Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.043.1978 k Y'��°"£' _ . t�.s�r'��;�. . e�u%�:'.;�1;. ' . � . . � � . 1 ����`� � , . . . ..._ .. .... . _. .x, Pi . . . �K:AS.t•..: l:[ 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � - OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING GENERAL � SUBMISSION APPROVAL OF THE FRANK SUBDIVISION � FILING NUMBER 2 � Resolution No. 78- /�_3 � � � - WHEREAS, Mary Frank, owner and operator of the Abacus Ranch within Pitkin County, has made application for a 24 �-` lot subdivision of lands within the Abacus Ranch, and �'. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, after a series of ineetings held in December of 1977 and January of 1978, did recommend denial of the application for failure of the proposal to meet the requirements of the Pitkin � : County Land Use Code and masterplans of the County, and � WHEREAS, after notice of the same, a public hearing � i was held on the application on March 27, and April 10, t � 1978, and the application was further considered by the � � ; Board at its subsequent regular meeting held on April 24, � �� 1978, and � ': WHEREAS, upon careful consideration by the Board of � i County Commissioners it has determined that the proposed � subdivision does not meet the requirements of the Pitkin ;� � County Land Use Code, the Board having found specifically ;;f � ` � � ; i ��' that: � � � � � ii I. The Subdivision Fails to Conform with the As en Area -t General Plan (as amended and Other Land Use Goals and :€ Objectives Established for the Snowmass-Capitol Creek ; Area (Sections 2.01 and 2.21 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code) . � � - A. On November 6, 1974, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the "General Goals and t Objectives of the Snowmass-Capitol Creeks Caucus" as the �y Commission's land use policy for this area. The General � i Goals and Objectives adopted provide as follows: ; :, t '�.;�i'r,,- ,.i.'x::. _�..x,,._� ; ; ;�.,,� �t: - �. -��.�! - `�_ -'ti�,. �`. � ,. , . . .. ..: .,. - . , , . ..„,._ , ., , ,...,, .,:,;. _, � 1. The over-riding goal is �he preservation of �( f`:• the existing visual, spatial and natural � characteristics of the valleys, including j.. a. Continuance of rural atmosphere and lifestyle. b. Continuance of historical land use patterns of agriculture and ranching. ' ti c. Continuance of natural wildlife patterns, plant associations, stream flows, and physiographic features of the land. - d. Maintain the high quality aspects of air, water, sound and vision. e. Continued use o£ the valley as a place of : ' retreat to a natural environment. 2, Allowing certain development which haxmonizes with the visual, spatial and natural char- acteristics of the land, but to a. Encourage clustering of development to ! lessen environmental .impacts. b. Avoid development in areas of natural hazards, exceptional natural beauty, view obstruction,. wildlife corridors or winter range. ` "` c. Minimize traffic conqestion. d. Avoid excessive expense for county roads and services. e. Discourage parcelling land into small lot sub8ivisions. � The development proposal before us fails to conform to � these objectives in that it would require.extensive road improvement at County expense; and results in con- � -2- � �. § ,�f � . ^ w ���� - `°;�-:. ���.•-; , �i :'•�.s�`;s:,�,; . �..:}�_.� ,. ,., . _. .. .. _._ _ _... .,_.. _. __ _..... �'; � . struction within areas of visual vulnerability, all in � derogation of the foregoing General Goals and Objectives. _ : B. On August 17, 1977, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (Resolution 77-6) , with the endorsement - of the Board of County Comm:issianers (Resolution 77-83) adopted "The Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan (third draft)" prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office, which Plan established the entire down valley area of Pitkin County as a separate growth management area and recommended a 3.48 annual growth rate (44 units/year). A fair allocation of this quota to the Snowmass-Capitol Creek area would be 4 units/year. At this ti.me there are approxi- mately 126 previously subdivided lots in the Snowmass-Capitol Creek area with an annual average build-out on these lots of 20 units per year (5 times the theoretical "fair share" I � for this area). Consequently 1. The proposed subdivision would create - additional development potential in an area of Pitkin County where construction on previously subdivided lots exceeds the recommended quota. 2. In addition, intelligent implementation of this Pian would seem to require the Board to , authorize additional construction activity (if any) first in those areas .where there are existing services and facilities rather than approve development proposals in predominently rural areas with limited services and facilities. ' . i C. In addition, and by way of general comment, the � project would increase the density in the Capitol Creek i � area by 108 (there exist, at present, only 130 dwelling � _ i � units in this area) a disportionate increase in the over-all i I � -3- :I ����s+Y�>_ . . - , � �, ���r�;� � ��, Y,,�,, . � �.., . ��o. � i ; � i density, a fact which magnifies the physical and other limita- I tions of the site. ' The subdivision proposal, then, fails to meet the objectives i ' of the Growth Management Plan and other planning objectives ! in terms of both the amount and sequence of desirable ;; ' development in�the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Area (see also Section 2.25). ; - II. The Subdivision Fails to Conform to the A licable Laws I of Pitkin County Section 2.02) . � . A. The applicant proposes the construction of individual septic systems on various lots with slopes greater than 15$. Consequently the General Submission fails to meet the requirements of Section. 5.41.04 h 2 vii of the Land Use Code which provides that soil absorption sewage disposal systems should not be placed on slopes steeper than 158. B. The applicant, in calculating available density, include all unplatted areas of the Abacus Ranch (827 acres), deducted only the number of units approved in the Frank Subdivision Filinq No. 1 (4 units), and has pursued an application for 24 single family lots. The subdivision proposal as it stands does not comply with the allowable - � density of the zone district: 1. The Frank Subdivision Filing No. 1 was � � approved pursuant to the then existing zoning, � RS-160. All lands within this subdivision (except that actually platted into the 4 home- sites) was restricted by a non-development : easement, an area, as provided in Section � 3.01.04 b 9 of the Land Use Code, may be further subdivided only with the prior approval of Pitkin County. Consequently, only 667 acres is avail- able for development at this time. i � -4- _� � ;,�:��r: . ._, ..,,y��.� �.'.�i:� .«'�'.,.`' ".�.�y�::, :� L�A�f.c: _ . . �tiii;:�:c.,f°. ...�...-..�_. . � - , -a�szF�`,-:�':. � v,�.;;�':�. , � . _.. . . _ _ ..: . .._ _. _.. .. . �'--. . ' ' .. •Y.' v�: . . _ - . � u i�. . . . � � . . f � - � � I 2. In addition, the applicant has failed to i i reduce allowable density by the number o£ � I existing dwelling units on the site, including � a. The applicant's residence; � . b. the f�reman's house (5 bedrooms); c. the apartinent in the arena (3 bedrooms) ; ' d. the apartment across from the arena (1 bedroom, 1 loft); e. the cabin (1 bedroom); and ; . f. the mobile home. 3. Proper calculation resuits in a finding that ' existing zoning permits only 16 additional dwelling units; a number substantially below i that applied for. III. The Subdivision Fails to Conform to the County Policy of Minima.zing Auto Impacts and Encouraging Non-Motorizecl Trans ortation Alternatives and Publia Trans ortation � Section 2.19). The proposed subdivision is 4 miles from State Highway 82 (via the Snowmass Creek Road) and from that point it is 14 miles to Aspen and 4 miles to Sasalt. There is no public transportation to the site and, given the limited parking � at the Conoco station, little opportunity of reliance on the existing down-valley bus system. Given the distance to � � Basalt and Aspen,non-motorized transportation alternatives � are not available. The project will rely solely on individual automobile use, and do so in direct contravention of County � policy (see also policy 2.18, Energy Conservation) . � � IV. The Subdivision Constitutes an Exclusionary Development J . and Fails to Provide Adequate Low and Moderate Income _ Housing (Sections 2.15 and 5.30). � The applicant has filed an "initial price list" proposing a price range from $36,000 to $82,500 per (unim- ' proved) lot. It is the policy of Pitkin County to insure, I � -5- �.*`�-�_;:�k `P Y `:, ;�.�-��= _ ��6�.�� , i.�.. � ' �,.. - �11."i('�yi . � — ' . 1' ;',, . . . . . � . . . c.`; � - . . � ���.-. . . . . . _ . . ��.` in all new developments, that there is provided an adequate i � proportion of housing units for sale or rent by permanent � j residents of Pitkin County who are in low or moderate income ! � + levels; and that such units continue to be available to � : I-- such persons on resale (through appropriate restrictions) l (see Resolution 74-87). l. Guidelines for administerin this olic are �`' 4 P Y i.,: . j; : � found in Section 5.30 of the Pitkin County !' Land Use Code. 2. The applicant has proposed to subject up to I 508 of the proposed lots to the same constraints i : applied on lots approved under the Snowmass ! General Submission which constraints include: � a. Initial sale at 75� of the price of the � "free market" units; i b. control, on resale, at an appreciation � rate equal to the Consumer Price Index; but c, removal of both (a) and (b) if, after 2 years, these properties are not sold with these constraints. 3. However, the Board has determined that this � proposal does not meet the_requirements of Section 5.30 of the Land Use Code; and � distinguish their acceptability with respect to the Snowmass General Submission because of special circumstances surrounding that aPproval. I i Consequently; the Board has found that the proposed subdivision ; can reasonably he expected to consist of residential housing � units, the majority of which will be �urchased by persons � not in the low and moderate income levels; i.e., the housing i will be exclusionary as defined by Resolution 74-87 and S 1 -6- i: i 1 fyjA �' "•x i'-�:�•Y�'"= ...-4.r.:t @�}s. �s��3�' _ � ,L,T��-�ntS�.`�'✓� . ' ,�d,;.r 1". _ . . . ._.._.- . :� .YI: . . � ' _ � .. '�'. j t � i approval thereof would be in derogation of the County's � housing policies. � V. The Subdivision Fails to Meet the Requirement of Adequate Sewa e Collection and Treatment S stems be Provided Sections 2.07 and 5.20). . � :. � The applicant proposed to construct a central sewage i system for the lower lots (adjacent to Little E1k Creek) only, with individual septic systems to be installed in the j, balance of the subdivision. The proposal fails to meet the ' requirements of an adequate sewage system inasmuch as:. A. Each of the Colorado Division of Planning, the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District and the Colorado Geologic Survey have recommended, because of the poor. soil character- istics of the site, that no individual septic system be � installed; but rather that the entire subdivision be serviced with a central sewage system. B. In addition, the County Sanitarian has advised: 1. The applicant proposes to supply some of her domestic water needs with high yield wells. � ` 2. There are, on the site, a large Dakota Sandstone � tormation (above 7600 feet in elevation) and �t a major recharge area in the glacial material � below. 3. The sandstone area is generally a major � ' � - ground water acquifer which,in this case, � � has been identified by the applicant's water � � engineer as a source of needed well water. � 4. Septic tank/leach field systems should not � be installed in ground water recharge areas ! because of potential groundwater contamination. � The latter would result in a violation of Section 5.09.02 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code requiring that no individual -7- , � � � � � '.'-��",t,.� �; � R y,;. ..�.� : ��, a ��„ _ ��: ��,�-� � i�, - ,.. � �?`wk.. :`. �-., - _ , � .�.. ,;� � ,;::: I I sewer systems cause a degradation of the existing water I quality within Pitkin County (see also Section 5.09.02 c). � i i VI. The Subdivision Proposal will Adversely Affect the Availabilit of Waters for Use on Historicall Irri ated Agricultural Lands (Sections 2.13 and 5.09.D2 b . - The applicant's engineer, Wright Water Engineers, advised, in its referral in support of the application, that in a dry water year the Abacus Ranch's water rights will not yield sufficient water to supply its full irrigation requirements; and a portion of the irrigation rights may - have to be transferred in the water court to meet the "legal" water right needs of the proposal. Sections 5.09.02 b 1 and 2 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code require subdivision applicants to demonstrate that a development proposal will i i neither affect the adequacy of a water supply needed to ; irrigate agricultural lands, nor adversely affect the exercise ; _, _ of any existing and decreed irrigation water right on historically irrigated lands within Pitkin County; both of _ which requirements are not satisfied by this .application. VII. The Subdivision Would Locate Most Construction within the most Visually Vulnerable Sites within the Abacus Ranch (Sections 2..16 and 5.07). A review of the visual resource maps of the Colorado State University Environmental Resources Analysis Report and � Maps (previously adopted by this Board) will demonstrate that most of the proposed homesites lie within the most visually vulnerable areas of the Abacus Ranch (along the edges of the plateaus). The applicant has refused .to relocate the sites • closer to her house and paddock area (reduced visability) � because of the resultant proximity to her ranching operations , � and home. � i VIII.The Subdivision will Result in Additional Traffic � Generation which cannot be Accommodated by the Existing Road Network without Capital Improvement at Significant ; Public Cost (Sections 2.08, 2.14, 5.21 and 5.24). � � d -$� i ��R �a,._, . �'' r.,� ys,—�f,.�•e5' � �r�.�{ , , . . i �t�' . ���,'; � ������ � , . . - .. ' �'.. ..,;...... ;.-.. _.,:_...,. .. .. ..__. .... c� .�yj r . . � . � .. � . _ , ��. � . . � .� � . - �_. . j � . . � � . . . i � . Testimony and evidence submitted by the County Engineer, j; � demonstrate that: �` A. County roads numbered 11, 9, 9A and 5 will all ' � ; be relied on to service the proposed subdivision. These - . roads are already nearing service volume capacity. Further development in the 5nowmass-Capitol Creek area (without major road a.mprovements will result in traffic levels which -. will exceed tolerable capacities (in fact, in some instances, . tolerable capacities.are already being exceeded): 1. County Road 11. This roadway is paved, and has a recommended ADT of 674. Approval of an additional 22 (£igure mistakenly used by the - engineer? building sites will generate 120 auto movements (5 trips per new site) and I increase the service volvme to 784, exceeding � � the tolerable capacity by 46. This road was l:.. poorly constructed (poor drainage and lack of , road base); and is subject to constant cracking � '- and fractures; and has hazardous sharp curves and poor visability. 2. County Road 9. This is also a paved road with a recommended ADT of 674. Again, an additional S 22 units will increase the service volume to " 784, exceeding the tolerable capacity by 46. County Road 9 was.also poorly constructed and _ is subject to constant cracking and fractures; it has inadequate lane width and shoulders and several nearly 90° corners with poor visability, i 3. County Road 9A. This is a substandard gravel ` road for which no ADT data has been projected but rough calculations indicate that if the proposed subdivision is approved the road's � � � -9- - t - t � ,�, ".�r�4•' � ���yx�: , ' �.x....�A..r , ��»Y..�`a.•� • . . .��y�l� . . . ��'�. � ... .. ,. . .. . ... . ..._ :--:.a.. � . � , �. �I� b��'�; .:�,,. � , tolerable capacity will be exceeded by approxi- � � mately 408. This road is narrow and has � very little road base. A high water table results in considerable expansion and con- traction of the sub-base. Widening, road base, drainage control, asphalting and vege- tation control must be done before this roadway '` could safely carry the proposed additional � traffic. 4. County Road 5. This road is unpaved and has a service volume of 234. The proposed develop- ment could generate as many as 60 additional auto movements on this road, increasing the service volume to 294 which exceeds the tolerable capacity by 38. B. The County's road maintenance and construction program operate on a 5-year cycle with no improvements scheduled for this area in 1978 ($20,000 will be expended for patching but this will not increase the roads' service } volumes). C. Major capital expenditures would be required to � improve these roads to substantially increase their tolerable � � # i capacity (including right-of-way acquisition, road base and � �. a sub-base improvement, improving drainaqe and sight distances, p � asphalting, bridge replacement) none of which improvesnents � have been budgeted for (nor can be in the near future) . s Given the testimony and supporting data of the County � Engineer, the Board must find that the proposed subdivision � i cannot be accomodated without degradation of the eacisting � _ , a road network or the making of a substantial public expenditure q 'j not provided for in the near future. ; y I � 4 -10- ;E ��.. _. ��,i,r�;ry,.-. v 4;Y.j� :, . K E�: r _ �r� � ' �l�F�-,t . � . �'h*,u,. . ��' . . .._. . .... . .. . __..___. .... .. . .._,.:�..._.__..�... ��� . . . . ..,.�;; c�!y: � . - � IX. The Pro sed Subdivision will Threaten Ad'acent Mi ration � : Paths to Critical Winterin Areas Sections 2.24 and 5.44). The CSU Wildlife Habitat Maps and the Colorado Division of Wildlife have identified two primary deer and elk migration routes just to the northwest of the proposed development. Although the applicant has eliminated certain earlier proposed lots adjacent to these corridors, additional use of the East Sopris Road will threaten continued use of the pathway by I, deer and elk and may disrupt migration from summer to critical � ' ; ' winter range. i X. The Subdivision cannot be Adequatelv Served with Existin ' Fire Fighting Equipment. Testimony of the City Fire Marshall indicates that fire protection is inadequate. A. The roads to the subdivision are narrow and in poor condition (see above). B. The application does not indicate water storage on the site. C. The Sasalt Fire Protection District would be called on to service the area; and the equipment is located such that it would require a 20 minute response time for a - 200 gallon (small fires only) truck to arrive, and 25 minutes for a 1000 gallon truck. i D. The Fire Marshall has recommended that the sub- division can only be adequately served by installation of i its own fire protection system. XI. The Subdivision is Incom atible with Adjacent Agri- � cultural Uses and Operations (Sections 2.13 and 5.06). Review of co�nents from the County Extension Agent and ( the CSU extension office demonstrate that the project does not preserve agricultural uses and lands (whenever possible) and will reduce the existing irrigated pasture by more � � � I i -11- �. i ,e,-s''' {°� �;Y,,,,;�,y�.,: �.._.._-e-._._.,.__ �rr� __"..,.�. . rrrrir� .�Yi� ' � � �; >L� �� ' : ������;{:; � � •j';: �; � _ �• . }; � - � � . � ��.�';; . � . � � � - � . � - � � i � � than 108, both of which effects are prohibited by the Pitkin � County Land Use Code. ; XII. The Subdivision Would Locate Most Construction within Areas Designated Productive Lands or Non-Occupancy Lands. _ A rev�ew of the land sLitability mage of the �SU Environmental Resources Analysis Report and Maps will reveal that most of the proposed homesites lie within areas -` :. designated Non-Occupancy Lands (best suited for range, � forestry, and other uses not involving human occupancy) or i within areas designated Productive Lands (best suited for � agricultural uses). The applicant has refused to relocate � the sites to areas designated Occupancy Lands (suited for � uses involving long term human occupancy) apparently because '� of the resultant proximity to her ranching operations or her home. � ' � AND WHEREAS, the Board. is unable to approve.the General � Submission for the Frank Subdivision, Filing No. 2 for reasons � stated above, : � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that approval of � the General Submission of the Frank Subdivision, Filing No. 2, is"hereby denied. s ADOPTED this _� day of May, 1978. � THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ';•�7� . OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ' �ATTES T�• . . . Cj c' ' iC ! ", gy �'v`i�/.7G'yLCrLI' !. � �,��7,�^f" Robert W. Child, Chairman _� •..Depuf,ty cCleik�and Recorder . �.. � ,. `:'"ir,� •��:• . .'•_.. ••'�:'•.;,_' P,FPR04�D�.AS TO FORM: � � unty Att rne4� j -12- � � ;� ; . _ _ _ _. . .. __ _. _._. _ ;, � . �.:"��:.