The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.273511107001 (3)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11x17) PARCEL ID: 2735-111-07-001/00 DATE RCVD: ~ # COPIES:- CASE NO 1972 CASE NAME: Iselin Tract Subd App Planners PROJ ADDR:I39600/39590/39500 Hwy 82 OWN/APP: Iselin Fred ADR REP: ADR: Email Addr: FEES DUE: FEES RCVD:~ CIS/Z: PHN: CIS/Z: PHN:r ALLOCATED HOURS: OVER: ~~ REFERRALS REF: BY~ DUE:~- MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: ~- No ~~- ~- N o ~- ~~ ~ No ~~ REMARKSI2735-111-04-002 GF CLOSED: ~~~ BY: r PLAT RECORDED PLAT (BK,PG): VR APPROVAL DATE: VR EXPIRES: BOCC Reso: BOCC Ord 8/5/1968 PZ: HRG OFF: HO INDEX: ADMIN: ADMIN INDEX: CASE TYP: Subd App CASE TYP5: CASE TYP2: Rezoning App CASE TYPE: CASE TYP3: CASE TYP7: CASE TYP4: Date Scanned: 7/17/09 File Location: IBOX 168 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 'S; ~ :t ~~ ,~ ~~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS October 10, 1972 PRESENT: Commissioners Vagneur, Baxter, Sardy, Attorney, Oates and Finance Officer Kleeman. The Board approved the Iselin Subdivision flat per the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation subject to the conditions contained on the plat. Herb Bartel, City/County Planner presented a plat of the Castle Creek Subdivision. Attorney Dwight Shellman and Rob Roy, a land owner on Castle Creek, presented a problem of access to Roy's property and certain title difficulties. Attorney Oates stated that it was not up to the Commissioners to resolve access and title disputes, but rather up to the courts. Attorney°Shellman stated that these circumstances needed to be considered for suitability of making a subdivision in that location. Commissioner Baxter ab- stained from voting due to the fact that he is a past Secretary-Treasurer of the original corporation who owned the lard. After considerable discussion, the Board decided to confer with the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 18, 1972. Mr. Bartel presented the Prince Creek subdivision sketch plan which was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tom Daly made a lengthy presenta- tion in an attempt to persuade the Commissioners to over- rule the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Daly stated that he did not want to sue the Commissioners. The Commissioners agreed to discuss this subdivision with the Planning and Zoning Commission on October r 18, 1972 for tr.e purpose of obtaining additional information before making a decision. Following is ~, the Planning and Zoning Resolution rejecting the subdivision: 1 A- pc,ober 10, x-972 CQ~MISSIONERS MINUT~~ RESOLUTION WHEREAS, A Sketch Plan for Prince Creek Estates, located adjacent to the Pitkin - Gar- field County line in the Crystal River Valley (parts of Sections 14 & 15, Range 88 W, Township 8 S), has been submitted to enable the applicant to subdivide 264.59 acres, zoned AF-3, into 254 residential lots, varying from 18,000 square feet in size, as a Planned Unit Development under the Pitkin County Subdivision Regulations, and WHEREAS, the Prince Creek Estates Sketch Plan was submitted by the applicant on August 15, 1972 and the Planning Commission met on September 6, 1972 to review said Plan and .again on September 20, 1972, where at said meeti:;g after giving due consideration to all material in the file for and against said Sketch Plan, a .motion was passed to recommend denial of the Prince Creek Estates Sketch Plan for the following reasons which are further explained in this resolution: 1. The Plan is contrary to the in- tent and purpose of the Pitkin County Subdivision Regulations; 2. The subdivision proposed in said Plan is premature; 3. The Plan, presented as a Planned Unit Development, does not meet the cluster requirement as out- lined in the Pitkin County Sub - division Regulations; AND WHEREAS, said Sketch Plan conflicts with the intent and purpose of the Pitkin County Sub division Regulations as follows: 1. The su'division does not con- stitute a logical extension of existing development in the Crystal River Valley (Section 1.2 A); 2. The Plan fails to preserve the natural beauty of the County when it calls for total utili- nation of the large meadow area for building sites based on an unimaginative grid design (Section 1.2 J); 3. The Plan does not preserve fertile soils by restricting building in said areas (Section 1.2 M); AND WHEREAS, the land included in the Sketch Plan for Prince Creek Estates is deemed premature for subdivision because its develop- ment, in the manner proposed, will create a need for the extension of public services and support facilities which cannot be accomplished in a planned, ordered or efficient manner because of an existing deficiency in these same services and support facilities in already developed sectors of the County (Sections 1.3 B and 6.4 C. 1. a & b), AND WHEREAS, the development of Prince Creek Estates will create a management hard- ship for adjacent agricultural operations October 10, 1972 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ~_ through proliferation of urban development in an area of rural, agricultural uses (Section 6.4 C. 1. c), AND WHEREAS, t'he Sketch Plan, sub3ni'tt'ed as a Planned Unit Development under Section 3.2 of the Pitkin County Subdivision Regulations, does not utilize a cluster concept as re-. quired by said Section, and therefore doe's not accomplish the following: 1. Does not intersperse residential' groupings and common open space throughout the development; 2. Does not reduce the costs of de- velopment and of providing ser- vices by shortening the length of streets, utility lines and drain- age facilities; 3. Does not incorporate design al- ternatives that would better fit development to the physical features of the site and preserve land assets, such as the bulk of the meadow area, as well as avoiding unnecessary scaring of the land; 4. Does not reduce the social costs and losses from 't heft and vandalism which can be minimized by close clustering of units, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pitkin County Planing Commission recommends denial of the Prince Creek Estates Sketch Plan to the Pit?tin County Board of County Commissioners. The Board accepted a deed from Peter M, and Monica M. Mocklin on Gibson Avenue to be recorded by the Clerk and Recorder. The Commissioners distributed the royalties from the U.S. Mineral Leasing pursuant to 100-8-2 C.R.S 1963 as follows: $12,368.40 County Road & Bridge Fund 75q 3,259.26 Aspen School District #1 25% 863.54 R.F.S.D. #1 $16,491.20 The $12,368.40 distributed to the County Road and Bridge Fund is $2,368.40 more than budgeted. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ~~ sv~,• F~ ~~ ,~ ~,_._ ~~ --~ , ~~_ ~~_ S k~ cr. t.~? ~: ~~