HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.002.1979 � � -
� �.
; =>
�,�,.- ��=;::�rx.
_..';.�,'i.a�.:';f . .
a.•.a
Recorded at 9:16 A.M. Jan'16, 1979 Loretta Banner Recorder Receptioa No: � f� �`�1'�"
211133 • '"�'r ,�;:
_��<;;r:-
i
='�r'{�Li.J. 3'ax 939
��� � � �� �
. c�tssior�s oF rz�r cotAarx, wrARr,m,
AhTARDIlVG DEVECAPMEN`P ALLdII7�!'S PURSUANP
TO TfiL�P%3VISIONS OF RESOLUTION 78 - 57
ResoZuti.on No. 7�j - ,. % _ .
L�REAS, the Board of Coimty Comnissioners of Pitkin Coimty,
:
:� Colorado, by the adoption of Re�lutian ?8 - 57, did estab).ish a
� oaq.�etitive pmcedune for the award of develop�mnt alloi�nents within tRe
;� am .
As�n Metm area, and
;:S �. P��t to sai.d resolution the Plaruvng and Zonirng
;i Ccartnissiari conducted a public hearing on September 20, 1978, to consider
='i
,�
-:f all applications for resi.dential develc�rtient in the Asp�n metm area,
� and did, by its Resolution 78-26 swxg and rank all applicants as fo7laas:
i �?� 7bta1 Points New Llnits
1. RocJcy Mountain Natural Gas ZZ4 4
`�
2. Pfister Subdivi.sion 87.4 63
! 3. Highlands Suhdivisioai 64.6 8
't
4. Sei.gel R�Ci.ivision 56.8 6
5. Oal c.Yeek Sl�bdivisiaai 56.2 lfi5
� AIID. WF�REAS, the Planning and Zoning Coimiission did also re�nd -
i`:'
- that the sevent.een 1978 available develo�it allotrmnts be allocat�d to �
lb�aky 1�Li�nttain Naturai Gas (4 units) and the Pfister S�bdivisi.on (13 units):
': and that tt�e Pfistex Subdivi.siari request that allatr�nts for future years
�= be awarded to it. (pursuant to Section 5.90.02 b. of the Iand Use Code) be
j _
ti denied� but rather there bE no aarm�rkinq of fUtitre develo�lt allotrrents�
�:, .
. Ai� � . 8TId . .
�' W�AS, in addition, the Planninq and Zoning Conmission clid deny any �
��
� allocation (1) to the Seigel and Owl Creek S�bd.ivi.sions for the failure of
��
: � these applicants to receive the required miniimmm niat�r of available
� points {40$ of 160 points = 64 points) (see Seckion 5.90.04 a 3); and (2)
tn the Hic�larxls Subc7.ivi.si� for failure to cbnply with the mininnun requi.re-
�
ments of the Oode, namel.y Section 5.30 (HOUSing) (see Section 5.90,03 b
: �� and the Carmi.ssioner's Resolutiat 78-27). and
�a
j�
:;� ;�4 .
,. .
�
, ;`'�-
:::; .
�4 �.'
�i� ��^. . . . ...._ _ .. . ... _... _,._,. ��"':� .�. ._. ,-.., '�. , v..� _.. .,. �:.�j �f.:
�.
-:ff Nj��:
y c�
r �
v��4 �'"
, /� �:7�-�tR��'-.
;,��'(3�+� PAGE 740
1
Fh�EAS, representatives o£ the Iiigh].ands, Seigel and Owl Creeic
subdivisions protested the detenni.nation of the Planning and Zoning
Catmission for variais reasons and a hearing was conducted by the -
Board of Caunty Gonmissi.oners on November 13, 1978, all as required
by Section 5.90.04 a.6., and,
Wf�I2EAS, at the hearing held November 13, 1978 the Board of
Coimty Camnissi�ers made findings (with respect to the protests made} aLl
as described on ESchibit "A" attached hereto and inoorporated by this
refereszce, and
�
WFID�FS, as a result o£ tk� remand to the Planning and zoning
Catmission to afford the representatives of the Owl Cseek 6ubdivision an
opportunity to take addiEional testitmny by cross�xaminati.on, tt�e P2anning
y
`� and Zoning C�mission di.d reconvene on January 3, 1979, take such additional
1 ',
testimony, Uut did nat, as a result thereof, change the points awarded to <
I ttie appliration and did not cha�ige its reooa�cr�ndations with respect to
granti.ng development allotrmsits for 1978, and
;+' Wf�EAS,while representatives oE the Pfister application did
,.�
� initi.ate, before the Hoan3, a request tA earnark future developnent
allotments pursuant to Section 5.90.02 b; they did withdraw such
re,quest on the Hoard's having made clear its position that it was
� disinclined to eaiznark future develogrent allotments in 1978 because:
1. Such Pa**�+�,�;nq precludes consideration of (perhaPs) more
y desirable pmjects in future years, or the applicati.on of
� higher or immmiee stringent subdivision or design s�,�� adopted 1
in the future.
t
? 2. The present quota system, because it does not co¢itrol huilc� aut -
on previously subdivided lots, results in higher actual buildout _
in the ear2y years of its application. By eaxmarkin� future
allotznents to current pmjects. we are catpounding fihe effects
� �ted above, and also preclude the effects of any possibZe
e ama.+.�*pnt to the Code that would atte�t to reduce the allocable _
� '� CjUOti3. '
3. Accepting the Pfister r�st will give an advantage fio a single �
• larcpe la�xl o�mer and preclude otlier landowners with a a�].ler
IK
pmject fmm co�tinq for a qix�ta alloi�nent in the near future.
�' 4. The Pfi.ster is 1 enau a[�d ssibilities of
a:' PmP�Y �'9e 9h I�
�' develognent so varied that the Boaxd is imt convinced that -
Qe Pfister canrwt enjoy the benefit of the 13 unit allocati.on and
� successfully reapply in future years for additional allotaents.
� �
�
�
� - 2 -
;� �
:i
'f
',.� .n
�.:i�:�•,.
�
�;'�: -:�J - ,r
".�; ��:. . _. .
�ta7�e��'?.',:..:. .
'�y.:y.tiy',.,-fii%[� . .
L� Yir
�Ar7v:r 3�'�
, . _ �,� ,, ,,
�a c# 9'�i"�
j '�:}�.t;r''
�Y ;
{ �j LJ Sti
.`��i�7�� PA�E9�� ,~u'"�'
AND. WI�REAS, given the foregoing the Boazd of Caiuity C�missi.oners
� is able to awazd develolanent allotrients, and do so by resolution, ail as
e described in Section 5.90.09 a.6 of the Pit]ciz� County Ia� Use Oode,
�;
� NON7. T�'ORE, EE IT RESOLVID by the Boaxd of Co[mty Catmissioners
� of PitJcin Coimty, Colorado, that, pursuant to Section 5.90.04 a.6 0£ tS�e
�i Pitkin County Land Use Code, it does hezeby as.tiird 17.residential dev elog�.nt
allotn�ents to the Pfister S�bdivi.sion and Focky Motmtain Natt�al Gas for
�
thixtePn and four units respectivelp.
jBE IT i'fJRT�,TZ RESOLVID that the Board does hereby grant appmval tD
F and 1041 S eciaZ Review application
Rocky Nbtmtain Natural General Sulsnissiom�and that both this approval and
� the awaxd of the development allot�mnt to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas is
� conditianed upon the applicant pexsnanentty restricting the units constructed
� to e�loyee rental units, subject to rental rate and othes restrictions to
r
� be specifi:ed at the time of Detailed Suhnissi.on.
�
3 BE IT FU11T[�.R RESC3LVID that the Boa�l dces hereby grant approval to
� the Pfister Subdivision Genexal Sui3nission and 1041 S�ecial Review Applications
,� � -
7 � (airport and avalanche hazards).
:�
BE IT FIl�LLY RESdLVID that those ap�lications to wi�eich no allotsnents
� have been awarded shall be deared deni.ed and receive no furt-her wnsi.deratioa r'
:# �
� vnr3er the provisions of the Pitkin Coimty Land Use Code. ;
^ j Finally approved and adopted by the Boaxd of County Ccatmissiariers of
,
�
� Pitkin Coimty. Colorado, at the regular meeting held January 8, I979. i�
� OF C�SSIOI�25
. .t f,,',`:, '. PITKIN CdC7NPY� COIARFIDO �;
�. ,'' '< .
� - < �-;`ATiEST :
� ' t�:✓ ����1 � -.
� -. � f, 1 Y`� ' �
� �: Gv �--�-� f
, � � .
� �:.
, cti r, Ro�rr w. ct�a ;
,,,�'�r�`�' Chairnrkut i
. y 5 .��i7/G�.Y�" '
�' ' .� .�-i���tn s��re ,
......Depu£y Coimty Clerk �
:��r
' f
� APPR(SVEa AS TO FORM: ,
,�. /.-�..,a� 1��.F'�.�i
�Sanara M. s lex
County Attorney '
i
k
7
�
7
�
�
I
i
i i
� _ 3 ±
a'. .,�'
.� /
���}�i��� ' . . . .
i`.
� Y� �..
'� �Y .f- . . _
_.. .. _v ms �,. _ +.._.a��.. 1'N ����`Y'�`:r`�...��. ?ecvtd�� ..{6 . . ...r. . ': F�:
S"
ai.�n { .
���� .
,,��r.q,�Cd�.. P�GE�� �.:c.,��_'
EXEIIBIT "A"
FI[�IDINGS OF Tf� B(�ARD OF COUNl'Y Ct.INY+�SSI02�
oN PR(7PF.S15 FILED PARSITANP TD SDCTI�I 5.90.04 a.6. -
BY REPRFSFSTPP.TIVFS OF Tf� IiCQ�IIAT�IDS SUBDIVISION
Wf�RFAS, representatives of the Highlar�ds Subdivision have filed
� a protest to the actions of the Pitkin CoLmty Planning and Zoni.ng
Crnmission denying any develoPment allotme.nt for failure of the appli-
� CatiOri� when filed, tA CCt[�1]�Witll tYle mininnmi rrrniirpmont5 Of th2
Land Use Code (Secti� 5.30 - Iiousing) under Section 5.90.03 b., and
� " Wf1ERF'AS, the basi.s for such protest is the applicant's agrePnient
tt�a.t, while its application, when filed, did �t so state, it now wi.shes
to satisfy the r�uis�nentS of Section 5.30 by ac�31��*-�nq px' oonstxucting
� ofE-site low and moderate inoome housing lots or stnictures; a technique
which was reoognized and codified by tlie Boaizl's Resolution No. 78 - 93,
adopted August 14, 1978, a date subsequent to the a�lication siP.adlines
; for GdNL� quota applications, and
�2EAS� �10 BOdTd� Ori c xamining t�yS CORtP1ltiOri� f]S1dS t1]c3t:
' 1. This is not tBe case of an a�nc�mnt tn the Code
having been adopted subseque.nt to tl�e application
date which affected the appZi�nt's ability to oo�ly
with Section 5.30, such tl�at the applicant shoul.d be -
ewo�rated fran the req�ir�nents of Sectiott 5.90.04 a.7
{"No applicant shall, after submission of his application
pursuant to Section 5.90.04 a.l. amend, irodify or change
his applictzti.on eaocept � substantiaZ part and for puY.poses
of classification or technical correction only.")
2. 'The appli.cant has always (since the adoption of Section
5.30 in 1976) had an opportunity to pre�ent alternative
�thoc7s to satisfy tlze requi�hts of Section 5.30, includ-
ing the one describecl in I�esolution 78-93; and the recent
a[mndirnnt me�ly vodified the proposition that an appli.cant
' that offers of£site low attd modexate inocac� housing on a
one-to-one ratio will be de�ned to have satisfied Section 5.30.
3. The amerrhrent neither addecl additi.onal, or reduced existing,
*�*�»*��ts, nor affected Hi.qhland's ability to presenfi a
} proposal for offsite housing in lieu of pravid.ing low or .
modexate inarre housing on sitE, as it myw proposes to do. -
4. Consec�mntly, t.he Planninq apc� 7,pning C�missioR acted
carrectly in denying any allotrnents for £ailure of the
'g application to satisfy the miniman �,;*'�nents of the Iand
Use Code; and in reject3ng t1�e a�m.nc�m.nt offered subsequent
� to the date of filing.
:; .7�RE. BE IT RESOL�7ID hy the Boaxd of County Ckarmissic*_*ers t2�at
� it does hereby deny the protest by representatives oE tl�e Eiighlands �
� Shbdivisian to the actions of tt�e Planning and Zoning Conmission on Septembex
i 20, 1978.
�
�
s
�
�
i -4- �
3
1
�
j .
;
�
�_.� .... ._ . . . .. . � . - . � .
!!�� :r+9
;�. �.'.5.4.
_............._..
%: �a� J.
.._'t� F c .. .
:��;+, ',i'ii��� .
in?-`.•1S„1'��`;, . '
�y� 4} ... . .
�'���. ` '
d F.�
� . . . i5.�:3.Y�.
. �Z- 1.���.
��n.Yc7�� PACEc��J '�� �::
FII�IDINGS OF TEIE BOI� OP ODUNlY CQ3�fSSSIONEFLS
ON PR(7i'FSTS FTLED PC]RSfJAL�PP TO SElCTION 5.90.04 a.6.
BY REPRESENTATIVES �' TIiE SEIG6II, 5UBDIVISION
,
�E�SS, representatives of the Seiget Subdivision protesterl
the action of the Plaiuiing and Zoning Car�mission on three grour�ds,
t nanx>1ye
� ' l, the Canmissioners failed to�ike into consideration
that the Red 1K�imtain and Hunter Creek Itaads had been
� paved and resurfaced, respectively, tY� ]mowleclge of
% which mi.ght have increasc�d �.he points awarded under "a:is
pollution" and "road" from one point each to two points
each.
2. Z7ie Conmissioners failed to take into consideration that
there has recently been install.ed a firn hydrant next to
the City water tank adjacent to the Seigel propexty, whi.ch
fact would have resulted in an increase point awazd under
��fire pmtection".
3. The Camnission failed to give the Seigel Subdi.visian
enough points to even qualify (Secti.on 5.90.04 a.3) a
result which is inconsi.stent wi.th the overall quata systen
and c�jecti.ves, i.e., to enomirage new constn�ction adjacent
to existing develognent.
ADID WI�REAS, on reviewing these arg�ats the Boar3 has concluded
that
1. There is evety andication that the low point awards for "roads"
_ - is attributable to the dii-ficulty of access up Red Motmta;n
R�ad and the fact that interna7. raadc,ays wnuld be at slopes
as nuch as 30$.
2. There i.s also evesy indication that the low point award for
ais pollution is based on the fact t1�at units would be
servioed by fireplaces at t}�e maxinann ntmiber now allowed by
� cz�de and� other sbeps were taken to m;*+;�+;ze ais quality
`, ingaats.
3. Evp.n i£ the Q�mission we.te mi.staken as alleged in paragraph
�, 1 and 2, the award of additional points argued for would nat
-' be suf£icient to meet the miniirnam �++,;r�nents o� Section
; 5.90.04 a.3, (thex� could be � additional award of points
far the "general consideration" described in Paragraph 3).
Tf�E'ORE, BE IT RESOLUID by the Boan3 oE County Commissioners -
r that it does hereby c7eny the pmtest by representatives of the Seigel
Sa}x'ii.vision to the actions of the Plarn�ing and Zoning Comnission on
� Septanber 20, 1978.
,�
; .
S _
k ���
1
: 1
'
-� ' . . . . . . .:.�I- - �. . . -
�
.
=.;,<<� _
�?x�-~ s. .
�
.:�.:•::�:;;.
,..
?w<-.,-��`�,
r �..
°ir�tiJ[d�„ P,1Gf��� `�,�:i
F]IIDINGS OF Tf� HQAi1A OF CO[]NTY �ffSSIOAIEI+S
0I+1 PROTF.STS FILID PURS[k�NT TO SECTION 5.90.04 a.6.
BY REPRESFNIATIVFS OF TE�OWL CREER SUBDIVISIOAI
4�REA�4, representatives of the Owl Creek S�bdivision have pxotestsd
the actions of t1�e Plar�ning and Zoni.ng Cbmnission alleging dcni.al of due
process of law based on eight gro�ds, as folZows:
1. The Conmission afforded each applicant only ten minutes to pre-
sent its application.
2. The P1�nT;*�q Office's recam�endations were each prepared by a
; different menUer of the Office's staff, which may have resulted
in each applying diffexpnt standards to the subjective criteria
oontained in the regulation.
3. This applicant's submissi.on was evaluated by a ttn.�nber of the
_ staff wtw had issued a negative reooimiendati.on on an earlier
application for develo�it of Oal Creek.
4. The C�anission fai.led, on request, to pesmi.t the taking of
testi�rony by cross-exancination of any witnesses or Planning
Office staff.
5. The failure to permit cross-examination resulted in the intro-
ductioa of inaxnpetent exidence, for exat�le:
a. RY�e applicant's consultant had ooncluded that the �
Owl Creelc Road muld be brought up to type 3 znad
standards; while a Planning Office member, wi.t3�out
oa�x'able e�ertise, stated his cronclusion to the
oontrary, ;�
b. The Planning Office Re�nded no points be given
with respect to recreational facilities while the '
applicati.an clearly did incluc�many recreational
amenities. Th� recamendation was prema.sed on a '
F misa�lication of the criteria of the regulation;
i..e., the Planning Office did not consider the
recreational faciZities pxoposed but on its policy
to not grant development permission within po-
tential ski are,as.
c. �he Planning Office rec�rended that no points he
awarded for transportation because of its conclusion '- .
that none oould be provi.ded except at public P�n�,
and that mass transit Could �t be pmvided within
the Owl GYeek corridor. Such conclusions are r�ot r
well fotmded because existinq code provisions re-
� rn�ire �*�+�;cipation of the land aaner in the costs
of such i.�xw�[ents; and the Owl Cree�c corridor �
has recently been endorsed by Pitkin �imty as a
possible mass txansportation wrridor.
i
6. The awared of no points because tl�e deveiopment would di.vert �
c.*ater presently used foz agricultural puxposes was an abuse -
of discretion �naamirh as this is a ►mtter to be resolved at
- t1Ye time of detai.led suhnission; and any objection to the
change of use six�uld be noted as a oondition of approval, only.
-6- a
a
_ . . . . . . . j .
j
�
� • 1
. . .. . . ..... ..._ ... . . . .... .. + . . . . . .
_ _ _
-�.�
t
_�� �
':';�,,::._
, � �,_
}I,_:,t.�'..,,;� .
..:4 fid:{' . .
r�a''7;., � � .
._ .. . , . .. . . . . � iq.:
� � ' �1.,d"1.}.,:
. �"��'�rt 1"�':�.
���3�1 �:,�f9�5 �.�; .
7. 'I'he deternunation with respect to the adverse affects on
wild3.ife were in error because contradictory to the
conclusions oP the a�licant's consultant report, which
must be given preference ov�x caments of the CoUnty's
referral agencies.
8. The quota assigned to the area in which applicant's Iand .
was situate was incorrectly calculated in the adoption of
t1� Growth Mangduent Policy P2an and the subsequent im-
planentation regulation, Resolution 78-57.
ADID, WI�2EA5, the Eoard, on reviewing the argimients made, finds,
with respect�to each that:
1. The arg�m�zts oontained in paragraphs l, 2, and 3 are not
well taken inasmuch as the applicant has fai_led to establish
that he was injured by reason of the pmcedures coicQlained of;
and, in addition:
a. The applicant acknowledges that it was given more
than t3�e 1Q mi.nutes allocated to make its pre-
sentat.i.on; there was no evidence that it was i
, precluded fmm cca�pleting its presentation; and �
all materials suUititt�d by the applicant in support
of its request were distributed to (and, presmiably, j
read by) the �ers of the C�tmission in advance
af tk� meeting. �
� � i
b. The Director of the Planning Office testified tYiat ;
all staff reviewing the CC3� applicati.ons met, �
conQared their reviewing procedures. and concluded �
that aZi were applying the review critesia in (
the same maruier. {
2: The alleged exxors described in paragraph 8�st be disnissed
inasinich as the scope of review under Seetion 5,90.04 a.6.
is 2imited to a review of the actions of the Planning and
Zoning Co[miission in applying Resolution 78-57, and does not
extend to entPStaining challenges to the enabZing legislation, ;
� itself. ?
1 '
�
3. The argimients cantained in paragraphs 6 and 7 ahwe are not
well taken in asmach as t1�ey consist merely in disagreements
witI: the conclusions of the Comaission G.n det.eaninations re- ;
served to the Oonmission) without presentation of evidence i
that the Comnission has abused its discretion. x
4. Haw�ver, with respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs � t
4 and 5, the Hoard does agree with tl�ese charges to the extent
that it feeZs the CoRmissi� abused its disrxetion in refusing
the appLicant an apportuni.ty to elicit testicmny through cross- �
exami.nation. 1.
Tt�'ORE, the Board of Cotmty Cannissioness does heseby rc�nand
the application for the Ow1 Creek SUbdivision � the Planning a�l Zoninq
C�missi�with directions to �*�++;t the applicant to solicit additional •
testimony by cross exami.nati.on.
` - -7- �
�
i
�
i
�
I
1
. � � . � . . � . j
� .
�
�.� . . ..... . . . _ .. . . ' � r .. . . . . .
.: ��,... . .
".7+�.1'.a.:ii':