HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Correspondence 01.05.1979the
AN 8
iI9 S
r land design
41110 nersh�pQrt p
January 5, 1979
Garfield County Planning
and Zoning Commission
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Text Amendment
Don Ice
Dear Commission Member:
Herein contained is a summary of the discussion regarding the
Don Ice text amendment request at the December llth P&Z meeting.
Following are the concerns expressed by the various P&Z members
as I understood them:
1. That the increased density would result
in a considerable increase in the num-
ber of requests for multi -family P.U.D.
zoning.
2. That the increased density would reduce
their authority to deny a project which
placed too many dwelling units in an
area of the county not desirable for
such density.
3. That they (P&Z members) were not endowed
with the abilities necessary to review
and assess the merits of a multi -family
P.U.D. project as provided for in the
Garfield County P.U.D. resolutions.
4. That the accommodation of higher density
housing in the county may not be desir-
able.
Suite 208 Village Plaza Glenwood Springs CO 81601 945-6830
agq sT •uozornTosad •Q•n•d agg go quaguT
agg gSTTdUI0032 ATz0g02;STT2S U23 UOTSSTUIUIOD
Z74d agg ;214; quapTJuoo Taaj I 'saaquiaui Z'4d
auq. Jq esus uounuoo oTSPq autos go uoT;e3TTdde
agg pup ubTsap •Q•n•d Gliq go MOTnaz qq.CIGID UT
s,ggegs quaui;zpdaQ buTuuPTd iqunop ag. go
aouegsTsse age g;TM •eouaTaadxeu-r aTom.
o; anp pauzaouoo ATa;2Tadozdd2uT axe szaqucau
Toog I ;2\q ;oaCoad buTsnog 2 go ubTsap
paTTp;ap ag; MaTnaa al. paT;TTpnb Taal qou
/CUM szaquiaui Z'4d ;Pg; eTqupuP;szapun sT ;I • C
• quaucdoTanap
kTTwPg-T;Tnui 103 SS000Jd •Q•n•d au; zonPJ
og uoseaa zaq;oup snug •goaCo.zd agg go ubTs
-op TeuzaquT am. azTUTgnaos og AgTaog;ne ag;
iqunoD aq soAT5 uoT3UTosad •Q•n•d aq;. aouis
gsanbaz abupgo buTuoz aTdwTs e upg; ;senbaz
buiuoz •Q-n•d P 7uap og uoTgTsod zapgoq p uT sT
J;unop 'buTq;1uP ;I •goaCoad pa;eooT ao
paubTsep ATzaod e Auap o; AgTTTgP s,iqunop age
aouan[Juz ;ou pTnogs A4Tsuap cin paseaaouT aqj
•;oaCozd age. go aogoeaugo pup AgTTPnb au.
zano Toaquoo a1OUI iquno) ag; son -FE) a3UTs
uoTJPOTgTss2To buTuoZ •Q•n•d P gbno.zq; .zn000
o� ;uauzdoTanap i4Tsuap gbTg o; agpzapoui .zo
zi1zum;-Tginuc TTP 02\214 0q A unop age aoj
aTgpazsap aq pTnoM qT 'qoP; uI .sodAq buTsnog
go Agazapn zag2aab 2 uT pagsTTdw0002 aq og
SaT;Tsuap IagbTg asag_ MoTT2 0g sT ;uaucpuacue ;xa;
pogsenbez egg go quoguT aus •uoT;nTosad
buTuoZ pTerTgaPseq; 1q pegTzosep JTquasaad
s;oTagsip buTuoz zapun sTaoz2d asam. uo aTgzssod
Si quauidoTanap Agzsuap gbTg -buTuoZ
'Q'fl'd J4Tsuep gbTg zoj buTATddp sTaoa2d
atop OZ ]0 xnTJUT snopUauiaag 2 eq TTTM
azagg mem. ;sabbns og buTg;ou sT aaag; ;nq
aspazouT AgTsuap am. go qTnsaz 2 S2 buTuoZ
ATTWPJ-T Tnur Q • n • d z0j buTiiidd2 sTaoz2d
13TT2ucs Ma] 2 eq TTTM aaau; ATpa;gnopun
'Z
'T
:s;gbnom. buTMoTTo;
age aagJo ITnoM I 'suaaouoo passazdxa aseq; og asuodsaa uI
•aTgeaTsap iTgzssod ao aTge;daao2 aq )w
buTsnoq edA; ATTUIPz-T;Tnui Agunoo age
uT aaa14M oq SP uoTgoaaTp aTep-o;-d2\ iu2
g-4TM wog; apTnozd qou scop upTd anTsuaq
-Gaducop A;unop pTaTJz2E ;uasazd aq; ;p ',
.5
abed
6L6T 'S ia2nUPr
uoTssTwwoo buTuoZ 9 buTuuPTd iigunoD pT3TJa2E
• 1
Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 1979
Page 3
direction of the P.U.D. resolution for -the
County to consider a variety of factors as
they apply to each individual P.U.D. project
rather than rely on a few absolute criteria
such as are defined in the normal zone
districts or such as the low gross density
limit set in the present p.U.D. Resolution.
It may be useful to review sections 14.02
and 14.07 of the P.U.D. Amendment to the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution. These sections
define the various elements to be considered
when assessing a P.U.D. zoning request. Many
of the elements can potentially influence the
desirability of a development to a much
greater extent than the gross density of the
project.
4. A large majority of Garfield County is undoubtedly
not attuned to multi -family type development
but there are other areas that, due to growth
pressures and the availability of services
are desirable for more intense development.
Garfield County is facing a long term growth
pattern that will result in considerable
development in the county as well as in and
surrounding existing communities. The present
P.U.D. regulations tend to promote rural single
family sprawl type development. If there is
to be any reasonable amount of open space
preserved in the areas of greatest growth
pressure such as the Roaring Fork Valley, the
county zoning must accommodate a variety of
housing types that will allow the concentration
of dwelling units thereby easing the develop-
ment pressure on surrounding lands. 'Also,
development under a P.U.D. process automatically
requires a 25% open space committment.
5. The availability of an up-to-date Comprehensive
Plan for the Garfield County would be of con-
siderable assistance to the P&Z in assessing
proposed P.U.D. developments no matter what
the maximum gross density limit maybe. I would
urge the County to proceed with a Comprehensive
Planning program but I do not feel the present
Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 1979
Page 4
lack of a plan is valid reason to restrict
innovative residential development.
Hopefully this brief review has refreshed your thoughts on the
subject and will be beneficial to you in preparing for further
discussion and action on the text amendment Monday night. In
the way of additional information, I have enclosed a comparison
of P.U.D. density limits for a few surrounding counties. I
think these counties reflect a representative range of density
limits for Western Colorado counties under moderate growth
pressures.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
THE LAND DESIGN
fr
Ronald B. Liston
PARTNERSHIP
RBL/rjn
cc: Ray Baldwin
•
H
a
w
H
U
E1
H
z ro
w s~
Q �c
Ci) a)
c
o •H
• -P
LD ro
k
Q �
• a
z �
• o
• U
t
a)
m a) •r-1
•H ,-1
1a +-) A O t7"
$-1 a) ra a) 4J v r
a ¢'ro a o • 4-• ) • ' �
CU u) • H r-1 O r -I • •-i
•H Ha) ° • v) ° o
art >14 o
• • 4•H • a)
rn • rr v Cr u) ° +) • A -1-)
—1 • • r-1 • • H a) • H a) W • tT 4-3 Lk i-} a)
,--I (14 r+a ,-iLH H H H rte 0 0 0
,-1 v H Oro H U •H rd •r-1 k
Cu En 3U) a) W i,-i(ll m�a)
3 u) rCI cn 41 3 v rc:5 3 cd H a) +-) -P a
ra O 0 1 r0 rt7 I -P a) U S- cn
oS-iU C.) rd W 03Xa)•Hen
v, tT N tT rti l0 (d 1-1 0o a, E1 rCj a) E rci rn
Garfield County
Grand County
Eagle County
Mesa County
Pitkin County