HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 12.13.2017Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment — Residential Village Applicant is Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company LLLP December 13, 2017 (File CPAA-09-17-8583) Exhibit Number Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Information 2 Proof of Publication 3 Mailing Receipts from Mailed Notice Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 4 5 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 6 Application 7 Staff Report 8 Referral Comments from Rio Blanco County (dated November 7, 2017) 9 Referral Comments from the Town of Parachute (dated November 8, 2017) 10 Referral Comments from Mesa County (dated November 9, 2017) 11 Referral Comments from Carbondale Fire Protection District (dated November 10, 2017) 12 Email from Anne Pratt (dated November 28, 2017) 13 Email from Peter LaMorte (dated November 29, 2017) 14 Referral Comments from the Town of Carbondale (dated November 29, 2017) _ 15 Email from Phyllis Martin (dated November 29, 2017) 16 Email from Ron DePugh (dated November 30, 2017) 17 Email from Jackie Daly (dated November 30, 2017) 18 Email from Ron Goth (dated November 30, 2017) 19 Email from Jim Barnett (dated November 30, 2017) 20 Email from Felicia Young (dated November 30, 2017) 21 Email from Jerome Dayton (dated December 1, 2017) 22 Email from Gordon Sichel (dated November 30, 2017) 23 Letter from Zancanella and Associates (dated November 29, 2017) 24 Email from Patricia Helling (dated December 1, 2017) 25 Email from William Rinaldi (dated December 1, 2017) 26 Email from Robert Davis (dated December 1, 2017) 27 Email from Scott Brown (dated December 1, 2017) 28 Referral Comments from Pitkin County (dated December 1, 2017) 29 Email from Peggy Ball (dated December 1, 2017) 30 Email from Michael Lafferty (dated December 1, 2017) 31 Email from Jess Bates (dated December 1, 2017) 32 Email from Gerald Alpern (dated December 1, 2017) 33 Email from Jim Elliott (dated December 1, 2017) 34 Email from Lions Ridge HOA (dated December 1, 2017) 35 Email from Chris Heaphey (dated December 1, 2017) 36 Email from Gary Pax (dated December 1, 2017) 37 Referral Comments from the Town of Basalt (dated December 1, 2017) 38 Email from John and Nancy Thorpe (dated December 1, 2017) 39 Email from Carolee Murray (dated December 1, 2017) 40 Email from Matt Vickers (dated December 1, 2017) 41 Email from Matthew Hunt (dated December 1, 2017) 42 Email from Barbara Clarke (dated December 1, 2017) 43 Email from Sylvia Wendow (dated December 1, 2017) 44 Email from Stephanie Lewis (dated December 1, 2017) 45 Email from Peter Gilbert (dated December 1, 2017) 46 Email from Joan Troth (dated December 2, 2017) 47 Email from Betty and Michael Daniel (dated December 3, 2017) 48 Email from Wewer Keohane (dated December 3, 2017) 49 Email from Deborah Hutchinson (dated December 4, 2017) 50 Email from Doris Faust (dated December 4, 2017) 51 Email from Everett Peirce (dated December 4, 2017) 52 Email from John Chandler (dated December 4, 2017) 53 Email from Jeri Simon Rowars (dated December 4, 2017) 54 Email from Lawrence and Lisa Singer (dated December 5, 2017) 55 Letter from the Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA (dated December 4, 2017) 56 Email from Peg Klein (dated December 6, 2017) 11 1 Pt i' - f'cM A r".77/4 (cA r! "-Val • ? / , 7 c• l it) sI j �4i 1 •P,_,.....1.1` .e tee ntAsh< 6.4l -e -f 'e., 11r ?ol ) 40 G...,..,•1 (it., '7- -i 11-4,Lj (eriirc/ -D6-, 111 re, 17) to 1 (-ft - /1, ? ('1 7) 0",„,r 1 {oC�� . �r-ulep t., a '.� L 0,1, d 4b1 7 [ eJtint�1 'S rc'`i .5irtv L4.Li V) 644P .PC, III ZOci1I l( 6 .4 em, ,'1 f'rc✓7 1--1)-4/74/.- 44i(-nj (eAFid )Pc. i?1 70r) G If Le#lir A -,m a- Ain, ' 2, (0-t4*ed -. 13, ear 7-) Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Text) — create Residential Village (RV) designation Oscar Cerise and Wilma Cerise Main Ranch Company LLLP Ken Arnold I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Applicant has submitted an application requesting to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. This application proposes to create a new Land Use Designation in Chapter 2: Future Land Uses. The purpose of the new designation is to create locations within proximity of a currently designated Village Center and transit services for higher density residential development. Specifically, the Applicant has proposed the following description of the new district. • 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 bikeability to the supporting commercial / transit facility, b) has intemal 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 geohazard 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 • Example: 11 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 Should the Planning Commission move to approve the requested creation of the RV designation, below is the Staff recommended amendments. These are proposed to help the new designation meet the visions, goals, policies, strategies and actions of the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. These amendments are further explained and outlined below in the subsequent sections. The Planning Commission has the ability to approve with Staff recommendations, approve with amendments to the Staff recommendations, approve as proposed by the Applicant, or deny the application. • 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 waikability and bikeability to the supporting commercial/transit facility, b) has intemal 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--, t) 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. .. range to be determined -by -amount of clustering, dogroo of alternative transportation accoss. and-pub/ls- efit. • 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: 21P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The process and standards required for amending the Comprehensive Plan of 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 AND PUBLIC 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. 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: No response received. Indicated that the County has no comment. (See Exhibit 10) 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 28) Indicated that the County has no comment. (See Exhibit 8) 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 37) 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 3 I P a g e Town of DeBeque: Town of New Castle: Town of Parachute: Town of Silt: Town of Carbonate: Carbondale Fire Prot. Dist.: Public Comments Anne Pratt: Peter LaMorte: Phyllis Martin: Ron DePugh: Jackie Daly: Ron Goth: James Barnett: Felicia Young: Jerome Dayton: Gordon Sichel: Zancanella and Assoc: Patricia Helling: William Rinaldi: Robert Davis: Scott Brown: Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 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 9) No response received. No response received. Indicated that the District has no comment. (See Exhibit 11) Indicated concerns with change in character of neighborhood, impacts to water supply, impacts to wildlife, vehicle impacts, and noise / light impacts. (See Exhibit 12) Indicated concerns with density, development expectations, vehicle traffic, water quality, type of development, and proximity to services. (See Exhibit 13) Indicated concerns with density, vehicle traffic, and water quality. (See Exhibit 15) Indicated concerns with compatibility, vehicle traffic, and property values (See Exhibit 16) Indicated concerns with vehicle traffic, and water quality. (See Exhibit 17) Indicated concerns with vehicle traffic, and water quality. (See Exhibit 18) Indicated concerns with density, compatibility, provisions for services, location of workforce (affordable) housing, impacts on habitat, water quality and quantity. (See Exhibit 19) Indicated concerns with vehicle traffic and infrastructure. (See Exhibit 20) Indicated concerns with compatibility, and growth. (See Exhibit 21) Indicated concerns with compatibility, vehicle traffic, water quality, wildlife, and precedence. (See Exhibit 22) Provided letter on behalf of Lionsridge HOA outlining possible impacts of development on Lionsridge water well. (See Exhibit 23) Indicated support for affordable housing with concerns with outdoor storage, excessive vehicles, and owner occupancy. (See Exhibit 24) Indicated concerns with wildlife, development expectations, and compatibility. (See Exhibit 25) Indicated concerns with County public notice standards, and general objection. (See Exhibit 26) Indicated concerns with development of a mobile home park, distance from services, and compatibility. (See Exhibit 27) Peggy Ball: Michael Lafferty: Jess Bates: 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: Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 Indicated concerns related to vehicular traffic, impact on schools, and compatibility. (See Exhibit 29) Indicated concerns related to the quality of services available, compatibility, and vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 30) Indicated support for high density development so long as services are provided and it does not impact vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 31) Indicated concerns with density, vehicular traffic, visual impacts, and wildlife impacts. (See Exhibit 32) Indicated concerns with development in valley, and vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 33) 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 34) Indicated concerns with density, scope, and tiny homes. (See Exhibit 35) Indicated concerns with water quality. (See Exhibit 36) Indicated concerns with density, water availability, vehicular traffic, and compatibility. (See Exhibit 38) Indicated concerns with vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic, and visual impacts. (See Exhibit 39) Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic, continuation of development approvals in Roaring Fork Valley. (See Exhibit 40) Indicated concerns with compatibility, expectations of continued rural character, vehicular traffic, impacts on RFTA service, access, water availability, fire / police / school impacts. (See Exhibit 41) Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 42) Indicated concerns with impacts to RFTA infrastructure, and vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 43) Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic, compatibility, and maintaining agricultural feel. (See Exhibit 44) Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 45) Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 46) Indicated opposition. (See Exhibit 47) Indicated concerns with density and compatibility. (See Exhibit 48) Indicated concerns with compatibility, loss of open space, type of development, and visual impacts. (See Exhibit 49) Indicated support for the development of workforce housing. (See Exhibit 50) Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic. (See Exhibit 51) Indicated concerns with vehicular traffic, and compatibility. (See Exhibit 52) Indicated concerns with compatibility. (See Exhibit 53) Wage Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 Lawrence and Lisa Singer: Indicated concerns with compatibility, and change of character. (See Exhibit 54) Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA: Indicated concerns with compatibility, and keeping urban density within municipal Urban Growth Boundaries. (See Exhibit 55) Indicated concerns with overdevelopment. (See Exhibit 56) Peg Klein: 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 Plan or meets the following criteria. As the proposed amendment is not to address errors in the Plan, the application is required to meet the review criteria. Looking generally at the Comprehensive Plan, below is a chart outlining Staff's opinion of the level of conformance with relevant visions, goals, policies, strategies and actions as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. List, Staff Ranking, and Staff Comment on Comprehensive Plan Visions, Goals, Policies, Strategies and Actions. 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 generally minimal throughout the County and is more readily available within municipal UGAs. 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. Goal 4. Retain rural character outside of UGA limits. 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 As written, the RV designation would require proximity to an existing Village Center designation that includes access to transit and limited commercial. This designation 61P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 a portion of affordable housing. Housing is located near existing infrastructure and amenities so that families can live, work and play in their communities. 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. 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. Policy 4. Encourage providing affordable housing in areas where cost-effective transportation exists (as appropriate to income scale). Policy 5. Encourage provision of affordable housing closer to where jobs are located. 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. 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. 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. 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. Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 Strategy / Action 6. In areas designated or appropriate for Village Centers, allow and encourage subdivision of existing large Tots into smaller lots (with neighborhood input and support). Section 5 - Recreation, Open Space, and Trails 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. 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 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. Wage Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 Roarin Fork Com. Plan Overview ��•„ r'�H•44� SN�H ":�i •i i1:3H� ir' g 'gyp pra -70 :tffiw�M`,a I um, rimwwiiraromiu,Zl ii. imm East Bank— Urban Growth Area — City of Glenwood Springs River Edge / Cattle Creek — High Density Res / Employment Center / Unincorporated Community West Bank / Iron Bridge / Aspen Glen / Coryell Ranch — Medium High Density Residential Ranch at Roaring Fork, Aspen Equestrian Estates, Blue Creek — Medium High Density Residential rir" "111 yi1r. E1.V�5S�il Lr��C ':�ilii : SW TCI Lane Ranch — High Density Residential Wage Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 Locations of Village Center Designations — Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 fr- Sweetwater Town of New Castle City of Glenwood Springs Catherine Store Town of Carbondale 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. 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. b. 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 10 1 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 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. This proposed Plan Amendment helps to accomplish those goals. c. In the Plan Element - Housing, the Policies include; Encourage providing affordable housing in areas where cost-effective transportation exists. This proposed Plan Amendment requires the Land Use be near bus transit. Desi a nation Coma rison Land Use Designation Description Compatible Zoning Density of Residential Uses Residential Village (RV) Proposed Residential neighborhood with the following attributes; a) located within 3/4 mile of a Village Center and transit stop location 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 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. Residential Urban (RU) Planned Unit Development (PUD) 5-10 du per acre 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) 5 du per acre 111 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 As is shown in the above chart, none of the existing designations allow for solely higher density residential development that is proximate to some degree of services and transit. Currently, Mixed Use (MU) requires the incorporation of "parks and trails and school with employment uses and commercial uses intended to serve the surrounding residential areas". As a result, the MU designation is not appropriate for a solely higher density residential development. The Village Center (VC) category, which "is a concentration of residential development and commercial development that is intended primarily for the convenience needs of surrounding residential development", is not a specific property designation, but rather a descriptor of the area. While the Residential High Density Residential 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. As a result, the Applicant has proposed the RV designation to encourage higher densities in areas that have some degree of services, proximity to transit and infrastructure to be able to support the proposed higher densities and within proximity of existing Village Center designations. To this end, it appears that the proposed designation could fill a gap in the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designations. Specifically, the RV designation could help fill the gap between the High Density Residential designation (up to 3 dwelling units per acre) that is not explicitly restricted to areas with urban level services, and areas with urban level services which essentially exist in municipalities or within Urban Growth Areas adjacent to municipalities. 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 Planned Unit Development (PUD Rural (R) Residential Criteria for determining RH density within the Residential 3 du per High allowed range will be specifically determined by Suburban acre to 1 du 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. (RS) Residential Urban (RU) Residential Mobile Home Park (RMHP) per <2 acres Planned Unit Development (PUD) As is shown in the above chart, none of the existing designations allow for solely higher density residential development that is proximate to some degree of services and transit. Currently, Mixed Use (MU) requires the incorporation of "parks and trails and school with employment uses and commercial uses intended to serve the surrounding residential areas". As a result, the MU designation is not appropriate for a solely higher density residential development. The Village Center (VC) category, which "is a concentration of residential development and commercial development that is intended primarily for the convenience needs of surrounding residential development", is not a specific property designation, but rather a descriptor of the area. While the Residential High Density Residential 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. As a result, the Applicant has proposed the RV designation to encourage higher densities in areas that have some degree of services, proximity to transit and infrastructure to be able to support the proposed higher densities and within proximity of existing Village Center designations. To this end, it appears that the proposed designation could fill a gap in the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designations. Specifically, the RV designation could help fill the gap between the High Density Residential designation (up to 3 dwelling units per acre) that is not explicitly restricted to areas with urban level services, and areas with urban level services which essentially exist in municipalities or within Urban Growth Areas adjacent to municipalities. 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 Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 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) Further, based on the proposed language for the designation and the location of existing Village Centers throughout the County (see map above), there are only two Centers that could, as proposed, accommodate the RV designation. These Centers would be the one identified at Apple Tree outside New Castle and the one identified at Catherine Store outside of Carbondale. Please see the Staff Comments section for more discussion on this topic. 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. 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. 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 above chart). Of particular concern is Section 1, Goal 4: "Retain rural character outside of UGA limits." The 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.). Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 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: As a text amendment, this standard is not applicable. 4. The proposed FLUM amendment will have no major negative impacts on transportation, services, and facilities. Staff Comment: As a text amendment, this standard is not applicable. 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: As a text amendment, this standard is not applicable. 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: As a text amendment, this standard is not applicable. 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: As a text amendment, this standard is not applicable. 14 1 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 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. 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, economics and employment. It will allow for the development of affordable, energy efficient, environmentally sensitive, housing near a Village 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 proposed it is Staffs opinion regarding the level of compliance with applicable visions, strategies, actions, goals and objectives within the Comprehensive Plan, it appears that as a whole the proposed designation would be neutral toward overall public welfare. However, Staff has provided some amendments to the proposed language that could help the designation satisfy more of the Plan. Primarily, this amendment could help promote workforce housing development within areas generally accessible to transit, adjacent to an identified Village Center, and with central water and sewer. This said, it is clear that the proposal could promote urban level development in otherwise rural areas as discouraged in Section 1, Goal 4 (see above explanation). Looking again at the chart of visions, strategies, actions, goals and objectives within the Comprehensive Plan, it appears the overall impact is somewhat neutral. As a result, it would appear that the public benefit would 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: As a text amendment, this standard is not applicable. V. STAFF COMMENTS The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 is to create a new land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. 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 agricultural areas as well as potential vehicular traffic increases. 15 1 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 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. Staff would like to note several issues worth considering in relation to this proposed text 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 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. The Planning Commission has several 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) Amend the requested RV designation (See Staff Recommended Amendments), or 2) Approve the designation as proposed, or 3) Deny the request to create the RV designation. 16 1 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 Should the Commission move to approve the requested creation of the RV designation, Staff recommends the following amendments to the request, as explained below. 1. Should this new RV designation be approved as written and as the Comprehensive Plan is currently adopted, it appears that the RV designation could only be applied within two limited areas: around the Village Center designation at Catherine Store (Carbondale), and the Village Center designation around Apple Tree (New Castle). It is worth noting that while Apple Tree is within 3/4 mile from transit stops within the Town of New Castle as the crow flies, these stops are across the Colorado River and are more than 3/ of a mile from Apple Tree as one would walk, bike, or drive. Staff recommends amending the designation description to qualify that the designation needs to be within 3/4 of a mile from both a Village Center designation and a transit stop as one would walk in order to eliminate this ambiguity. This amendment would prevent Apple Tree from designating any areas around this Village Center to RV until a bike/ped and/or vehicle bridge is constructed that connects this area with downtown New Castle that is closer than the current 1-70 crossing or increasing transit service to the Apple Tree area, thereby staying consistent with the intent of the designation. 2. As the proximity of the development to transit services is a key component of the proposed designation, Staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan designation encourage financial and/or other contributions to the transit provider. Such contributions would be defined at the time of development review and would help offset the anticipated impact of the development on the service provider. 3. As no other areas within the County are understood to be eligible for this higher density residential designation with the requirement that the property be within "a centralized, special district water and sewer service area" and are within 3/4 of a mile from a Village Center, Staff recommends that the language be changed to state that the parcel "could feasibly be served by a centralized, special district or municipality water and sewer service area". In addition, Staff recommends that should the property not ultimately be served by central water and sewer service, that the density be capped at 3 dwelling units per acre which the density for Residential High within the Comprehensive Plan. Under this scenario, Staff would require some documentation that demonstrates that the parcel could be served by central water and sewer (e.g. pre -inclusion agreement) at the time of development. At the time of development then, Staff and the PC / BOCC can review whether the development has obtained adequate central water and sewer service and hence make a determination as to whether the density may exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. It is Staffs opinion that requiring a parcel to be officially included in the service boundary of a water and sewer district at the time of FLUM designation may be too onerous, but such demonstration is appropriate at the time of development review (PUD, Subdivision, or Land Use Change Permit). 4. Considering the potential detrimental impact that short term rentals may have on the availability of these units for work force housing, Staff recommends that the description of 17 1 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 the designation be amended to state that the residential neighborhood should be for work force housing and not to be utilized as short term rentals. As a result, Staff recommends the following amendments to the proposed Residential Village designation should the Planning Commission move to approve this text amendment request (as excerpted on Page 2): • 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 intemal 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 geohazarrl risks--, f) 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 terra 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. • 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: 18 1 P a g e Planning Commission December 13, 2017 CPAA-09-17-8583 VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS Staff recommends the following findings based on a motion to approve or deny the request to create an RV designation, as follows: 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. 3. That the proposed text 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 The Planning Commission has several 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) Amend the requested RV designation (See Staff Recommended Amendments), or 2) Approve the designation as proposed, or 3) Deny the request to create the RV designation. Should the Commission move to approve the requested creation of the RV designation, Staff recommends the designation be approved with the aforementioned amendments. In addition, if the Planning Commission moves to approve the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a motion should follow to: 1) Authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution thereby amending the Comprehensive Plan 2030; and, 2) Authorize the Chair to sign the letters certifying the amendment to the BOCC, municipalities and the surrounding counties. 19 1 P a g e EXHIBIT I 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. My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. !/ Mailed notice was completed on the )-/Viday of /f 7/.. 1, I' ,f, 207 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. 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_ ER My application required Published notice. /Notice was published on the day of M" 'ler 20 /7 ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. ❑ My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the day of , 20_. 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: //‹..;7-0-7 71 Signature: Date: ///6-7) / 7 Ad #: 0000142680-01 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. ,f. 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. >Lite Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019 PAMELA J. SC1-tUL7"f NOTARY Pu6LiC. STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 01099403mM MyCovniulcnE, ksika+ret*,r1, PUBLIC NOTI EXHIBIT 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 Text Amendment to create a new land use des- ignation within the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. Description of Request: The Applicant has re- quested to create a new land use designation called Residential Village that may be applied, at the dis- cretion of the Garfield County Planning Commission, to appropriate properties throughout the County. 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. nkJBrowse.aspx?startid=3635318 (File No. CPAA- 09-17-8583). 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 0000142680 Y 02 aon ttmn, • ill 'FE L'riAu ,1 C1511' 112 241 suet • T re I11y E 0 [„NL I4I c• Inti 1 9:lE{lin rani! 11C.C4. 11'1 IN C- Peat.50IYKn TEFIED h1A4i: RECkiP1 J -S Pua+.e5etrlw- CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT o ;.. V.A.! Iird'ACG' CEii'R HL'D MAIL' RECEIPT hrJ FAN, f /PIED MAIL' RECEIPT �{ (:EPI VIED mil:. RECEIPT S V $27[117 US. Polo] Service' CERTIFIED MAIL.' RECEIPT m,..,.. money 7.*±.l•QAf 9P>� I18f, CP f61:•• -.4.1,11.�rw I25 E Center Si -- -' Moab, UT 84532 027017`` --- - --- - If2mRro5!„..� - u,F--'��- -- cPo Comfit • US. kola! $eryjee- CERiIFIEo MAIL RECEIPT P.�w.0 1 —= P .6 MIV 0 i E1lr nT.'•.r•I• vrkfl t Spin. lO LOo1+ ri r- , 4- e" r - t• 1:10V-4.4204 ..lM,n•am.•I.x „[f6 - V. f,i..1•11.4../.. 2- q ja.. .4.Ii., WyY�r-avy. ,ii ii. ood *MO. (0 81101 1 David Pesnichak EXHIBIT 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 mclaaic.godwin( rbc.us On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:20 PM, David Pesnichak<dpesnichak(-7a,garfield-county.cam> 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 i 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 1 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 c�t,garfeld-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 EXHIBIT 0 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, ATCP Lead Senior Planner Mesa County Planning Division On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:16 PM, David Pesnichak <dpesnichak@garfeld-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 Stn St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 dpesnichak@garfield-county.com httpliwi.vw.garfield-county.com/community-development/ i David Pesnichak EXHIBIT 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 P1RE . EMS 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 rj 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. Virus -free. www.avast.com 1 1 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 EXHIBIT 3 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 1 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 Store. 2 November 27, 2017 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8'h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT 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. Chanter 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Pian, 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 > 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 EXHIBIT 1 t& -J 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- 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 1 David Pesnichak 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 EXHIBIT 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 l 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 EXHIBIT g 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; msread21@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 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 (essentially farm 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 currently 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 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) EXHIBIT 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 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 Pian Amendment Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Dear David, EXHIBIT a My name is Gordon Sichel. My family has owned our home at 482 Lions Ridge Road since 1993. I 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 /<\ dolP ZAINC411ELL4 4550a4 TEs, INC. ENGINEEnING CONSULTi1NTS November 29, 2017 David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear David: 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\garrield-county.docx Z:\400's\444 Lions Ridge\GIS\Lions_Ridge_Well_Locations_2.mxd =am IN l — i Legend 0 Well Locations Lions Estates Ridge Subdivision J. Parcels Served by Water System • :r ;t. �.i.•i ---- / / f' ■r i _ ti ,,j .- • Lions Ridge Well No. 2 -Plugged and Abandoned - • r.7 aorii; • ;L 4 CFs*ALT • Lions Ridge Well Locations DATE: Nov. 30, 2017 DRAWN BY: JAW CHKD BY: TAZ APPD BY: TAZ CLIENT: Lions Ridge ZANCANELLA AND ASSOCIA TES,JNC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS POST OFFFICE BOX 1908 - 1011 GRAND AVENUE [1L'-HWODI)SPRIH[:S, COLORADO M6*1I7W]945-570* FIGURE No: PROJECT: 3444 WAR -2G-77, r4„Y TOTS FORM MUST BE SiIBMITTED WITF?IN Gb DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE, ON, TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. COLORADO DV ISIDN OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT PERMIT NUMBER ,_25.74 WELL OWNER Lyons Ridge Estate Homeowner* ojo Dan Keret, 302 8th St., Suite 310 Glenwood Spgs., CO 81601 DATE COMPLETED February 22 WELL LOG ADDRESS From RECE1VED FEB 2 9 1988 whim Rfi ledl 1/4 of the Ng ''h of Sec. 3t T. %r. $ , R. w , PM 19 HOLE DIAMETER To Type and Color of Materiel Water Loc. Q. 26 36 38 26' 36' 39' 52' River Boulders Sand, Gravel, & Boulders Clay Evaporates TOTAL DEPTH 552'__ Use additional pages necessary to complete log. 26' 36' 13 in from 0 in from in from DRILLING METHOD. CASING RECORD: to 52 ft to ft to ft Cabletool Plain Casing Size10 3/4 kind Steel _ from 0 to 26 ft SizelO 3/4 kind feel from 36 to ft Size & kind from to _ ft. Perforated Casing Sized l/k g kind SS Scree.nfrom 26 to 36 ft Size & kind from to _ ft Size & kind from to ft, GROUTING RECORD Material Intervals Placement Method Clement 5 - 20' GRAVEL PACK: Size Interval Gravity TEST DATA Date Tested February 22 , 1988 Static Water Level Prior to Test Type of Test Pump Length of Test 20' ft. Bi�i�t3r: . Sustained Yield (Metered), + GPM • Final Pumping Water Level., y L 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 --Z 4/ 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 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 EXHIBIT 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 aspenfloorcoverinu@ email. 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, 1 EXHIBIT C C�" 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 cr.gmaii.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, 3 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 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 8thStreet, 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 Comprehensive 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 1a9 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 0 DURGIN ELECTRIC 181 N. 12th Street Carbondale, CO 81623 Office: 970.704.9473 pedgy[cid urgineIectric.com 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 Taff@sopris.net 4133 Crystal Springs rd Carbondale, CO 81623 1 EXHIBIT 2 _.-/L___ i 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 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 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 33 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 THOMAS FENTON SMITH AITORNI?Y AT LAW PO lux 3:380 229 Midland Ave. Basalt, CO 81621 December 1, 2017 dpesnichak@garfield-county.com Tel. 970-718-2044 Cell. 970-379-7101 tom@tfsmithlaw.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 Tong -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: Sent: To: Subject: Chris Heaphey <CJHeaphey@hollandhart.com> Friday, December 01, 2017 1:20 PM David Pesnichak Cerise Main Ranch Company/Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density to Residential Village 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 request is outrageous in the scope of the increase in density requested. Also, tiny homes are an unproven housing needs. It is far from certain how the individual homes and their communities will wear over time. development could easily not age well --as is the problem with many trailer parks. It could easily become a public that is not worth the benefits. I request that the Board deny the application. Thank you, Christopher 3. 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 packets. The response to This burden on 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 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 1 December 1, 2017 Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT i 37 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 Pian 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. 1 101 MJDIAND Ave. • BASALT, CO 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 % 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 1 38 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 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 1 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 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 David Pesnichak From: Sent: To: Subject: Matthew Hunt <matthew.hunt@huntcompanies.com> Friday, December 01, 2017 4:06 PM David Pesnichak Comments for proposed Gatorcap (Ken Arnold) development and proposed zoning and FLUM amendments EXHIBIT 7/ 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. I 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 ail 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 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 T__) 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 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 As penSnowmassLivi ng. 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 'I5+ 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 i David Pesnichak From: Joan Troth <jktroth@rof.net> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 8:5G PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: No zoning change, please Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Hello, IEXHIBIT N N 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/url?u=https- 3A_www.avast.com_antivirus&d=DwIDaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwg0f-v5A_CdpgnVfiiM M&r=K- i5njfDgI8wkHy9icbHzJoyHlKseSnutogrWwZQ4Bs&m=xpYlyXSzjAJHV01ba5SFsttiDsOaKwO4F9VwmVGtrJ4&s=KgfajaWaW d sh l u4 j u Dgo b p M -M k7J jOvZsAQn75vd 7aQ&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 EXHIBIT I Lt7 David Pesnichak From: Wewer Keohane <wewer@wildblue.net> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:33 ['M To: David Pesnichak Subject: Carbondale/Cerise land Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged It is vital to the rural community that the property at the northeast corner of Catherine Store Road/highway 82 continues to be rural. No more than one house per 6 acres. Please do not turn our valley into Los Angeles or some other dense cityscape. This is not the property to build densely. Thank you. Wewer Wewer Keohane,Ph.D. Creative Arts/Dream Psychology Artist/Author Oneirica Art Ranch, Cattle Creek, Colorado 970.945.7929 www.wewerart.com What do we live for; if it is not to make life Tess difficult for each other? George Eliot E Virus -free. www.avq.com 1 EXHIBIT I ge 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 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 EXHIBIT 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 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 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 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 sof 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 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 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 I-Iwy 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 i 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 i Date: RE: Jurisdiction: Project Name: Project Address: Owner/Applicant: Representative: Location: Dwelling Units: Lot Size: EXHIBIT 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.glJmaps/RkgnfGCfa5 E2 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 3/4 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 close 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, long-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 [mailta:th@hmcpa.net] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:11 AM To: 'dpesnichak@garfield_county.com' <dpesnichak@garfield countv.com> Subject: Oppose Hwy 82 & CR 100 change EXHIBIT i 6 0 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 <Ikroi@garfield-county.com> Subject: [FWD: Apposition to Cerise' ranch subdivision] 5 EXHI BIT 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: <jpg@7huntercreekgrouv.com> Date: Fri, December 01, 2017 5:35 am To: Coloradocc huntercreekgroup.com Cc: "Joseph P Gebhardt" <jpgahuntercreekgroup.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 devoplope our beautiful country side into 200 to 400 1500 sq ft homes! Leave Garfeild beauty alone! Sencerly Joseph Gebhardt Roaring Fork Ranch 1 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 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 aur existing infrastructure is the best way to allow for attainable workforce housing without relying an 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 Architecture 1 Interiors 1 Planning [iii,.: .::'1 p. 970.279.41091f. 866.770.5585 Aspen: 715W . Main Street, #204 Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt: 104 Midland Ave, #202 Basalt, CO 81621 Outside Magazine 1 2017 + 2016 #1 Best Place to work CH&L 1 2017 The Fabulous List AIA Colorado! 2017 Young Architect of the Year CH&L 1 2017 FiveUnderForty PSMJ 12017 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 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 PC) Box 3380 229 Midland Ave. Basalt, CO 81621 December 13, 2017 Garfield County Planning Commission 108 8', Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 6t/ "Iel. 970-718-2044 Cell. 9970-379-7101 tont 2 tCSn1ithlaW.CO111 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 close 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, Thoma Fenton Smith 4