PUD-01-007
713.33
REZONE 50.243 ACRES FROM RR-3 TO PUD
HAY CREEK RANCH

A request by Hay Creek Ranch L.L.C. for approval of rezoning 50.243 acres from RR-3 (Rural Residential) Zone District to PUD (Planned Unit Development) District. The property is located in the Tri-Lakes area, south of Hay Creek Road and west of Interstate 25 in the Southeast Quarter of Section 33 and the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, both in Township 11 South, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., El Paso County, Colorado. Assessor's Tax Schedule #71000-00-319. Approval includes authorization for the Chairman to sign the Development Plan.

WAIVERS:
1) Waiver of Section 49.2.C.3.2.a pertaining to the reduction of right-of-way width where suitable alternative provisions are made for pedestrian walkways and utilities. A 50-foot right-of-way is proposed where 60 feet are required.
2) Waiver of the requirement requiring a curve radius of 300 feet. A curve radius of 150 feet is proposed.
3) Waiver of the El Paso County Paving Policy.
4) Waiver of the requirement there be no more than 10 lots on a non-through street. (#4 Added at the meeting)

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The request was denied unanimously (7-0) at the March 19, 2002, meeting of the Planning Commission.

SPEAKING FOR: Dan Schneff with Matrix Design Group; Mert Hull; Jamie Hull; Ted Dewing; Brenda Louthan; Tim Sims; Kit Roupe, Base Community Planner with the Air Force Academy; Justin Hotz; Joanna Brown; Gary Gore; Richard DuPont.

SPEAKING AGAINST: Richard Dudding, adjoining neighbor on 30 acres to the west; Roslyn Block, resident one-half mile west; Robert Tocher, 4170 Plateau Drive; Jim Drewry, 4555 Diamondback Drive; Eric Hall, attorney representing the Dellacroce property; Ray Dellacroce, adjoining property owner; Kit Roupe, representing the Air Force Academy; Helen Leman, property owner adjoining the Academy.

Concern/ opposition was expressed regarding the proposed density; desire for strict compliance with the Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan concerning density; impact of higher density on rural character of the area; uncertainty that all lots will be owned by family members; lack of preservation of the ridgeline; visibility of proposed houses; steep slopes on the property; potential fire hazard; access during winter months; impact on water supply; precedent which will be set; notification to future owners of noise impacts from the Academy; etc.

PUBLIC NOTICE: The property was posted on May 7, 2002.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The Planning Division notified adjoining property owners of this meeting on May 7, 2002.

ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSES: Five (5) adjoining property owners were notified, with all five (5) responding in opposition. Negative comments were also received from non-adjoining owners.

ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS: Those responding cited inconsistency with the Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan.

LEGAL PUBLICATION: This rezoning request was published in the El Paso County Advertiser & News on April 17, 2002.

BACKGROUND - The property was zoned A-4 (Agricultural - 5-acre) on November 15, 1954. The A-4 (Agricultural) was converted to RR-3 (Rural Residential - 5-acre) in 1991.

ADJOINING LAND USE AND ZONING

Noted development is per El Paso County Assessor's data

AGENCY COMMENTS

OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER

We have received your November 1, 2001 submittal concerning the above referenced proposal to subdivide 50.29 acres into 15 residential lots. The estimated water requirements were given as 7.35 acre-feet annually. The proposed source of water is wells, utilizing 2 existing Dawson aquifer wells (permit no. 13414 decreed in case no. 84CW15 and permit no. 167807 decreed in case nos. 84CW16 & 92CW11) and up to 15 new Denver aquifer wells.

The applicant has a pending court case, no. 01CW21, to adjudicate the available water in the Dawson and Denver aquifers and to adjudicate a plan for augmentation to allow for the withdrawal of those waters. That case has not yet been decreed. Upon its decree the 2 existing Dawson aquifer wells will have to be re-permitted as non-exempt wells to operate pursuant to that decree, and the rights decreed in case nos. 84CW15, 84CW16 & 92CW11 abandoned.

Pursuant to the provision of C.R.S. 30-28-136(1)(h)(I) it is the opinion of this office that until the Water Court issues a decree in case no. 01CW21, the applicant obtain new permits for the 2 Dawson aquifer wells, and the existing Dawson aquifer rights abandoned, the proposed water supply has not been adequately confirmed and would injure decreed water rights. If you have any questions please contact Keith Vander Horst of this office.

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY submitted the following Findings and Conclusions:

1) This is a proposal by Hay Creek, L.L.C., requesting to subdivide 50.243 acres into 15 lots. The property is currently zoned RR-3 and is located in the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 33 and the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, all in Township 11 South, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., El Paso County, Colorado.

2) The Applicant has provided for the source of water to be from both new and existing individual on-lot wells. Existing wells, Well Permit Nos. 13414 and 167807, withdraw from the Dawson Aquifer, and the new wells are proposed to withdraw from the Denver Aquifer. The Applicant estimates its annual water needs to serve households at 4.05 acre-feet, and irrigation of lawn and gardens at 3.30 acre-feet resulting in a total of 7.35 acre-feet. Applicant will have to be able to provide a supply of 2,205 acre-feet of water (7.35 ac.ft./yr. x 300 yrs.) to meet the County's 300 year water supply requirement.
3) In a letter dated November 19, 2001, the State Engineer indicates that Applicant has decreed water rights from Court Decrees 84 CW 15 (Well Permit No. 13414) and 84 CW 16 & 92 CW 11 (Well Permit No. 167807) allowing the withdrawal of water from the Dawson Aquifer. The Applicant is seeking an amended decree for adjudication of water rights to allow withdrawal of water from the Dawson and Denver Aquifers and a plan for augmentation in pending water court Case No. 01 CW 21. The engineer states that once decreed, the two existing Dawson Aquifer wells will have to be re-permitted as non-exempt wells to operate pursuant to that decree, and the rights decreed in Case Nos. 84CW15, 84CW16, and 92CW11 will have to be abandoned. Pursuant to C.R.S. §30-28-136(1)(h)(I), the State Engineer is of the opinion that until the Court rules on pending Case No. 01 CW 21, the applicant obtains new permits for the two Dawson Aquifer wells and the existing Dawson Aquifer rights are abandoned, the proposed water supply has not been adequately confirmed and would injure decreed water rights.

4) The water quality requirements of Section 49.5E(2) of the Land Development Code must be satisfied.

5) Therefore, at this time, until a finding of sufficiency with no injury to existing water rights can be made by the State Engineer's Office, the plan for augmentation is approved, and a final signed decree is received from the Water Court in Case No. 01 CW 21, the County Attorney's Office would recommend a finding that the proposed water supply is insufficient in terms of quantity and dependability. The El Paso County Health Department shall provide an opinion as to quality.

EL PASO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The following are the remaining Department of Transportation comments pertaining to the resubmittals for the above referenced subdivision.

Preliminary Plan:
1) No legal or general notes were provided with revised Preliminary plan. There is no reference to the "See Note 5" on the Preliminary Plan.
2) The roadway cannot be included in the preservation easement. In addition the potential septic leach fields may not be permitted in the preservation easement. It is recommended the area between the roadway easement to the north side flood plain be changed back to just an open space easement.
3) Hay Creek Road, north of the site is shown on the plan to have "18' ROW asphalt surface". The Delacroce property has 60' of ROW up to the point it crosses this site. Show the 60 feet of right-of-way to be continuous through this project site.
4) What 100-year flow quantity was used to determine the actual 100-year floodplain lines on the preliminary plan?

Preliminary Drainage Report:
1) Under Section 1.1 it states that all roadways will meet County standards, which is not correct.
2) Section 1.3, item 5 has a statement that no LOMR is required as all proposed building envelopes are located outside the regulatory and site-specific mapped 100-year floodplains. A note needs to be placed on the preliminary plan and final plat stating the 100-year flood plain areas are no-build zones. Based on this statement no new construction could occur on Lot 15 and limited buildable site areas would exist on lots 12, 13, and 14.
3) The NRCS method runoff flows presented in Table 1 appears to be low based on the basin area and soil types as presented in the Monument Creek Drainage Basin Planning Study performed by Kiowa Engineering, dated May 1992. Based on the data presented on the computer printout sheets for the EPA-SWMM method, the 2-hour storm event was used. Section 5.3.3 of the DCM states that two storm distributions will be utilized, two (2) and twenty-four (24) hour duration storms. The design storm is the one producing the greatest level of protection for flood conveyance and storage facilities. The 24-hr. storm event generally produces the greater flow and is used in El Paso County.
4) The runoff curve numbers for the off-site basins need to be revised based on the values presented in the Monument Creek Drainage Basin study.
5) Provide the off-site basins data in a tabulated form.
6) The drainage report needs to address the off-site drainage flows based on the SCS 24-hr., 100-yr. storm. The report needs to state the storm event used in the report.
7) In Section 4.1, two Hay Creek crossings are presented. With the revised preliminary plan only one crossing is proposed. Also, in Section 4.1, the second paragraph states there will be no direct connected impervious areas and runoff from roadways, driveways, and roofs will flow onto adjacent pervious areas. Provide discussion on how the roadside ditch flows will be handled in light of these statements.
8) Provide existing and proposed flow rates at all design points.
9) Previous comment (January 3, 2002): A statement is made in Section 4.2, under Site Hydrology for Management of Stormwater Runoff that flows increase by 13% because the on-site drainage area increases due to the roadway ditches. This statement needs to be clarified as runoff flows from Basin C1 are shown on the proposed condition map to be directed, by the roadway, to a discharge point below Design Point 2. (New comment) Table 2, also shows Basin C1 is included in Design Point 2 discharge flows. The drainage map shows flows from Basin C1 to enter the channel below Design Point 2.
10) The 2002 drainage fee for Beaver Creek Basin is $5773.00 per impervious acre. Lots greater than or equal to 2.5 acres can apply a 25% reduction to the drainage fee.
11) The waiver request needs to be re-evaluated with the revised design point quantities and drainage structure. The crossing will still need to meet Table 6-1 of the DCM.
12) On the runoff coefficient computation form, the contributing percentages for Basins OSA and OSC do not add to 100%.
STAFF NOTE: DOT has indicated that these comments will not prevent this item from being heard by the Planning Commission. All outstanding issues will be resolved prior to the item being heard by the Board of County Commissioners.

COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Letter dated November 26, 2001
In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), 1 visited the site on November 20, 2001 and reviewed the site plan. The site consists of 50.2 acres to be rezoned and developed to include 15 residential lots ranging in size from 3.07 to 4.29 acres. Included in the review package were:

1) Letter of Intent (10/29/0 1) by Matrix Design Group

2) Rezoning Justification (10/29/0 1) by Matrix Design Group

3) Preliminary Plan (10/0 1) by Matrix Design Group

4) Development Plan (10/0 1) by Matrix Design Group

5) Erosion Control Plan (10/0 1) by Matrix Design Group

6) Master Development Drainage Plan and Final Drainage Report (10/ 19/0 1) by Matrix Design Group

7) Soil, Geology and Wastewater Study (10/1701) by Entech Engineering

Individual wells and septic systems will be installed on each lot. Building envelopes were designated on the preliminary plan. Hay Creek flows through the site from west to east, but the building envelopes are outside of the 100?year flood plain.

The site is located along Hay Creek, west of Baptist Road in a ranch area. Hay Creek drains the site east into Monument Creek. Primary geologic deposits consist of loosely compacted cobbley alluvium and colluvium over the upper Dawson member. The hillsides along the I 00?foot high ridge at the southern end of the site are prone to creeping soils. Evidence of possible shallow landslides was observed during the site visit. Consolidation testing was not performed at this site; however, high consolidation (indicating potentially collapsible soils) has been found in nearby areas (Forest Lakes PUD). Sporadic swelling soils and bedrock are known to exist. Groundwater levels vary, but may be shallow in areas near drainages.

The Preliminary Plan shows building envelopes for each lot as example building footprints that would accommodate an 80'x80' (6400 square foot) dwelling. CGS is assuming that the example footprint locations are not limited to the locations shown on the preliminary plat at this time. Specific concerns regarding the geologic conditions of the site are as follows:

· Hillsides Entech Engineering has mapped much of the southern hillsides as having down slope creep. During the site visit, much of the vegetation mat on these slopes was not well knit and showed evidence of movement. Areas on the hillsides of lots 1, 8, 9, and 10 had circular areas with hummochy topography that is indicative of shallow slumps or skin slides. Additionally, evidence of ongoing erosion was evident throughout the hillside areas. Down slope movement and erosion are both greatly increased by vegetation disturbance and increased soil water (due to seasonal fluctuations and irrigation). Since there is room within the building envelopes to build houses outside of the down slope creep area, modification of the building envelopes to exclude the hillsides should be considered in order to avoid potential problems associated with creep, shallow landslides, and accelerated erosion. Minimal disturbance to the natural vegetation and prompt re?vegetation of areas after construction will also help reduce the movement of the soil.

· Swales Several secondary swales that could carry runoff to Hay Creek were observed on the southern hillsides in lots 1, 3, 7, and 8. Building envelopes should avoid these areas so that natural drainage ways are not disturbed and structures are not flooded by seasonal runoff.

· Lot I The preliminary plan shows an example building footprint on the top of the ridge on this lot. The ridge in this area is rather narrow and quite steep on either side, which does not allow for an appropriate set back from slopes already showing signs of creep and possible shallow skin slides. It would be less problematic to place any structures on this lot on the gentle slopes in the northwest comer of the existing building envelope. Revising the building envelope to avoid the hillside and ridge may be necessary.

· Drainage Although groundwater was not encountered in either of the two 15?foot boreholes, elevated water levels may occur due to seasonal fluctuations, irrigation, and septic systems. Foundation drains for subsurface construction would minimize damage from elevated groundwater situations. Additionally, because percolation rates were variable, lot?specific percolation tests should be conducted in order to accurately design septic systems.

In summary, there are geologic concerns with building on the hillsides of this site. Building envelopes should be refined to minimize impacts from creep, shallow landslides, accelerated erosion, and drainage routes. There appears to be plenty of room for building as the lots currently are platted. Lot?specific soils and percolation investigations should be conducted prior to any construction. The recommendations made by Entech should be followed and implemented. If you have further questions about this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303?866?3518.

Letter dated December 13, 2001
I reviewed the faxed letter from Entech dated 12/5/01 responding to my comments regarding the buildability of lot I at the eastern edge of the property. The proposed building location sits on the crest of a ridgeline with steep hillsides on either side that were mapped as creep areas in the Soil, Geology and Wastewater Study done by Entech (10/17/01). Entech's letter indicates they believe that there is room to allow for a building pad on this ridgeline and indicates the need for additional investigation of this lot.

I am still concerned about building on this site. Not only is there the creep zone to worry about, but accelerated erosion on those gravelly slopes which could easily impact a structure placed here. Should building occur on this hilltop, I would recommend at least a 20' setback from the edge of the hillslope. Entech's letter did say that "should the building pad encroach on the downslope creep area, mitigation will be required"; however, did not depict where "encroaching" would begin. Foundation support will be necessary, but additional measures to reduce erosion due to increased runoff from the impermeable surface of the structure and irrigation need to be addressed if this is where they are building.

I still think, since they have an option of a safer, less expensive area to build down on the gentle slope below the ridgeline, that is the best bet.

If you have further questions about this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303?8663518.

Letter dated January 4, 2002
I attended a meeting with representatives from the Hull family, Entec, and CGS on January 2, 2002 at the Hay Creek Ranch site to review the comments made during the preliminary plan review. Of particular concern were the site conditions at Lot 1, particularly the downslope creep area.

Entec has re?mapped the downslope creep areas at this site to reflect a more precise location of the potential creep hazard. Most of these areas will probably fall within the 30% grade restriction the county. All parties agree that buildings could be built in some areas of the downslope creep zone; however may be VERY costly, and other factors (such as septic design) may be prohibitive. CGS feels that a 20?foot setback from the downslope creep areas would give the least problematic (and less costly) placement for foundations. All parties at the meeting agreed that a plat note should be added addressing this issue of building in the downslope creep area. The plat note should read:

"Building pads located within 20 feet of the downslope creep area (as delineated by Entec) should have a thorough geotechnical investigation, signed by a licensed professional engineer, to include a slope stability analysis, that will determine what, if any mitigative and design measures should be implemented for foundation. Locating septic systems within this area is not recommended."

All parties accept that other factors, such as septic location and design may deem the hilltop in lot I not feasible. Septic designs and locations must be approved by the County Health Department.

As for the other concerns and issues with this property, the secondary swales located in lots 1, 3, 7, and 8 should be avoided as locations for building sites. If building sites are to be placed in these areas, proper diversion of the water potentially carried by these swales will be rerouted with adequate drainage sizing to prevent foundation flooding and soil movement. Erosion control measures set forth by the County and stated in the Community Covenants will be followed during and after construction. CGS and Entec still recommend lot?specific soils and percolation testing prior to construction. All parties acknowledge that further geologic investigation may deem areas as not suitable for building.

If you have further questions about this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303?8663518.

STAFF NOTE: In telephone discussions with the Colorado Geological Survey it was determined that the Geological Survey is satisfied that encroachment near or into the downslope creep areas will require geotechnical investigation. A note has been added reflecting this requirement.

EL PASO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

The Environment Services Department (ESD) has completed its review of the Hay Creek Rezone from RR-3 to Planned Unit Development and Hay Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan. Our review consisted of the following items; wetlands, general wildlife resources, and federal and state listed threatened or endangered species.

1) According to the National Wetland Inventory maps and site visits, the property does contain wetlands. A completed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit should be provided to the El Paso County Planning Division prior to project commencement if ground disturbing activities would occur in wetland areas. Specifically, there are two crossings of Hay Creek proposed in the plan which must be addressed.

2) The project, as proposed with its open space easement along Hay Creek, should provide suitable space for wildlife. However, information regarding additional wildlife protection measures should be provided including fencing requirements, garbage containment, pets, enhancement/maintenance of natural vegetation, and weed control as appropriate. Information can be obtained from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

3) A No-Effect letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) related to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse has been noted and satisfies the county's request for consultation with the Service.

It should be noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the FWS have regulatory jurisdiction over wetland and threatened and endangered species issues, respectively. Thus, as indicated above, it is strongly recommended that the developer obtain the necessary approvals from the referenced federal agencies as part of their planning process.

FLOODPLAIN - LOMA's will be required for each lot by owner but not as a condition of approval of the PUD.

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

This request for a residential subdivision including 15 lots on 50.243 acres is located in the Twin Valley planning Sub-Area #6 of the 2000 Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan (1999). Although there are other applicable elements of the Master Plan, some of which are touched on later in these comments, this Twin Valley scenario is the most pertinent element.

Conclusion
The recommendation of the Comprehensive Section is that a finding of Master Plan consistency for this proposed subdivision can not be made based on a proposed density greater than five (5) dwelling units per acre. This is based on the first paragraph excepted from the land use scenario excepted below. It should be noted that the Comprehensive Section is taking a substantially different interpretive position with respect to the Forest Lakes project just to the north, based on its acknowledgement as a pre-existing plan.

If this project is approved either at the proposed or a lower density, it should participate in the Baptist Road Rural Transportation Authority and in the upgrade of the railroad crossing as necessary and equitable.

Detailed Comments

The Twin Valley land use scenario is excerpted in its entirety below with staff comments added as parenthetical language. Paragraph numbers have been added for clarity of reference.

TWIN-VALLEY - LAND USE SCENARIO

1. This sub-area should remain primarily rural residential with lot sizes averaging five acres exclusive of roads and tracts not devoted to open space areas. Large lot clustering options, utilizing minimum 2 ½ acre lots should be considered only if there is strict adherence to this overall density approach and if adequate mechanisms for implementation are available.

(The application is not consistent with this fundamental premise of the Twin Valley scenario because the proposed densities are clearly in excess of a five-acre overall average.

2. Limited higher density mixed-use development may be appropriate east of the Union Pacific rail right-of-way, providing adequate facilities and services are available. If developed, these uses should provide employment opportunities for residents of the Tri-Lakes area.

(This paragraph is not fully applicable, as the subject property us west of the tracks. However, it underscores the direction that non-residential uses should not be located within the subject property. In any case he proposed plan, which is entirely residential, is fully consistent with this provision)

3. The previous land use approvals in the Forest Lakes project are acknowledged, but it is noted that the development within this property should be sensitive to the surrounding existing and planned lower-density uses. For this reason, adherence to the originally approved clustering plan is strongly recommended. Standard platting in accordance with the existing R (Residential) zoning is strongly discouraged. Any non-residential uses that may be proposed for this parcel should be shown to clearly have cumulative development impacts equal to or less than those of the approved plan do.

(This paragraph is purposefully not directly applicable to the subject property. However, it puts a focus on the obvious issue of a dual standard for these 2 proposed developments).

4. Regardless of its location, all development within Twin Valley should be designed in a manner which is especially sensitive preserving to the natural visual character of the area.

(The Planning Division believes the proposed plan shows considerable environmental sensitivity. Significant amounts of space will be left open or will have development limitations.

5. Various opportunities for acquisition and/or preservation of open space should be pursued and implemented within this sub-area if possible. The continued operation of one or more of the existing ranches in Twin Valley should be encouraged through the use of conservation easements or other means. Limited public access to the National Forest land to the west should be considered, most likely through the Forest Lakes property. The setting aside of areas within Twin Valley as part of Prebles Mouse mitigation plan should be encouraged.

(The proposed plan will result in the considerable permanent preservation of land within this property, although the majority of the parcel would be developed to varying degrees. Prebles Mouse habitat will be preserved).

6. Transportation access to this sub-area should be improved in a manner which does not subject the area to undo development impacts and pressures. West Baptist Road should be improved, and a second point of access should be carefully considered and implemented if feasible. A grade-separated rail crossing should be installed at the earliest opportunity, and the County should continue to cooperate with property owners in the upgrading of existing roads for acceptance into its maintenance system.

(There is a potential for this property to be burdened by a need for expensive improvements (e.g. the rail crossing) which will have to be spread across a very finite amount of low-density development.)

All plans for new and expanded development should be carefully evaluated and conditioned to provide assurances water supplies will be adequate and water resources will be conserved. Options for using the existing impoundments in the Forest Lakes development for renewable water supplies should be fully considered. Options for reuse of non-potable water from the Forest Lakes sewage treatment plant should also be supported as an additional means of conserving water. The potential impacts of future land and water development on existing shallow wells should be carefully evaluated and approved plans should be designed and conditioned to minimize these impacts.
(Comprehensive Section is not aware of the specifics of the water plan for this development)

Development in this planning unit should be coordinated with the USAFA and then Town or Monument and should be consistent with the goals and guidelines set forth in the I-25 Corridor Visual Overlay.

(This coordination has taken place to the extent that comments have been sought from at least the Air Force Academy. Most of this particular site is screened from I-25; most of the property that can be seen will have a low density.)

The El Paso County Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan depicts the property as a high priority candidate for preservation, due to a fairly obvious combination of high open space resource values. However, this document was adopted with a condition that it not be used directly to limit the otherwise reasonable development of privately owned property. In the absence of an available buyer for the property as open space, the Comprehensive Section suggests that it would be inappropriate to deny this development plan on the basis that there is a community interest in the property as open space

The Master Plan for the Extraction of Commercial Mineral Deposits depicts a combination of Stream Terrace and Mesa Gravel Deposits on the subject property. Both of these deposits are fairly rare in undeveloped locations and have a high probability of being commercially feasible to mine on at least a sub-regional basis. This probability is borne out by the presence of the active Dellacroce gravel mining operation very close to this property. In order to allow a finding of consistency the Board of County Commissioners should make a finding that these deposits are in fact not that commercially feasible or, more probably, that there are environmental factors (including, but not limited to the Mouse) that make mining inappropriate even in the face of other wise probable commercial feasibility. The applicant should address this issue.

The Major Transportation Corridors Plan (1987) depicts no major corridors through the subject property.

The El Paso County Wildlife Habitat Maps and Descriptors (1996) depict all or most of the property as having a high potential for wildlife habit. It is noted that substantial areas of Mouse habitat will be protected.

NORTHERN EL PASO COUNTY COALITION OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

Letter date November 30, 2001
The NEPCO Land Use Committee has reviewed this proposal and submits the following comments on roads and density.

Transportation is a major concern addressed in the Twin Valley- sub-area # 6 of the 2000 Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan, because "Access to Twin-Valley is limited to one two-lane road, West Baptist Road". Given this "one road" limitation, all new development utilizing Baptist Road should be required to participate financially in its improvement. In previous correspondence with the El Paso County Planning Division, the NEPCO Land Use Committee has identified a need for traffic lights at I-25 and a grade-separated rail crossing. These two road issues must be addressed by the applicant before approval of the final plat.

The 2000 Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan also states that "This Sub-Area should remain primarily rural residential." While this plan provides an overall density of one unit per 3.35 acres, we are troubled by its impact on adjacent landowners. This concern can be resolved by increasing the setback on Lots 11 and 12 to 100', and by declaring the "downslope creep area" as a "no-build area." One other item is that "restrictions of height" are said to be "mandated." Please specify these height restrictions.

To summarize, we recommend approval of the Sketch Plan provided the following conditions are met:

1) Establish an appropriate financial commitment to Baptist Road improvements, i.e. signal lights at I-25 and a grade-separated rail crossing.
2) Increase the setback on Lots 11 and 12 to 100'
3) Identify the "downslope creep area" as a "no-build area."
4) Specify the height restrictions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

Letter dated February 16, 2002
The NEPCO Land Use Committee has had several conversations and visits with the applicant regarding this project. They have responded to all of our concerns. Given the level of cooperation we have experienced, we wish to inform you of our complete support for this project. As you may know, the intent is to subdivide the acreage for family use. We feel comfortable that their desire to maintain a family "farm" is a reasonable use for this property.

TRI-LAKES LAND USE COMMITTEE

Thank you for the referral on Hay Creek Ranch. The Tri-Lakes Land Use Committee met on November 8th and reviewed and discussed the above proposed PUD Rezoning and Preliminary Plan requests. As you know, the site lies within the Twin-valley Sub-Area. Also relevant are several of the Topical Sections; especially the one on Transportation. The requested zoning will permit residential uses at an apparent lot size of 2 acres and an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 3.35 acres. The site adjoins unplatted parcels to the west, south, east and north including large residential sites and larger ranch lands. All are zoned RR-3.

The residential density requested is not compatible with either the existing residential uses in the neighborhood or the existing ranch uses around the site. In part, the Twin-Valley Land Use Scenario in the 2000 Update has this say:……"This sub area should remain primarily rural residential with lot sites averaging five acres exclusive of roads and tracts not devoted to open space areas. Large lot clustering options, utilizing 2-1/2 acre lots should be considered only if there is strict adherence to this overall density approach and if adequate mechanisms for implementation are available"……"Regardless of it's location, all development within Twin Valley should be designed in a manner that is especially sensitive to preserving the natural visual character of the area."

Development of this ranch in accord with the existing zoning and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan would permit 10 lots assuming the private roadway is permitted as indicated. Because open space would still be necessary and likely remain where proposed, a 10 lot development would still have 3 houses along the road and 7 on the ridge across the creek. As currently proposed, the plan shows 4 houses on Hay Creek Road and 11 on the ridge. The entire property is below and visible from Hay Creek Road.

The TLLUC specifically disagrees with the applicant's statement that…"Rezoning of this property will be an asset tot he community and will produce a higher quality of life, better public services, and an aesthetically leasing architecture that will be an asset not only to the future land owners, but also the Tri Lakes Area and El Paso County". In fact, we foresee precisely the opposite. Also …"The visual look of the property from the adjacent Hay Creek Road will remain essentially unchanged". Or, …"there are no changes on the "road" side of the creek". Not so.

We do applaud the applicant's stated intent to restore the existing barn, silo and homestead. And, although it is always desirable to have more public trails in the Tri Lakes area, the one proposed across this property seems of minimal value to the public since it doesn't go anywhere. There is no such trail need identified in the Comprehensive Plan at this location. Again, we applaud the initiative, but it doesn't offset the density problem in any real way. The applicant also states that wildlife preservation is paramount in the plan. It is true that wildlife use the creek bottom to some degree and will likely continue to do so - however, the wildlife that remain in the area will be reduced in number and diversity simply because of the increased density and human impact from both the residences and the public use of the trail. Reducing the density is much more likely to "help" the existing wildlife.

Finally , there is an actual impact to the traffic on Hay Creek Road. Despite the applicant's statements, the TLLUC believes that an additional 150 vehicle trips per day will surely be noticed by all. More importantly, another 150 vehicles at the railroad crossing cannot simply be ignored. The Comprehensive Plan, Section 5.0-Transportation, highlights the inadequacy of many of the area roads. Baptist Road and the interchange at I-25 are already understood by everyone to be inadequate. Any relief there is years away at best, while already approved development to the east continues to "pile in". The southerly extension of Mitchell Road into the Twin Valley Sub Area was seen as a necessity for safety sake as the railroad crossing on Baptist Road can be (and has been) blocked for long periods of time, preventing all, including emergency, access into the sub area. Future railroad use is likely to increase rather than decrease further exacerbating the problem. Even a Mitchell connection though, as unlikely as it is, is only a partial solution. Already there are other development pressures in the area which will affect this location. Ultimately, everyone seems to recognize that there will be a need to cross Monument Creek and the railroad right of way with a bridge of some sort. Shouldn't this development be required to help?

In summary, the approved Tri lakes Comprehensive Plan Update does not support this proposal and the applicants have offered no solutions to mitigate the impacts they propose to create.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY - CORPS OF ENGINEERS

This replies to your November 1, 2001 letter regarding your proposed two road crossings in Hay Creek near Monument, El Paso County, Colorado. We have assigned Action No. 2001 00552 to this activity.

We have studied the project description, other records, and documents available to us. The proposed project is regulated under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Department of the Army Permit will be required for the project. This determination was made because the road crossing are within jurisdictional waters of the United States.

EL PASO COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT Staff recommends fees in lieu of land for regional park purposes in the amount of $4,185.00. Staff also requests that Open Apace be parceled separately on plat.

E-mail dated February 22, 2002
I have visited the site with the property owner. I request it be noted on the plat that open space be labeled as a no build zone. As per our conversation, it appears that the plat note does state "Open Space No-Build Easement"; I feel that with this plat statement any park staff concerns of open space within this development have been addressed.

STAFF NOTE: This addresses the initial statement by the Parks Department requesting that the open space area be platted as a separate tract.

ENUMERATIONS - New interior street will need to be named. If it will be a private street, the designator will need to be Point, View, Grove or Heights.

Please contact Liz Brown, El Paso County Sheriff's Dept., 390-2212, for approval of new street name.

TRI LAKES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

1) Any cul-de-sac greater than 500 feet in length must either have a minimum 10,000-gallon holding tank, or a fixed consistent water supply for the purpose of firefighting.

2) A cul-de-sac on a private road must have a minimum diameter of 100 feet.

3) The alternate approach would be for the two ways in and out of the area.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ELECTRIC

This area is within MVEA certificated service area. MVEA will serve this area according to our extension policy.

MVEA requests the Final Plat show the 60-foot Private Roadway easement will be shared as a Utility Easement. MVEA requests that platted easements be shown with dimensions. MVEA requests there be utility easements adjacent to the south boundary line of the open space across Lots 1, 2 and 3. MVEA also requests platting of existing MVEA facilities with easements on plat.

EL PASO COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION

Letter dated November 26, 2001
The El Paso County Soil Conservation District has reviewed the PUD request for the Hay Creek Ranch and has no comments regarding the PUD request.

We have also reviewed the Preliminary Plan for the Hay Creek Ranch and have no significant comments. It appears from the plan that the land below the access road to the homes will be set aside as preservation property for the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse. If grazing occurs on the open areas we would recommend that USFWS be contacted to determine if grazing will impact the mouse habitat. Historical use of the area has included grazing but the developers need to assure themselves that confined animal grazing on the smaller lots will not impact the mouse habitat.

Letter dated December 20, 2001
I received a call from Jamie Hull who represents the Hay Creek Ranch submittal concerning our comment on grazing issues in the proposed development. He has clarified to our satisfaction that the covenants that will be in place when the area is developed will prevent grazing from impacting the mouse habitat area. With this discussion and clarification we would have no further comments concerning the development of this parcel.

LEWIS-PALMER SCHOOL DISTRICT #38

Letter dated November 29, 2001
At their regularly scheduled meeting on November 15, 2001, the Lewis-Palmer Board of Education voted to oppose the above referenced project until such time as the developer meets with school district officials to discuss the impact this project would have on student enrollment growth and school facilities.

Letter dated December 12, 2001
Earlier today James Hull, developer of Hay Creek Ranch, met with me and described the plans for development of Hay Creek Ranch. He explained that this property will be reserved for members of one extended family and that the current farmhouse will be refurbished for their use. In light of Mr. Hull's explanation of his plans, I now believe that the school district would be impacted only minimally by this project and that the school district can now support the development.

COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE

Letter dated November 19, 2001
I have reviewed the wildfire report submitted with this proposal. It meets with CSFS approval for the purpose of the preliminary plan. What I would like to see submitted with the final plat would be a plan on how the developer plans to mitigate the hazard in the "severe hazard" rated areas.

Letter dated December 20, 2001
I have just received a copy of the covenants for this proposed subdivision. In my opinion these adequately address the concerns I had in my letter dated 11/19/01.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

1) Due to the proximity of this planned development to our main airfield's approach/departure corridors (specifically I-25 and Woodcarver Rd.) and training aircraft flight paths, please include the following notice on this project's final plat:

NOTICE: This property may be impacted by noise and other affects of flight by aircraft used in the United States Air Force Academy's Airmanship Program. In conjunction with this notice, the Grantor's (Hay Creek, LLC) agree to waive and release any right or cause of action which they now have or may have in the future against Grantee (the United States Air Force Academy), its successors and assigns, due to noise and other affects by operation of such aircraft. This notice shall be in effect until the Air Force Academy shall cease to be actively used. This notice shall run with the land.

2) Due to the proximity of this planned development to our field training activities in Jack's Valley, please include the following notice on this project's final plat:

NOTICE: This property may be impacted by noise and other affects of combat field training conducted at the United States Air Force Academy's Cadet Basic Training, Jack's Valley Training Area. In conjunction with this notice, the Grantors (Hay Creek, LLC) agree to waive and release any right or cause of action which they now have or may have in the future against Grantee (the United States Air Force Academy), its successors and assigns, due to noise and other affects by field training operation. This notice shall be in effect until the Air Force Academy shall cease to be used for training purposes. This notice shall run with the land.

3) The AFA will not agree to upstream developments releasing onto our property above historic flows. Please verify in writing back to my department that this development will be releasing flows onto AFA at historic rates prior to your approval of this development plan.

The following agencies have not responded:
Town of Monument
El Paso County Department of Health and Environment

PUD STANDARDS:

In considering a rezoning to PUD (Planned Unit Development) District, the following criteria must be addressed; which are contained within Section 16 N. of the Land Development Code :

1) That proper posting, publication, and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County.

Proper posting, publication, and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County.

2) That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and reviewed, and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings.

Completeness of hearings will occur as part of the specified process.

3) That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in the surrounding area, and will be in harmony and responsive with the character of the surrounding area.

STAFF NOTE: The applicant has stated the following in regard to the compatibility of the proposed project in regard to compatibility with existing and permitted land uses in the surrounding area.

This Project is residential, as is most of the surrounding use. In particular it is rural residential according to the County's own definition. In addition two things are of note: approximately 20 years ago the county defined for ease that almost all the existing rural areas would be simply declared RR-3 but expected this to change substantially as time went on. There is also the plan and expectation that from the I-25 corridor going westward that zoning and densities would essentially range and transfer from commercial to residential and each going from higher density to lower density. One will notice that this project's density is conservative in regard to its distance from I-25. Forest Lakes will make it much more so. In the immediate area and west of I-25 the residential density and construction quality varies. The developments seem to average 2.5 acres with larger and smaller densities to be found. Looking within a one mile radius we find the following of note: Mt. Herman Estates (2.5ac - further west than subject property), Green Mt. Ranch (4 to 5 ac - some well under 5 acres), Pine Hills (5 ac range), Monument Industrial Park (2 acre commercial), Moberly Ridge (Less than 1 acre residential), Sundance Estates (2.5 acre) - Forest View Acres (Further west also - 1 acre develop) and etc. The subject has comparable or more stringent density and home quality requirements - CC&R's). Overall it is visually more open than some adjacent residential development and with its careful planning fully retains the rural agrarian and pastoral feel of the area.

STAFF NOTE: The subject property is currently zoned RR-3 (Rural Residential - 5 acre minimum). The subject property enjoys all the permitted principal use rights of the RR-3 zone district which are listed below:

PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES - MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5 ACRES

1. Adult Care Home
2. Agricultural Stand
3. Child Care Facility
4. Dwelling, Single Family
5. Group Home
6. Hobby Farm
7. Mobile Home
8. Nursery, Wholesale
9. Public Park & Open Space
10. Religious Institution
11. Stable, Private #
12. Tower, Private

PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES - MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 35 ACRES
1. Dairy
2. Farm
3. Ranch

The parcels immediately adjacent to the subject property range in size as follows:

North - three adjoining parcels
25 acres - RR-3 zone district
16.56 acres - RR-3 zone district
554.46 acres - A-35 zone district

South - four adjoining parcels
35.17 acres - RR-3 zone district
31.90 acres - RR-3 zone district
36.90 acres - RR-3 zone district
37.70 acres - RR-3 zone district

East - one adjoining parcel
35.80 acres - RR-3 zone district

West - one adjoining parcel
30.00 acres - RR-3 zone district

4) That the proposed land use does not permit the use of any area containing a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor.

The following is excerpted from the Comprehensive Planning Sections comments pertaining to this proposal.
The Master Plan for the Extraction of Commercial Mineral Deposits depicts a combination of Stream Terrace and Mesa Gravel Deposits on the subject property. Both of these deposits are fairly rare in undeveloped locations and have a high probability of being commercially feasible to mine on at least a sub-regional basis. This probability is borne out by the presence of the active Dellacroce gravel mining operation very close to this property. In order to allow a finding of consistency the Board of County Commissioners should make a finding that these deposits are in fact not that commercially feasible or, more probably, that there are environmental factors (including, but not limited to the Mouse) that make mining inappropriate even in the face of other wise probable commercial feasibility. The applicant should address this issue.

5) That a need for the development is demonstrated.

The applicant has stated that a need for the development is demonstrated by the fact that the property was purchased to develop a family owned subdivision. The applicant has stated that the majority of the lots will be built on by family members with the possibility that some lots may be sold to non family members to offset the cost of developing the property.

6) That existing and proposed public services and facilities are adequate for the proposed development, and that proposed public services and facilities will be timely provided.

Water and sanitation services will be provided by well and septic. The applicant is pursuing an augmentation plan at this time. Fire protection will be provided by Tri lakes Fire Protection District. Electric service will be provided by Mountain View Electric Association.

7) That the existing and proposed internal/external transportation network is suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development, and that the proposed transportation network improvements will be timely provided.

The applicants are proposing ingress and egress to the development from Hay Creek Road. No negative comments regarding the access points have been indicated by the El Paso County Department of Transportation. The internal transportation network is via a non-through private street terminating in a cul-de-sac. The PUD (Planned Unit Development) District permits the use of a private road subject to approval of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The proposed road is 50' in width with a gravel surface.

· Access to Lots 12 & 13 is proposed to be via a shared access easement running down the common property line.
· Access to Lot 14 is via a cross-lot access easement traversing Lot 15. This easement is currently the existing driveway from Hay Creek Road.
· Access to Lots 1, 2 & 3 will be via cross-lot access easements running along the open space easement line.

8) That the proposed development will not have a negative effect upon the existing and future development of the surrounding area.

The applicant has stated that the proposal will not have a negative effect for the following reasons:
· Retains rural residential use of the surrounding area in truly comparable density.
· 20+ acres deeded open space
· Retention and enhancement of natural and historic features
· Care has been taken to give it its "Highest and Best Use" all things considered.
· By using PUD actually enforces less structural density than surrounding uses and controls better the quality and placement of homes.
· Creative and sensitive design for size - outline and lay of the land
· Less prospective use of well and water impact than presently
· Puts water back into the system and not downstream
· Minimal traffic impact with all site distances and County standards met
· Retains rural residential and open setting forever
· Increases adjacent property values and home quality
STAFF NOTE: The majority of the surrounding properties are zoned RR-3 (Rural Residential - 5 acre) and enjoy the land use and development rights of the RR-3 zone district with the exception of the Delacroce Ranch which is zoned A-35. All of the adjoining properties are of a size sufficient to accommodate future subdivision.
9) That the proposed PUD District zoning will achieve and advance the stated purposes set forth in this Section, and is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of El Paso County.

The proposed PUD zoning will not achieve all of the stated purposes set forth in Section 16 of the Land Development Code. Section M.1.b - Design Standards clearly states that the density of land uses within the PUD shall be compatible with other uses within the PUD District and the surrounding area. The statement is excerpted below:

b. Density: The density of land uses within the PUD District shall be compatible with other uses within the PUD District and the surrounding area. Compatibility shall be determined by, but not limited to, type of land uses, transportation system, buffering, landscaping and availability of services.

Staff Comment: The surrounding area is large lot residential. The adjoining lots typically exceed 20 acres. This existing style of development is a fairly inefficient use of land. The proposed transportation system is a graveled private road with access to some lots via shared easements. The property is not of a size (50 acres) that lends itself to substantial buffering from adjoining property to the west without suffering the loss of substantial buildable area. Landscaping is existing scrub oak with the expectation that any future landscaping around residences would be consistent with the natural foothills environment.

An examination of the remaining Design Standards 1 a - g indicate the following:

a. Uses

Residential uses shall be designed and located to achieve an efficient and desirable use of land, preservation of natural features and efficient and desirable use and placement of necessary public and private infrastructure.

Staff Comment: Given the topographic constraints of the parcel the applicant has attempted to exercise and efficient use of the land while preserving natural features. A previous version of the plan had two stream crossings. One crossing has now been eliminated providing a more efficient and sensitive placement of infrastructure.

b. Density

Staff Comment: Provided above.

c. Open Space

Common open space may be provided within the PUD District. The amount and type should be proportional to the proposed land uses, buildings and densities. Common open space areas should be designed for the occupants/residents of the PUD District.

Open Space is defined as a parcel of land, an area of water, or a combination of land and water within the site designated for a planned unit development designed and intended to reasonably serve the needs of the residents, occupants and owners of the planned unit development.

Staff Comment: The applicant is providing approximately 20 acres of common open space area. Although the open space is actually a part of each individual lot the open space is restricted in use (no structures or fences, etc.) through covenants. The use of the open space is for the enjoyment of all residents of the proposed subdivision. The open space also serves as a preservation of Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat.

d. Circulation

Development within the PUD District shall be designed and constructed to include adequate, safe and convenient arrangement for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-street parking and loading space. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall correlate with the external circulation system. All roads whether public or private shall be constructed in accordance with Section 49.2 of these regulations.

Staff Comment: The proposed access is a private road that should prove adequate, safe and convenient for the residents of the proposed subdivision. Parking will not be an issue in this residential development. The proposed road and access easements will tie into Hay Creek Road in a safe manner consistent with DOT standards. Section 49.2 allows certain criteria to be waived when associated with private roads. The applicant has waiver requests of certain design criteria than must be reviewed and approved or denied by both the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.

e. Drainage

Development within the PUD District shall be designed and constructed to include adequate storm water management including planning, financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance. All drainage facilities whether public or private shall be constructed in accordance with Section 49.2 of these regulations.

Staff Comment: The Drainage Plan shall be approved by DOT prior to any hearing of this proposal by the Board of County Commissioners. All outstanding major issues have been resolved prior to hearing by the Planning Commission.

f. Buffering and Screening

Uses, buildings or structures within the PUD District that would not be considered compatible with other uses, buildings or structures within and adjacent to the PUD District shall be adequately buffered and screened to insure their appearance and operation will be compatible to the surrounding uses.

Staff Comment: This design standard is more applicable to a PUD development that would accommodate commercial/industrial types of land uses. The proposed residential subdivision does not propose any uses that would require such buffering or screening. Stables are permitted on certain lots but the establishment of any private stables would be required to meet the setback requirements of the RR-3 zone district (50' from any property line) which would achieve the preferred level of buffering from adjoining properties.

g. Phasing

If development is to occur in stages a detailed phasing program shall be prepared in conjunction with the Development Plan. The phasing program shall coordinate development of all land use types and both on-site and off-site transportation and drainage improvements in a timely fashion. If open space and/or recreational facilities are proposed development of these land use types shall occur proportionally to the other proposed land uses within the development. Transportation and drainage improvements shall be constructed within each phase in accordance with the El Paso County Subdivision Regulations.

Staff Comment: Phasing is not anticipated in this development. The entire property will be platted at one time. The only phasing that may occur would be the sequential establishment of the proposed dwellings.

As set forth in Section 24-67-104 (1) (f), C.R.S., a finding by the County that such PUD District rezoning request is in general conformity with the Master Plan or any amendment thereto is required.

Comprehensive Planning has indicated that this proposal is inconsistent with the Tri-Lakes Small Area Plan. This inconsistency is detailed in the Comprehensive Planning Section comments within this report.

Planning Division COMMENTS

· This request is to rezone approximately 50.02 acres from RR-3 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) District.

· The PUD zone classification has been pursued to allow the applicant to work with the challenging terrain, floodplain and Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat yet allow the creation of the number of lots required to make the project financially feasible.

· The PUD development plan limits structure height to thirty-five (35') feet on all lots.

· The proposed setbacks will be those defined on the PUD development plan:

25-foot front (to be measured from the access easement)
25-foot side
25-foot rear
Stables - 50 feet from all lines

The applicant has proposed setbacks of 20-foot rear and 15-foot side with no specification for a front setback. Staff does not accept the applicant's proposed setbacks, which are more consistent with urban type development, and recommends the setbacks consistent with the RR-3 zone district. A condition has been added addressing staff's concern. As per Section 35.7.4 of the El Paso County Land Development Code:

All setbacks shall be measured from the lot line unless otherwise indicated. In the case of an easement or other right-of-way for public road or street, the setback shall be measured from such.

· The applicant has designated an open space area in the center of the proposed development. The open space area encompasses Hay Creek and its associated 100-year floodplain as proposed. The actual FEMA mapped floodplain departs from the channel (thalweg) along a majority of the creek. Individual LOMA's (Letter of Map Amendments) will be required on some of the lots prior to issuance of building permits in areas of the mapped floodplain.

· Water and sewer service will be provided by individual well and septic systems. A plan for augmentation is underway but not yet approved by the water courts. There is currently a finding of insufficiency regarding water. The Health Department has indicated that the proposed lots will accommodate septic systems. For those lots that have a limited buildable area staff has agreed that some components may be located in the open space area within certain parameters. A plat note has been added to address this potentiality (Note 16).

· This area is in an area covered by Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposal is located in the Twin Valley sub area of the plan. The Twin Valley - Land Use Scenario has the following recommendation:

This Sub-Area should remain primarily rural residential with lot sizes averaging five acres exclusive of roads and tracts not devoted to open space areas. Large lot clustering options, utilizing minimum 2 ½ acre lots should be considered only if there is strict adherence to this overall density approach and if adequate mechanisms for implementation are available.

The applicant's proposal has a density of 1 unit per 3.35 acres. For this reason the applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has provided an exhibit illustrating a lot layout utilizing the existing five-acre minimum lot size RR-3 zoning. The exhibit shows ten (10) lots with some lots gaining access directly from Hay Creek Road and some lots gaining access to Hay Creek via flagstems. Staff holds that the five-acre density requirement can also be achieved utilizing the PUD zone district.

· Access is from Hay Creek Road via a private road terminating in a cul-de-sac. The road makes one crossing of Hay Creek. The use of private roads are limited and permitted only upon approval of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The use of private roads are permitted in the PUD zone district and are confined to closed loops and dead-ends not likely to be needed for the convenience and safety of the general public. Lots 12 & 13 will gain access from Hay Creek Road via a shared ingress and egress access easement. Lot 14 will be accessed via a cross lot ingress and egress easement crossing Lot 15. Access to Lots 1, 2 & 3 is also via cross lot easements. Reciprocal access and maintenance agreements will be required during the final plat process.

· There are three waivers associated with this request:
Waiver of Section 49.2.C.3.2.a pertaining to the reduction of right-of-way width where suitable alternative provisions are made for pedestrian walkways and utilities.

Waiver of the El Paso County Paving Policy.

The applicant is asking for a waiver of the right of way requirement of 60' and is proposing a right of way of 40'. The applicant is also asking for a waiver of the Paving Policy which requires that roads that connect to paved roads also be paved. Primarily the logic behind this requirement is that it prevents two different types of equipment from being dispatched to perform maintenance. In a situation involving a private road the homeowner's association is responsible for providing maintenance to the private road so it eliminates the concern regarding the dispatching of two types of maintenance equipment. DOT has indicated that they are not opposed to the waiver requests.

Waiver of the requirement regarding a curve radius of 300 feet.

A curve radius of 150 feet is proposed.

· There are areas of downslope creep and slopes of 30% and greater on the subject property. Slopes at or exceeding 30% have been designated as no-build areas on the plan as required by the El Paso County Land Development Code. Note number five (5) in the General Notes section addresses this issue. Areas of downslope creep have not been eliminated as areas of construction but will require both geo-technical investigation and engineered site plans. Section 49.2.E of the El Paso County Land Development Code states:

Land subject to natural hazards shall be identified by the subdivider, subject to existing county hazard inventories. Such land shall not be developed until such time as the hazard has been removed or the impact of said hazard mitigated as determined by the Planning Director. Lots subject to hazards which may be eliminated through specialized engineering shall be so identified on the plat. Identification of such hazards shall include a statement of the specific hazard and a statement of the engineering alterations required to eliminate the hazard.

· The subject property contains what has been identified by El Paso County as Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. The applicant has obtained a No Effect letter for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service found that the mouse is not likely to be present within the subject area. The possession of the No Effect letter does not preclude the applicant from complying with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Should a Commissioner desire to approve the PUD rezoning application, it is suggested that the motion be phrased as follows:

Having considered the evidence of record in this matter in light of the standards of review set forth on pages ______________ of the staff comments, I find that

(1) the Development Guide/Plan does generally conform to the El Paso County Master Plan; and
(2) pursuant to the provisions of the Land Development Code, the subject property will be compatible, harmonious, and responsive with the existing surrounding area; and
(3) the applicant/developer has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the proposed development plan will not negatively affect existing and future development.

Therefore, I move that this item be approved with the recommended conditions and notations (including any desired additions, deletions or modifications) and the requested waivers (if applicable).

Should a Commissioner desire to disapprove the PUD rezoning application, it is suggested that the motion be phrased as follows:

Having considered the evidence of record in this matter in light of the standards of review set forth on pages _____________ of the back up materials, I find that

(1) the Development Guide/Plan does not generally conform to the El Paso County Master Plan; and
(2) pursuant to the provisions of the Land Development Code, the subject property will not be compatible, harmonious, and responsive with the existing surrounding area; and
(3) the applicant/developer has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that the proposed development plan will not negatively affect existing and future development.

Therefore, I move that this item be disapproved. "

Planning Division RECOMMENDATION: Although the technical aspects of the PUD Development Plan are acceptable, the Planning Division is compelled to concur with the Planning Commission and recommend denial of the proposed rezoning due to the inconsistency with the Tri-Lakes small area plan in regard to density. If approved, approval should be subject to the following conditions and notations:

CONDITIONS
1. Prior to recording the Development Plan shall be revised to reflect the following:
A. The Development Plan shall be modified to reflect the following setbacks:

Front: 25 foot
Side: 25 foot
Rear: 25 foot

Stables and Corrals: 50 feet

B. Revise the height limitation reference to read:

Structure height limitation: 35' as measured by El Paso County.

C. Remove the gray coloring from the drawing. Use some sort of hatching pattern to delineate the area previously delineated by the gray coloring.

D. Add a note to the Development Plan with the following text:

A site plan prepared by a professional engineer, currently registered in the state of Colorado shall be required for any structure located in or within twenty (20') feet of the delineated downslope creep area.

E. Add the following note to the Development Plan:

Septic systems shall not be permitted within the area(s) delineated as downslope creep areas.

F. Add the following notes to the Development Plan:

Access and maintenance rights and responsibilities for Lots 12 & 13 are as defined in the Reciprocal Access and Maintenance Agreement as recorded in the records of the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder at Reception Number _____________.

Access and maintenance rights and responsibilities for Lots 1, 2 & 3 are as defined in the Reciprocal Access and Maintenance Agreement as recorded in the records of the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder at Reception Number _____________.

Access and maintenance rights and responsibilities for Lots 14 & 15 are as defined in the Reciprocal Access and Maintenance Agreement as recorded in the records of the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder at Reception Number _____________.

G. Delete the reference "AND PRESERVATION" from the callout within the open space easement.

H. All drainage and transportation issues shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the El Paso County Department of Transportation.

2. Prior to approval of any Plot Plan the land use(s), densities, setbacks, height limits and access locations as depicted on the Plot Plan shall be found to be in conformance with the Development Plan as approved by the Board of County Commissioners.

3. No building permits will be issued for structures to be built within the existing 100 year flood plain prior to issuance of a Letter of Map Amendment s for the affected lot(s).

NOTATION
1. If a zone or rezone petition has been disapproved by the Board of County Commissioners, resubmittal of the previously denied petition will not be accepted for a period of one (1) year if it pertains to the same parcel of land and is a petition for a change to the same zone that was previously denied. However, if evidence is presented showing that there has been a substantial change in physical conditions or circumstances, the Planning Commission may reconsider said petition. The time limitation of one (1) year shall be computed from the date of final determination by the Board of County Commissioners or, in the event of court litigation, from the date of the entry of final judgment of any court of record.

2. In conjunction with the Final Plat process, the applicant shall be required to contribute or cause to be contributed to El Paso County, a pro-rata proportionate share for a two-lane grade-separated arterial rail crossing on Baptist Road.

ENCLOSURES
Vicinity Map
Letter of Intent
Development Plan
Neighborhood Petition
Adjoining Property Owner Letters
USF&W No Effect Letter
Planning Commission Resolution

Prepared by
Mike Hrebenar
5/14/02