Re: 2016 River Rim Ranch PUD Amendment – Continuance
June 13, 2016
Re: 2016 River Rim Ranch PUD Amendment – Continuance
Thank you for taking the time to review this complex proposal, and for clearly identifying the necessary applicant submittals to conduct an adequate review. Due to the complexity of this project and the recent arrival of the latest submittals, we recommend continuing this item in order to allow for an adequate public and planning staff review, and for the applicant to address current deficiencies in the application.
According to our notes, the Planning & Zoning Commission requested the following at the last meeting on May 10th:
From the applicant:
- Applicant’s Response to the Comprehensive Plan Issues raised in the Staff Report.
- Financial Feasibility Statement for the Project (golf course, hotel, etc)
- Redesigned Golf Village containing relocated commercial uses from the West Rim Village.
- Expected Development Timeline (i.e. projected construction schedule for hotel, golf course, commercial village, etc).
- Impact comparison between approved chalet/single family units and proposed hospitality units.
- Conceptual Design of Storage Units Adjacent to Highway 33.
- Summarize past changes, past negotiation in last amendment.
- Look into ability to require possible South Rim (Phase 6) changes as part of PUD amendment.
- All materials to be submitted by June 7th.
- Meeting Date: June 14th. Accepting written public comment until then.
We will attempt to respond to the latest submittals. However, we must note we are at a disadvantage in providing a thorough response. A week’s time is not adequate to review complex analyses. It also appears that the Planning & Zoning staff has not had the opportunity to prepare a staff report. As such, we request that going forward, at least 21 days is provided for the review of new submittals in order to allow an adequate review by both the public and the planning staff.
With that said, here is our initial response to the latest round of applicant submittals:
Comprehensive Plan Response from the Applicant: We appreciate the detailed response prepared by the development team. However, many of the responses are couched in the fact that River Rim Ranch is an existing development, and therefore, conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is the strictest sense is not possible. Also, the applicant is arguing from the position that the entire River Rim Ranch PUD is not subject to this application. This is not true. With any proposed PUD amendment, discussion and proposed changes to other phases like South Canyon is squarely within the purview of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The applicant has stated they have not received “authorization” from the property owners of other phases. As a procedural matter, all property owners in the PUD should sign the application, as they are required to sign the final development agreement. This may behoove the applicant as another PUD application in 2008 was stalled due to similar authorization issues.
Financial Feasibility Statement: Our recollection and notes from the meeting indicate that the P&Z Commission requested a financial feasibility statement for the entirety of Phase I, including the hotel, golf course, the single-family lots and chalets, and other amenities. The applicant’s submittal seems to only address the golf course.
Redesigned Golf Village. We applaud the relocation of the proposed incidental commercial units from the West Rim Village on Highway 33. This seems to remedy code issue identified by the May 10th staff report.
Expected Development Timeline. It appears some of the development amenities are projected to come online after the completion of development improvements in 2026.
Impact Comparison between approved single-family units and lodging units. We appreciate the applicant’s response, but there is not an explanation of why the indicators selected by the applicant are appropriate to gage total development impact. Not only is this explanation needed, but the staff and the public need more time to review these figures. Most importantly, there does not seem to be a total accounting of the total number of units in Phase 1. It appears this accounting will eventually serve as Exhibit D to the development agreement, and a working copy of Exhibit D should accompany any P&Z review of the PUD. The density figures from the previous approvals of the PUD are as follows:
|Golf Course||Western Highlands||Central Plateau||West Plateau||North Plateau||South Canyon||(Additional allotted in future phases)||Total Units|
The total numbers proposed should be front and center in the review of this PUD amendment. With regard to traffic, we believe that figures from the Institute of Traffic Engineers should used to calculate daily trips, as well as a rigorous justification the 20% multi-modal reduction
Schematic design of the storage units on Highway 33. We appreciated the applicant’s thoughtful design and sensitivity to the Highway 33 viewshed.
Applicability of this review toward other phases. We understand that the County Prosecutor has confirmed with the planning staff that the entire PUD is subject to this application, and the P&Z Commission can request changes in other phases of the PUD in reviewing this application.
Wildlife Habitat Assessment. We note that Title 9 explicitly requires a Wildlife Habitat Assessment for any preliminary plat application, including disturbed lands. The applicant has stated that the links-style course will be a net positive for the abundant wildlife in this wildlife-rich corner of the valley, and the required Wildlife Habitat Assessment will be necessary to confirm this claim.
Employee Housing Units. We applaud the provision of the employee units, and recommend that the applicant explain how they will be deed-restricted or how occupancy requirements will be enforced over the long-term.
In order to allow the public and the staff to complete the necessary reviews of this latest submittal, we recommend that the P&Z Commission continue this item.
Shawn W. Hill