The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 CorrespondenceI oo Seetion 4.07.06 The ovemll residential density shall be no greatertban foru (4) drryslling rsrits per aore within the PIID; provided, however, that the County Commissionerc may allow an increase to a mar<imum of ftfteen (15) dwelling r:aits per gross acre in areas where adequate watpr and sewer systems (as defined by Section 32-l-103Q0), C.R.S,) are readily available and the prior zoning classificatioa allowed residedtial densities greater than foru (4) dwelting units per asre, such densities being determined by reference to the maximum lot coverage, minimum setback, ma:dmuo floor uea ratio, maximum building height aud parking standards of such prior zoning classification. FOR PUD APPLICATIONS IIWOLVINIG 200 LIMTS O+ GREATER, CONNECTION TO A PUBLIC WATERAI{D SEWER SYSTEIvI OWNED 'AND OPERATED BY A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OR SPECIAL DrsrRlcr (AS DEFINED By SECTTON 32-t-103(20), C.R.S.) IS REQUIRED. The overall average residential density slrail be calculated by sr:mning the number of residential <iweiiing uuits planued wiihh the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of tre PUD. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of conformance to the purposes of this section throrigh appropriate utilization of the area within the PUD to achieve high standards of design and livability. The density sf dvTelling units in any panicular area may be greater than tI€ mar<imum permitted for a like use in othEr zone districts. (A.83-93) io*urrrD cornr? Building and Planning October 28,1996 Martha C. Pickett 320 West Main St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Zone District Text Amendment - Section 4.07.06 Dear Ms. Pickett: On Monday, October 21st, the Board of County Commissioners referred your client's request for an amendment to Section4.07.06 of the Garfield County Zonng Resolution to the Planning Commission for their review and comment at their November 13,1996 meeting. As to the Ranch Creek PIID request, the County Attorney and I agree that the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation and the Board should have a hearing scheduled before the application proceeds forward. At a minimunL the hearing before the Board needs to be set and the publication of the notice needs to have been made, before the Planning Commission makes a recorlmendation on the proposed P[ID. Your clients nny want to go ahead and publish for a hearing before the Board, prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation. This option is available. provided that everyone understands that the hearing will be cancelled if the Planning Commission decides to continue the issue to their next meeting. If you have any other questions about the issues ad&essed in this letter, feel free to call or write to this oflfice at your convenience. Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-821 21285-7912 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 oo TIMOTHY MCFLYNN T MARTHA C. PICKETT JEANNE C. DOREMUS TIMOTHY E. 'i(HITSITT ' dlso oduiftee ifl Cllifoniq ffiI I fl te?6 Lawyers . AProJessional Corporatiot C[,ii*:n::Li] <*rinnV October 9,7996 Garfield County Commissioners c/o Mark Bean, Chief Planner Garfield County Planning Office 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re:Initiation of Text Amendment/Ranch Creek PUD Application Dear County Commissioners and Mark: Pursuant to Section 10.00 of the Garfield Zoning Resolution, this letter is to request a text amendment to Section 4.07.06 regarding the threshold density of a PUD to be served by a municipal water and sewer system or a Special District. As you, Don DeFord, Brian Stowell and I have discussed, the proposed Ranch Creek PUD may likely be the only remaining property in Garfield County where this issue arises. With regard to Ranch Creek PUD, it is the applicant's position that Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners' Association,Inc. ("RRFHA") is contractually obligated to provicie water an,.l sewer services tc the subject p'rcjsct, x,hioh.."ro,;lC, acccrCing to expert reports we have obtained, be adequate. However, the current Code language would prohibit such service unless the RRFHA is organized as a Special District under CRS Section 32-1-103(20). The proposed text amendment would lift this restriction for this small PUD where there is other adequate service available, but maintain the requirement for a municipal system or Special District for a PUD of 200+ units, which was the density that Don referenced, but the undersigned agree is subject to change if the staff or Commissioners believe is a different density is more appropriate as the new threshold number. THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE 320 VEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 816I I kl 970 925 22tl fax 97O 925 244). errail mpdw@rof.net r -Srroonass l/il]arr ANDERSON RANCH 513I O\/L CREEK ROAD POST OFFICE BOX 6157 SNOVMASS VILLACE CO 8I6I5 td 9709232211 fo 97O 923 0760 cmarl mpdwsnow@rof.net McFt-yNN Prcrprr Donp,raus & Wnrrsrrr oo Text Amendment/Ranch P.U.D. October 9,1996 Page2 We strongly urge the County to approve the enclosed text amendment for Section 4.07.06. We understand that the RRFHA has commented to the County a position contrary to the applicant regarding its obligation to serve the Ranch Creek PUD and we would recofilmend and accept a condition of approvat by the County that the applicant take whatever steps are necessary to provide evidence to the County that the contractual obligation of RRFHA to provide water and sewer service is in full force and effect and that the system is capable of adequate service. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the text amendment prior to review by the Planning andZorungCommission, please call me. Otherwise, we will appreciate confirmation that this matter is being placed on the P &, Z agenda for November 13, 1996. We would also appreciate placement of the Ranch Creek PUD application on the same agenda so that these matters could be reviewed as a whole by P & Z, particularly in light of the fact that this application is uniquely affected by the proposed text amendment. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation on these requests. Respectfully Submitted, MoFLYNN PICKETT DOREMUS & WHITSITT, P.C. OWNERS OF RANCH CREEK PUD PROPERTY: oo Parcel 1, D Units, Phase II, and D Units, Parcel B, redivision of Parcel 2, Phase II, Town Center and D Units, Rssring Fork Banch Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. Stagecoach Limited, Limited Partner Town Center enclosure strykbrown\text.amd Martha C. Pickett Roariiig Fork Ranchl