. Workers housed at this property would be long-range commuters. Nor is there a mix of
uses in the surrounding area to justify a conclusion that it is within an employment center and dose to
jobs. Again, we take issue with staff's statement, that "it is understood that the Residential High (RH)
designation does not provide enough density to offset the costs of high land and development costs."
This is a broad statement with significant implications that should not be accepted as simply
"understood" in the absence of evidence to support it. We also do not understand why Catherine's
Store is considered a Village Center. It is a single convenience store and liquor store. The Plan describes
a "Village Center" as including a concentration of commercial development. One store is not a
concentration of commercial development. Nor is there a mix of uses (educational, institutional and
civic) to support identifying Catherine's Store as a Village Center.
2. STRICT ADHERENCE TO PLAN. We incorporate here our comments in A.2 above.
3. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREA. On this issue, the applicant does not even
mention the residential uses which wholly dominate the development pattern in the surrounding area.
While we agree with some of the points made by staff on other issues, we are frankly amazed at the
staff position that the requested designation would be "overall neutral" in terms of neighborhood
compatibility. There is no level of development even remotely similar to the applicant's proposal in this
area. Any supposed need for change in this area is not what this criterion is all about, but that is how
the applicant and staff have addressed it. We see no way to conclude that designating a Residential
Village with a proposed potential density of 10 units per acre can be deemed compatible with numerous
developments in the surrounding area at Medium High Density (1 unit per 6-10 acres) or High Density (3
units per acre to 1 unit per 2 acres). The requested designation includes the word "Village." It should be
clear that the applicant wants to create a village where one does not exist. We do not view that as
compatible with the surrounding area.
4. and 5. MAJOR NEGATIVE IMPACTS/SERVICES. The applicant does not address these issues.
The staff report identifies access to Hwy 82 and RFTA, but also recognizes that both of these would be
significantly impacted by the applicant's proposal for about 300 homes. There are other impacts that
are not addressed but which should be considered when urban levels of development are proposed
outside a UGA. These include roads, police, emergency services and schools. This proposal would have
major negative impacts on these services.
3
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
6. LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT. Please refer to our comments in A.1 and B.3 above.
We are surprised that on this issue the staff report does not refer to the many references in the
Comp Plan to encouraging high density development in UGA's, and the policy of coordinating planning
with municipalities, both of which are violated by this proposal. We do not think that locating 300 units
on 41 acres between Carbondale and Basalt constitutes logical and orderly development.
7. CHANGE IN AREA. On this issue, the staff report refers accurately to the residential
development in the area and states that this area has not changed in many years. The Valley -wide need
for affordable housing is not a change in the area.
8. PUBLIC BENEFIT/COMPLIANCE WITH COMP PLAN. Our position on these issues is adequately
addressed above.
We conclude by recognizing that there is a need for work force housing in Garfield County and
the Roaring Fork Valley, but that need does not justify poor planning, and it does not justify ignoring
many other goals and policies of the Comp Plan. High density affordable housing belongs inside Urban
Growth Areas for the many reasons stated in the Plan. Municipalities in the Roaring Fork Valley are not
ignoring this need. For example, new affordable housing projects are being built in Basalt at Willits
Town Center, Southside Basalt, Roaring Fork Apartments in Basalt, and at the Roaring Fork Club. These
projects are within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. These are the types of places where high
density development belongs, close to municipal services, jobs, shopping, and the other needs of the
Valley's residents.
We urge you to "stick with the Plan" and deny these applications.
Very Truly Yours,
1044714 _
Thomas Fenton Smith
4