Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Staff Report BOCC 06.08.92REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOCC 6t8192 Review of the Wood Landing Planned Unit Development compliance with the requirements of Section 4.09.01 of the GarFreld County Zoning Resolution o l 1 978. Board of County Commissioners A tract of land located in parts of Section 4, T65, R91W; more particularly described as a tract of land located approximately one (l) mile southwest olNew Castle, off of County Road 335. The site consists of 9l acres. Proposed central water system. Proposed central sewage treatment system. Three (3) interior roads offC.R. 335. Wood Landing PUD A/I, A/R/RD and O/S T.RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parcel of land is located in the following Comprehensive Plan Management Districts: District A - New Castle Urban Area of Influence District D - Rural Areas/Moderate Environmental Constraints District F - River/Floodplain Severe Environmental Constraints. II. DFSCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Descrintion: The subject property consists of approximately 90 acres, 23 of which are located on the south side of C.R. 335. This land consists of a steeply sloped pinion juniper hillside. The majority of the site, situated north of the "l county road, consists of a broad, flat river terrace adjacent to the Colorado River. The bulk of the area is irrigated cropland. At the east side of the parcel is the Garfield Creek drainage. The north boundary of the property is the south bank of the Colorado River. Portions of the property are located in the regulated floodplains of the Colorado and Garfield Creek. I-IeveloFment Profrosal: The applicant is proposing to subdivision the property into 317 Single Family residential lots on 58 acres with an average lot size of 5,400 square feet. Included is the zoning approval, but not shown on the map, are 2 commercial lots. Approximately 30 acres of the site would be dedicated as open space, the majority olwhich is unusable ground on the south side of the County road. Background: In October of 1980, by Resolution No. 80-258, the Wood Landing PUD was approved by the County. The PUD would have a maximum of 317 residential lots and two multi-purpose commercial lots on the approximately 91.0 acres ol land included in the PUD. As a condition of approval, the developer, Gene R. Hilton and Ranch Investment Corporation, were required to agree to making improvements to County Road 335 to alleviate trallic problems that would result from the development of the project. An agreement to that effect was signed in January of 1981 (see enolosed resolution and road agreement). In the spring of 1987, public hearings were held to consider the revocation of the Wood Landing PUD and reversion to the original agricultural zone district. Section4.09.0t of theGarheld County ZonngResolution of 1978, asamended, states that "the applicant must begin development of the PUD within one year from the time of its hnal zone change approval, provided, however, that the PUD may be developed in stages." Section 4.09.02 states that "if the applicant does not comply with the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the County Commissioners shall review the PUD and may revoke approval for the uncompleted portion of the PUD, orrequire the PUD to be amended, orextend the time for completion of the PUD." The applicant was granted a three (3) year extension, with all original conditions and obligations remaining in eflect. In May I 99 l, the applicant was notilied that the extension of time granted by the BOCC had expired due to inactivity. Again, it was staffs intention to begin processing the reversion of the zoning. This matter was presented to the Planning Commission in July 1991. The Commission agreed to grant al20 day extension of time at the applicant's request, to prepare an economic feasibility study. The Planning Commission extension expired on November I l, 1991. In January 1992, the applicant liled a Sketch Plan application. No economic feasibility study was ever submitted. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: As noted previously, Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County Zorung Resolution of 1978, requires an applicant for PUD approval to begin development of the project within one (l) year of "hnal zone change approval." Final zone change approval was granted in October of 1980, with a road improvement agreement being signed in January of 1981. No action to complete the PUD was initiated in the ensuing ten (10) years. In each case, it has been the County that has initiated action on the PUD in 1987 and 1991. B. C. A- B. After, the previously noted November I l, l99l deadline to submit an economic feasibility study and to present new information to the Planning Commission, the applicant approached staff. The applicant was advised that he was supposed to have started the subdivision review process to be in compliance with Section 4.09.01 of the Zontrrg Resolution. He stated that he would be proceeding forward with a subdivision application and that a letter would be following (see enclosecl page '- r'l - ). This letter was presentecl to the Board of County Commissioners on December 16, 1991. The Board directed staffto send aletter to the applicant that an application lor sketch plan must be presented by January 15,1992(see letter page* 5 - ). A sketch plan was submitted prior to January 15, 1992. The Planning Commission reviewed the Sketch Plan and made their comments on March 11,1992. Sketch Plan review does not give an applicant anything more than comments on the proposed subdivision, there is no approval or denial. Neither the Planning Commission or the Board had taken any action on the issue of revocation, modilrcation or extension otthe PUD as contained in Section 4.09.02 of the Zontng Resolution. On March23,1992, the Garfield County Attorney sent a letter to the applicant advising him that the issue of whether an extension, modihcation or revocation of the PUD should be approved (see letter pug.G-). On April 8, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended revocation of the PUD approval for the Wood Landing PUD (see minutes pages 8 ' l '1 ). The applicant submitted the enclosed letter at the Planning Commissionmeeting lseepage /3 ;. The Board of County Commissioners has not taken any action on the question ofrevocation, modification orextension of theWood Landing PUD. Theletter written to the applicant in December by staff did not deal with the issue of whether or not an extension was to be granted if a subdivision application was submitted. The issue belore the Board is whether or not you feel it is appropriate to revoke, amend or extend the PUD approval. Other Comments 1. Town of New Castle: The Board of Trustees of the Town of New Castle have submitted a letter opposing the approval of the Woods Landing PUD (see page / { ). IV.RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recoflrmended revocation olthe Wood Landing PUD on April 8,1992. November 19, 1991 2102 West AraPaltoe Drlve Llttleton, CO 80120 Mr. Mark Bean Dlreclor of FegulatorY Olllces 109 Sth Streel, Sulte 303 Glenwood Sprlngs, CO 81601 Re: Wood Landlng Sketch and Prellmlnary Plans Dear Mr. Bean: GI\I(I: I LL,IJ L:UU N I]Y I contacted your olllce by telephone on Monday to set up a meetlng wlth you to revlew the rLqulrements ior submltllng a Sketch Plan tor Wood Larrdlng and was advlsed tlrat you were oul ol the olllce untll Thursday. I also contacted Mr. Rudy woodrulf, lormerly the manager of wood _Bros. Englneerlng and Plannlng Department, to lnlttate the Sketch Plan and Prellmlnary plan submlftals lo your olllce. Mr. Woodrull was resporrslble lor the orlglnal zonlng plans and srudles lor Wood Bros. artd has been assoclated wlth the prolect slnce-lls lnceptlon. Mr. Woodrult has had hls own consultlng buslness lor several yaars lrr the Monument-Colorado Sprlngs area. ln the lnlermtm, please conslder tlrls as nollce that I wlll be submlttlng a Sketch Plan or Prellmlnary Plan to tlre Plannlng Commlsslon lor revlew. Mr' Woodrulf and I would llke to meet wlth you lo make sure that all requlrements are known lo us and lo set a date lor the submlttal. I wlll contacl you to set a llme lor the meetlng. Your asslslance wlll be appreclated. Certllled Mall Recelpt P 778 041 469 wll1199r -Ll mry,T sl It\i 219 GARFIELD COUNI Y ITEG-*A1 ORY OFF:ICES AND PERSONNEL December 16, l99l Gene R. Ilitton P.O. Rox 1274 Littleton, CO gOlzO RE: Wood Landing PUI) On Novembet 22, 1991, this office received a letter l'rorn you, stating that you woutd be subrnitting a Sketch Ptan for Wood Landing. Civen our conversation about tlre same subject the next day, I was uttder tlre inrpression tlrat an appticalion rvoulcl be suburitted strortty. Since ttrere has been no lurther conununication arrd no del-rnite tinrelines irlentified for submittal, your letter was presented to the Iloard oICounty Conunissioners on Decernber 16, 1991. 'fhe Board stated that itno application was received by January 15, 1992, the County will reirritiate the process to rezone the property in question from Planne<l Unit Developrnent (PUD) to Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (fuR/RD). Your cooperation in this rnatter rvill be appreciated. Mark L. Bean, Director Regulatory O[Iices and Personnel MLB/rlb 109 8Tl{ STREET, SUITE 303 , 945-82t21625.55711285-7972 . GLENWOOD SPR|NGS, COLORADO B160l Sincerely, r-J^ Marclr 21,1992 GANFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE t09 Bth Street Sulte 300 Glsnwood Sprlngs, Coloroclo I l60l'3303 Phone 945-9'l 5O Gene R. Ililton P.O. llox 1274 Littleton, CO 80120 ItE: Wood Landing PI-'D Dear Mr. IlilLon: AttrreMarch firrgglrrranningcomrnissio.rneeting,trreissuecilrneupoIwhetlrerornotthe commission srrourd ,rake a reconl,rentlation as to whether or not thewood Landing Plannetl unit Deveropnrent tresighation shourtl be revoked, anrendetr or trre tirne extended for completion. After reviewi.g the record, we have co.oruded tlrnt trre tloard o[ county Cornmissioners has not extentled the tinre to begin tlevelopurent oI the wootl Lantling PUD' On May 4, 1987, thd Doartl o[ Cotrnty Cotnrlrissioners' a[ter a pubtic lrenring' appioved a requested extension of the wood t-unoing puD for tlrree (3) yenrs. si,ce there was no action totleginrreveropme,r. asrerluired i,sectio]r 4.09.01 ortrrecjnitield courrty Zbning ltesotution' t,e lloartl relerred the consitlerrtion oI revocation, anrettdtttettt or extettsiotr o[ the tirne lor comptetio' o[ the l,uD to the Planning cottrnrissiorr in Mrry of l99l' n t i'e July I l' l99l meeting, you requestecl ,120 tlrys to do an econonric tersib,ity st.dy o[ t'e proposcd deveropnrent. on Novenrber g, r99r, trre r20 tray extensio, ex,ired nntl t'e nexl cotnmunication catne via ttre ptto"" intlicnting an ilttenI to srrbnrit a Sketch l'lan' subseclue.try, aretter received i, trris ot'rice o. Nover, berzz,l99l, was prcsetttetl to tlre Doartl o[ county commissioners. You received n tel.ter that wns dated Decerltber l6' l99t ' noting t,at the Boartl ol'courrty comnrissioners would not reinitiitte the Process to reconsitler the question otpUD solretluiing trntil nfterJanuury 15, 1992' On Janttary 14'1992'asketotr I'lntt subrnittnl was brought itrto this oflioe' lt is the opinion of this ol'fice tlrtrt the I]oartl oIcounty conrnrissioners tleed to acl on tlte issttc of revocation, nnre.tti'g or extendirrg the tinre linrits oI the PuD npproval nt n public hentitrg t_ LP Cene R. I-Iilton Page 2 Marclr 20,1992 allerarecommendatio, frorrr tlre planning cornmissiorr. 'l'his hcarirrg rvortltl nllow the llonrtl to consicter t6e previously notecl options"nnd by ttesolution take the nppropriate action per i..tion 4.0g.02 of the Gurticltl courrty z,orring ltesolution. Ity this letter, we &re notilying you o[ our irttent to present this isstre to the Planning Commissiotr for r recomlnetrdnliotr on April 8' 1992' SincerelY, ,/ DKD/rlb !: ;I t: ffir-fln"Sot.t County AttorneY 1- MF'MBFRS PRESENT Pat Fitzgerald Stephanie Lavorini Pete Nichols Harold Shaeffer Dick Stephenson Phil Vaughan Themeeting wascalled to order. of December I l, 1991, January 8, a unanimous vote. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 8,1992 STAFF PRESENT Don DeFord, County Attorney Mark Bean, Director Regulatory Oflcrs & Personnel Andrew McGregor, Planner Dave Michaelson, Planner Roll Call was taken with Frank Phelps absent. Theminutes 1992 and March I l, l992were approved, as corrected, with Consideration of Rescission of PUD and Vacation of Final Plat lor Westbank Ranch PUD Filing 4 - Board of County Commissioners. Mark Bean stated that he had received, just before themeeting started, acopy of awateragreement signed by theWestbank Ranch Homeowner's Association and Westbank Ranch No. I Limited. Mr. Bean noted that there is a request for a one (l) year extension to initiate the development of the PUD portion of the project. Billie Burchfield, water attorney and representative for John Huebinger and Westbank Ranch PUD Filing 4, noted that Filing 4 was the only portion of the development left to be completed of the Westbank PUD. The agreement, as signed, provides six months or in a judicial and supplemental engineering analysis to prepare the attorneys to go forward with formal application to the water court for augmentation and/or alternate points of diversion. She explained that there is a very specihc time schedule in the agreement where in the engineering analysis would be finalized within a six month period additional and supplemental water contract would be obtained and finalized within six months and an augrnentation pursued diligently until there is a decree from the water court. Ms. Burchfield asked that the Commission recommend at least a yearextension to allow the parties to get the supplemental engineering and water court decrees that are necessary for the development to begin. Harold Shaeffer asked what if nothing takes place in a year, do the homeowners get better water rights. Bob ChafIin, attorney, noted that by July l, 1993 the homeowners will receive the water system and sixty-six percent (66%) of the domestic water rights. Mr. Bean clariflred that having a Final Plat f-rled, without any improvements in place, does not give the developer the right to sell the property. Stephanie Lavorini asked how the water agreement effects the vacation of the Filing 4. Mr. Bean responded that there is still the same amount of water available for Filing 4 that are necessary as during the original proposal. Motion Phil Vaughan moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners an extension of s2O timefortheWestbank RanchPUDFiling4foraperiod ofone(l) year. PeteNicholsseconded the motion. Mr. Bean suggested that the Subdivision Improvements Agreement also be amended to incorporate the one (1) year. Mr. Vaughan moved to add Mr. Bean's suggestion to the motion. Mr. Nichols seconded the motion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Consideration of Revocation, Amendment or the Time Extension for Comfrletion of the Wood I anding PUD - Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Bean noted that the project has not gone beyond the rezoning. Bob Cutter, representative for Gene Hilton, handed out a copy of a letter written by Mark Bean stating that the Board of County Commissioners stated that if no application had been received by January 15,1992, the County would reinitiate the process to rezone the property. Mr. Stephenson understood that the sketch plan submittal was brought into the Planning Department on January 14,1992, the day before the cutoff. Mr. Bean stated that there was no agreement as far as the issues of what eflect that letter had on the PUD approval. The Board of Commissioners said that they would not continue the initial action until January 15,1992. The letter was not an agreement to an extension. Phil wanted to understand that the extension actually expired on November 8, 1991. Mr. Bean said yes. Mr. DeFord noted that was the extension that the Planning Commission granted. Mr. Bean stated that the extension granted by the Board of County Commissioners expired on May 4, 1990. Mr. Nichols noted that the extension was over a year after the Planning Commission considered it and then gave them another 120 days to November 8, 1991. Mr. Bean noted that at that time the comments were made that the applicant was going to present an economic feasibility study to the Planning Commission. After that time had passed, that is when Mr. Hilton came in and spoke to us about the other issue. Mr. Shaeffer asked again if the 120 day extension actually expired before anything was done. Mr. Bean said yes. Mr. Fitzgerald said that he didn't understand. Mr. Cutter gave the Planning Commission the letter Mr. Bean wrote to Gene Hilton on December 16, I 99 I , and that letter said that the Board of County Commissioners stated that if no application was received by January 15, 1992,the County will reinitiate the process to rezone the property. The letter that was appended to that said that the developer complied with the requirements by hling the Sketch Plan on January 14,1992. Mr. DeFord noted that he agreed that the letter was submitted as set forth by the Board of Commissioners. What the Board did not do was state that if it was submitted the Board of Commissioners would a{Iirmatively grant an extension of time. Some of this admittedly is a problem with time frames and appeared to be legal nitpicking, but there had not been an extension of time actually granted by the Board of Commissioners. In other words, the correspondence from Mr. Bean did not state that the applicant would have an extension of time and if so for how long. What we have right now is a PUD whose approval ran out by time, cl actually now several years ago, that has not actually been extended. Because it can only be extended by the Board of Commissioners. That issue should have been brought to the Board of Commissioners and they needed to state affrrmatively that they were extending, it or were not and if they were, for how long. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that if I was reading the letter on the basis of what it said, he thought that if he handed it in, he had met his obligation. Mr. DeFord asked how long did that letter extend the PUD and Mr. Fitzgerald responded that it did not say. It would seem that complying with the letter, which was the recommendation of the Planning Commission, would meet the requirements. Mr. DeFord noted that it did not, because it did not state a time certain and it did not state that the PUD would be extended. It only stated that the Board of Commissioners would not initiate action to revoke the PUD within that time frame. Mr. Cutter noted that Mr. Hilton felt that was the County's requirements that this was what the planning staffhad asked for and told him he had to do this and that is what he did. Mr. DeFord stated that he made it very clear at the March meeting that when the applicant started reviewing the Sketch Plan that the letter did not amount to an extension of the PUD. Mr. Bean stated that Mr. Hilton requested in November after the time had expired on this issue. Thefact that Mr. Bean was out of town in Novemberduring thePlanning Commission meeting was one of the reasons it did not get brought back to the Planning Commission. After that time the applicant came in and asked if he could submit something for the subdivision process. Mr. Bean suggested that he submit a letter to the Board of Commissioners requesting exactly what he wanted. Mr. Bean took that letter to the Board of Commissioners, it was not staffs direct suggestion. Mr. Shaeffer asked ifany of the subsequent action, ever since the original expiration, which was three years ago, did away with the original time frame of the PUD? Has it extended it or has it been left in limbo? Mr. DeFord responded that other than the action that extended it to 1990, it has not. Mr. Shaeffer asked that this was true even though the action was initiated by the Planning Commission and also by the applicant for 120 days, which was not met. Mr. Nichols stated that that was not really an action. All the Planning Commission did was table the PUD for 120 days, the applicant proposed a time frame and in response to a question from the Commission, he said that he wanted to also do aneconomic feasibility study in that period of time. Mr. Shaeffer noted that the study was never received. Mr. DeFord stated that the Planning Commission tabled the PUD and they have no authority to legally extend the PUD. Mr. Nichols stated that rather than acting to recommend revocation or acting to recommend extension the Planning Commission tabled the PUD for 120 days to let the applicant come back with some information. He didn't. Mr. Nichols telt that the applicant has "blown it." Mr. Cutter stated that the developer felt that he was in compliance with the County's requirements, as Mr. Bean set out in his letter, and the applicant started on the Sketch Plan process according to the comments of the Planning Commission, which Mr. DeFord made clear were only good for one (l) year and the applicant was going through the development process. Mr. Nichols noted that the 120 day tabling that the Planning Commission suggested on July lo- I I , 1991 , was over months before the March meeting. The applicant did not come up with the feasibility study that he said he would in that period of time. Mr. Nichols was out of patience and there isn't a level of trust existing anymore on his part. Mr. Shae{fer asked if from a legal standpoint, has the Planning Commission been obligated to an extension because of the action that has taken place since May 1990? Mr. DeFord responded that the letter is ambiguous, and agreed it could be interpreted to say that the Board of Commissioners would not initiate any action atany time after a Sketch Plan wassubmitted. Mr. DeFord didn't believe that was afair interpretation of what the Board of Commissioners did, and he thought it needed to go back to them to be interpreted. Mr. Stephenson agreed. Mr. Bean stated that what was needed lrom the Planning Commission was a recommendation as to what type of action they felt would be appropriate as a commission. Mr. Fitzgerald felt that it was a zoning issue. It is hard to separate the two, but it is a zoning district that has been granted for that piece of land for some years. He felt to change the zoning, to down zone or to up zone, there should be solid proof lor either to first time around to have zoned in error or things to substantiate the change. He didn't feel things have changed since the early 80's for the housing. Rifle's vacancy rate was back to where it was during the oil shale days and the house prices are now going back to that. He didn't see a change. Mr. Beannoted that the Castle Valley development was approved subsequent to the approval of this particular project and is within the Town of New Castle. There were well over 2,000 units. They have not all been platted. He believed part of that was related to the fact that the developer has not seen the market for that type of housing. A lot of his housing is intended to deal with some of that market. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that he has consistently taken that approach and he didn't believe the Planning Commission has reached a point where they can say that they have determined there are enough lots for the market. Mr. DeFord noted that from a legal perspective, he didn't see that this discussion was actually part of the issue belore the Planning Commission. A PUD is not a normal zone district. Mr. Fitzgerald was correct that if the Planning Commission were talking about a normal zone district, in a rezoning up or down, those are the issues we would be looking at. In some circumstances that would be true with a PUD, but the only reason this was before the Planning Commission was because of the time limits imposed on development for a PUD. That was not a requirement in any other zone district, only in PUD's, and the Garl-reld County code was very simple about time limits. If the applicant didn't comply the time limits then the Board of Commissioners may revoke, extend with conditions orextend those time limits. That was the issue. Should the Planning Commission extend the time limits, extend them with conditions or revoke the PUD because the time limits were not met. Mr. Cutter asked if the Board of Commissioners actually asked that this come before the Planning Commission for recoilrmendation. Mark replied yes. That is why it came before the Planning Commission in July. Mr. Cutter meant after the January 15,1992 deadline that the Boardof Commissionersmade. Mr. Beansaidno. ThePlanningCommissionwascontinuing the same action that never occurred after the July meeting. Mr. Cutter asked if Mr. Bean has reported back to the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Bean stated that he told them that this meeting and this discussion was going to occur. Mr. Cutter asked if they requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation on this issue. Mr. Bean noted that the Board of Commissioners did not tell him to discontinue this discussion. Hesaid he talked to them on t\ April 6,1992. Mr. Cutter noted that they didn't ask the Planning Department to bring it before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bean said no and stated that he explained to them what was doing on. Mr. Nichols noted that it seemed like the Board of Commissioners has already asked the Planning Commission to give them a recommendation and they planned to respond to their question of last July. Motion Mr. Nichols moved to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners revoke the Wood Landing PUD. Ms. Lavorini seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzgerald was not comfortable with the situation or explanation of the two letters. He said if he were an ordinary man on the street and saw those letters, he would think that meeting that date is all he could do. Mr. Nichols noted that he was tired of not being able to depend on the sort of representations that people make before the Planning Commission like representations the applicant made last July that they would come back with in it 120 days, and he remembered asking the applicant if that was enough time and if they were going to come back with a feasibility study. The applicant said yes and he did not do either one. As lar as representations go Mr. Nichols lelt that the applicant was on the sort end of the stick. Harold noted that the 120 days was their time limit. Pat stated that it was not one we imposed on them. The motion passed with a 5-l (Pat Fitzgerald) vote. Tone Tristrict Change lrom A/R/RD to C/L- Carl Midland. Mr. Nichols disqualihed himself from this issue due to his employment with Unocal. Andrew McGregor summarized the project, which was a request for a zone district change of approximately 44 acres of a74 acre tract from fuR/RD to ClL. The applicant states that the primary reason is to provide a place for a nursery/garden center. The statement was made that there is a shortage of commercial limitedsitesforbusinessestoexpand. Stalfrecommendeddenial,becausetheproposedusewas allowed in the existing zone district. Dick Stephenson asked what the adjacent uses are. Mr. McGregor responded that there was and auto salvage facility, vacant land, rock storage facility and a commercial corridor to the north between Hwy 82 and County Road I10. Carl Midland, applicant, stated that his piece of property is to establish a nursery/garden center. He noted that there is a 70 gpm spring, but he will only use 20 gpm. Don Sullivan, agent for seller (Unocal), said that the spring that Mr. Midland was talking about was adjudicated and was on the subject property. He also noted that Mr. Midland wants to put a house on the 30 A/R/RD acres and wants to split part of the 44 CIL acres off and sell it. There was a lengthy discussion about which portions of the property should be rezoned between the applicant and the Commission. r la- NOC}ERI l)ELANEY I<ENNE'H EALCOMTI JOIIN A. TI{ULSON EDWAND MULHALL. JR. ROBENT C. CUTIEF SCOI' EALCOMF LAWNENCE N. GREEN ROBENI M. NOONE TIMOTHY A. IHULSON I)rlruvrr & Bnr-oor'tr, t'. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DFIAWER 790 (; r-rcN wo(rt) SnnrN cls, (iol.o tt rr tro o t rloc April B, t992 Very trulY Yours, DELANEY By Bt6 COLORAOO AVENUE Eas 6548TELEpHONE g'dS-ZSlt TELECOPIEn 945-8902 anEA cooE 503 Garfield Count,y Planrrirrg Commission Glenwood Springs, Colorado (HAND DELTVERED) RE: Wood Landing P.U.D. Dear Madam and Sirs: At your last meeting yo9 reviewed the sketch Plan of wood Landing P.U.D. and it is i,frl intention of t,5e Developer to follow the process initiated by the sket.ch Plan in an orderly "ttqefficient manner. rn the int,erest of eonserving bot'h your time and th; nevelopei; s timer wc have elected not to repeat that presentatioir for your April I L992 meeting' The attached letter of December 16, 1991 from Mark Ir' Bean out,lines the County's requirements for tire P'U'D' classifieation' The Developer ""r.pii"a wiifiihose requirements by filing the Sketch PIan on January 14, 1992. The Developer has designqd th.is pro-j.ec-t- to answer the need f or afforaaUfe sinqie-family ho'using in iartield County. and intends to ;;-i;;;;d ;rlir-tt"-piti""t-"ppioval and construcEion in a phased manner. B,P.C. ()tft c. cutter RCC: svcc! Don DeFord Garfield CountY Commissioners v,,/i 13- ,,,,rM TOWN OF NEW CASTLE Telephone (303) 984-231 1 Box 166, Neq Castle, Colorado 81647 'Burning Mountain' I 888 ay 25,19,t 2 Ctar r: J. e -l- cl. ur:r tl t t t- y r-:r-)nlnl i $ s: .i.'rt r r' t"- I:i 109 Bt.lt Street G.teuvloocl SPritrgs, t:O B I tr02 o The cletrrs i.l-1' I'g'"e -[ i-s: tor-' iti-glt ' rr Tltere is ttrlt, eltr)rlrJlt cletnatttl i:ot lltal: Casl-Ie ValIel' Ritttt:it 1s s't:lt':tlrtled t': o The ec: c'll'lllly d'.:es nct, tli:lr1-dllt attr-rblte'r area.. o Tlte $t:ltr:rr-rI sysLeln tror,tld l;e itttplcter-! ' p.l.ea;:le t.e.l"e ()1l v-l-e..ls ltrto ctlll,.iir:ler at l':rtt l'lilell rei'1et'litru Wot:cls L:rttdirt,J fUil renet'ral L-eqt-1€'5i' If yol lrai,e ally (ltt6st ic,irr pleas:,3 d':' lt-'t- 1es.Lt.irt.e to ecnt l[e . T'rwtr Cler ll fi(r1PP nY, Dear C'otttttlls l: ioller r.i : Tlr.e Er:ar.r-1 ,:rf Trr,lr:L,?es,:f '-he Tu!.,tl 'lf tl?t^, (-: rstIg rlrlrr-lId lllle t,) expt-'egii l.h:1r r:tp.Dr:)t ii iotr trr l'lt'.' aF1:r1"or"aJ- r.'f l-itt' lir-r1'1 fi Latlr-llllql PUD. Fc, llcttittr; i:tl-e ot-ll' I:easolls t':rr ot'tr r'r[rp'-:s i t-i-ctt' !',ltrci. r:r I Ltttpat'|. b'r 1 1d 2 50i tttrl ts . s" ttl:rcl i',. i s l '-r11 i tt t lr j. rr ths ar.: t ,&t nntcd on rccYcled PaPor )L\ - ilil