HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.111.1979 �,. ._ .
rf . '
` } ,-
!•= ;:�-:
;�����.:��� ::,
�
, .�,,.
--� -
: °..,...° „ -� ,�
�
,,. . .�= � �;�; . 3�..w e:5�+t7�.`;ufi'�55�.�F:������'�'� '��
._..z.. .. . . ..... y''
x� .
Rece tion No. Oct. 12, 1979 � r�;.
2�8`�'�?8 ° Loretta Banner, Recorder • 3�"y �� � �i'�
. Becorded at 1:05 P.M. � � �
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
DENYTNG TAE APPLICATION OF THE PHILLIP'S COMPANY
FOR REZONING OF THE PHILLIP'S TRAILER PARK
Resolution No. 79-�(�
_ WHEREAS, the Phillip's Company {"Applicant") has filed
an application for the rezoning to Special Residential ("SR") o£
the Phillip's Trailer Park, for the purpose of continuing, relocating �
and rezoning the present trailer park operation (see application
dated May 21, 1979), and
` ; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the
app2ication at a public hearing held on September 10, 1979, and
'�
has considered the recommendation o£ the planning office and
Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the comments of the
Applicant and public, and
WHEREAS, the Board, with respect to the application has �;z
;F
found that �F
�i
1. The application is for the rezoning oE 75.7 acres
presently zoned AF-1 and located approximately =r
12 miles northwest of Aspen on the east side of
State Highway 82. Improvements on the site consist of
(a) 39 trailer pads
(b) 4 rentaZ cabins "�
(c) an office and residence and related buildings
(d) 3 camper spaces
These improvements are located both north and south of Highway 82
and also situate on .7 acres of state owned land.
2. The applicant's argument in support of its requested
rezoning are based on three primary contentions:
(a) The trailer park provides a valuable supply of
housing for low and moderate i.ncome employees
in the valley, and should, therefore, be preserved.
(b) As a non-conforming use, the park cannot be
improved or enlarged because:
(1) non-conforming uses cannot be improved or
expanded
(2) no financial institution will lend the .i;
money necessary for up-grading a business
which could be abated at any time.
(c) The impact on the natural features and on the
existing "neighborhood" would be negligible if
the currently-used park area were rezoned. A
rezoning of the remainder of the property would
provide the opportunity at some time in the future
for actually expanding the employee housing supply
into an appropriata portion of the property.
- 1 -
,,,;>r
:�.«":•,M:�.,_
� _ - -- — r, _
�..
�_�;,
_-`k��- . . . .
,�4., _::-�.�.,5
i�,:
,y #i;ra,�!�
,:
.t� F rt'!�` .
... _
__-._.... ._. ..._. ..,.. .._ .
_.�.:_,. .,..�. . ... . .. .�.
. . .. ._. . . .. . .. - � r r.;�;.
�� ��� •�,�r��{'.
4�:,��;
.. :���;;
� 3. With respect to the first contention, the 9oard
acknowledges that it is the policy of the County to
insure a continuing supply of low and moderate income
housing offering an acceptable standard of living.
However, while the Applicant relies heavily on this
policy to support the application, the Board feels
the policy has not been satisfied inasmuch as:
(a) The Aousing Director has recommended the rezoning
of the existing park (10 acres) and only if rental
_, rates are regulated and the Applicant grants the Home
Owner's Association a right of fa.rst refusal (memo
dated June 12 and July 9, 1979). The P & Z
recommendation for approval was conditioned upon grant
of a right of first refusal; and limited to this
condition only after its disappointment with having
not been presented with a technique for controlling
rent increases (See P & Z Resolution No. 79-12 and
minutes of their June 20, 1979, meeting). The
applicant has refused to both restrict rental rates
or grant a right of first refusal (See letter from
Barbara Ornitz dated June 20 and October A, 1979) .
In addition,rentals in the park have increased
dramatically (with no corresponding park improvements)
and negotiations for acquisition by the occupants
have failed (see June 13, 1979, letter from Home
Owners' Association).
(bI The Applicant's prohibition against subletting has
resulted in less than full occupancy of the park,
and made resale of trailers there difficult,
actions which reduce the parks' usefulness as a
low and moderate income housing supply. (See June
13, 2979, lettex from Home Owners' Association). `:3
(c) General dissatisfaction of the tenants with the
conditions at the park,,and onerous-regulations
make this a less than desirable housing opportunity
(See June 13, 1979, letter from Home Owners'
Association and minutes of the June 20, 1979, meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission). As stated
by the Housing Director in his June 12th memo: _�
"Considering the rent increases, the lease agreement
and the intended sale of the park, one could conclude
that from a tenant's prospective, the park has
created more probZems recently than it has resolved."
(d) The Applicant has presented a housing study attempting
-- to establish only 2.2$ growth rate last year (i.e.
less than the 3.4� established in the Growth
Manaqement Policy Plan) and a need for 2290 additional
bedrooms within Pitkin County. However, the demand
figure (Goodheim Housing Assistant PZan) is several
years old and was arrived at without a survey; whi2e
a more recent study ("Aspen Metro Area 1979 IInployee/
Employer Survey and Employee Housing Demand Analysis",
1979) based on actual survey under approved method-
oloqy, establishes a significantly lower demand,
namely a 250-500 shortfall. In addition, the planning
office has demonstrated an actual 3.1� (rather than
2-28) 1977-78 growth rate and identified additional
95 approved (but not yet constructed} units. All
� of which reduces the forcefulness of the Applicant's
�� argument.
I�
f.
�
�
_ Z _
<, ;;;�.r�,-,f,�,.
'E:i'
r
!_; .
:t;<
�_-, .�',t
�
„sK ,
, ,,��,
,.._.. -�...-- . r?-- .., . 'r.° �r -r �'
' .>. . ,..u..w,..._.., ..�.�>.....a�:,r,.:i-+n�...av:_w�..`..ee�. �..�4�+18v�.}'�:�.. ��_� �.i'l�S...� .X„eNT's+obF'RV�a�Y!GCfkf�L'.y f� s i!.
_. ... ._ _. ... . �dtr_.
'I
C..' . . �� .,�:
. 7'.'�'{;�.
:,'{,i;�y;;
*`� ��'�' ���� : ,;�y:.
4. With respect to the Applicant's next contention,
namely, that a park with non-conforming use status may
not be improved or upgraded because o£ prohibition.s „
within the Land Use Code, it is worthy of note that
Section 7-1.13 of the Land Use Code provides;
"7-1.13 Mobile Home Parks
' So long as any existing and presently non-
conforming mobile home park is duly and currently
licensed under the Pitkin County Mobi7.e Home
: Regulations, as such may from time to time be
amended, it shall be deemed a con£orming use for
the period of any permit or license thereunder."
5. With respect to the Applicant's third contention, a
comparison of the proposal with existing land use and
land use policies (Article 2, Land Use Code) and
regulations demonstratQS that:
(a) History of Zoning. The zoning history of the
� lands along and adjacent to Highway 82 reflects
a desire to enhance and preserve its rural
characteristics rather than toward increased
residential density. The araa was rezoned AF-2
in 1973 (Resolution No. 74-16) and AP`-1 in 1978.
The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan expresses the
purpose of the Agricultural-Forestry (AF) Zones
as a "concept to allow a range of agricultural
and non-intensive residential uses while protecting
the reservoir of open-use land from scattered
urbanization" (page 7) . The 1978 rezoning (Board
of County Commissioners Resolution 78-148) was
done to reflect additional information acquired
• subsequent to 1973, including the Colorado State
University Resource Analysis maps (1974) (which
demonstrated significant environmental constraints)
and the Erisco/Maphis Road Network Analysis (1973)
(showing roads in the area less able to accommodate
increased traffic). The application is inconsistent
with the zoning history and purposes of the area.
4 (b) Compatibility with Accepted Plans. It is the policy
4 of the County to insure that the use and development
of land and any actions committing sueh land to
development or a change in use will not be, as a
general matter, inconsistent with the goals and
} objectives of the area's masterplans. The Aspen
Area General Plan o£ 1966 indicates that the
— corridor is to remain rural to compliment the visual
approach to Aspen (page 16). The 1975 amendments
to the General Plan seek "to allow a measure of
� growth with careful integration into the natural
setting" (Aspen Times, July 24, 1975, page 9B) .
Included in the amendments is designation of Highway
82 as a scenic corridor, recognizing the value of
a low-density, rural or natural entry into the
� concentrated development which lies closer to Aspen.
�? In addition, The Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management
I� Policy Plan (1976) formulates the concept that
;� concentration of housing near population centers
r'- (in particuZar Aspen) is preferable to strip-type
f;�f development or to development of remote nodes which
s�, increase reliance on automobiles. Consequently, the
application is inconsistent with area masterplanning.
�'
� (c) Confozmance with Other Laws. It is the policy of
`: the County to insure that no use or development of
f land is permitted in violation of the laws of the
; County, State, or United States. The proposal
includes the use of rental cabins which not permitted
by right in the SR zone district; and continued
illegal occupation of state-owned land.
- 3 -
�:.,�;
�..
� , � .
�i;`' _
�•'�,,�:�`,���
�_ _ . .i . - r .., � ..; ��..^r ^'-�a^r��c—�•.g ssa+.,.-.
'4 JM1.'� I. �e C � �i .. � ,�(,� . �6.� � 8 , ��..�
� -L' :�+upf+wswd" ��� .���arC:�'.�?P�..�!Y'�Y}!�.�?.�$31i...r�M'kzrr�aat�:te@'!:`:l.u..�fi:'�.�+Y:Y.t�s.'Y�e:al�u�iR���x`v'�".'��..�C�'��� 1i_P 65iJ y i.i�.
�,�_ ' 7 ,
' A1�.
377 �, �.:
�;�;. .�E556 �`-`�-
(d) Impact on Resource Areas. It is the policy of
- the County to prevent development that will effect
significant wildlife habitat. The proposal lies
within our winter ranye identified in the 1974
Colorado State University Besource Analysis (maps
and text) and deer habitually graze in both the
existing park and proposed expansion area (See
June 13, Z979, letter from Home Owners' Association) .
(e) Impact on Road System. Tt is the poZicy of the
� County that future development not create traffic
volumes or patterns which create traEfic hazards
or significant service level reductions. In 1977
Skrotski Associates prepared "A Highway Safety Study,
Colorado State Highway 82. 1971-1976" showing that,
in terms of numher of accidents (51], injuries (17), ;
and fatalities (3 of 5 on entire highway from Aspen
to Basalt), the Phillips curve area is the most
hazardous portion of Aighway 82 (tenants of the eight
tfiailers on the west side of the river enter this
portion of Highway 82). Skrotski's 1978 "County
Road Traffic Safety Study and Management Plan"
contai.ns a listing of "Hazardous Highway Locations
Priori,tized by Number of Serious Accidents" (for
the Z975-Z977 period) shows River Road next to the park
the second most hazardous location (si,x accidents,
one fatality) . In July of 1979, Skrotski issued
the "Pitkin County Road Traffic SaEety Study II"
which repeats the 1975-77 statistics and, further,
described this section of River Road as one having
numerous narrow sharp curves, short sight distances,
hidden driveways, areas where children pla�Z near the
roadway, and a severe alignment problem. See also
the Home Owners' Association letter of June 13, 1979,
describing the limitations of River Road.
(f) Compatability with A�ricultural Lands. The County
po�icy is to ensure the economic viability of
agricultural operations and maintain large agricultural
tracts. The proposalEor rezoning indicates that
the 26 acres existing as irrigated meadows is not
proposed for use in an expansion of the park. On
the other hand, the appropriateness of any existing
or expanded residential use must be examined in
light o£ surrounding agricultural uses. Concentrated
residential development is inconsistent with continued
agricultural operations in the area.
(g) Scenic Quality. Tt is the policy of the County to
preserve t e scenic quality of the County for the
beneEit of the residents and continued viability of
our recreation economy. As noted above, Highway 82
has been designated a scenic corridor. Existing
mobile homes are visible from Highway 82 and the
Applicant has undertaken no efforts to screen the
park from this public xight-of-way. (See Home
�� Owners' Association letter of June 13, 1979.)
;,: .
',
�> (h) Transportation. It�is the policy of the County to
''� encourage proposals,,with measures which promote non-
�� motorized transportation and reduce individual •
F;
�., automobile use. The park lies 12 miles from the
9; Aspen metro area and, while there is County bus
� service in the mornings and late afternoon, residents
F must, except for this service, rely exclusively
on the private automobile for transportation (See Home
� Owners' Association letter of June 13, 1979).
(i) Com atibilit with Existin Ad'acent Nei hborhoods.
It is t e policy of t e County to insure that
development is compatible with existing neighborhood
uses and adopted neighborhood goals. The area is �.
primarily rural, with scattered residential and
commercial sites, as reflected and ensured by
current zoning. High density residential use is
_ q _
::i�.. -
:6>.+.
i.. , .
� ,
,.
r�;.
t2 f Y��'�
�_
�.+1� WW . � ..
f . , ;;�Rf�'�i t��.�9�`'.��. ,�Y,. �.�� r�.
-- ___,._ _ ... _ . _ ..�,..... .. t�., , i��''.
��'����'7 ���t:�%
_.
�t not compatible with such use. In addition, Woody
Creek Caucus goals (stated in Growth Options--
Woody Creek Area, 1475) include: "TO maintain
t e r�haracter of the Woody Creek area;" "To
preserve the existing character, implying the natural
character should be maintained without congestion
and degradation of the quality of air, water, land
and wildlife." The application does not meet this
r goal.
(j) Com atibi].it with Ad'acent Public I,ands. It is
t e policy of t e County to preserve and protect public
� lands by, among other things, insuring against high
concentrations of population in such areas. The
application does not meet this goal.
6. The applicable law, with respect to rezoning requests,
requires that, if a proposed change is in compliance
with a masterplan, the proponent need only show that it
promotes the general welfare. The Board finds that the
application neither conforms to the County's masterplan,
nor, for the reasons recited above, promotes the qeneral
wel.fare.
7. The law further provides that, if a proposed rezoning is
not in conformance with the masterplan, it may be
granted only upon the showi.ng of a material change in
the character of the neighborhood (since the date of
last rezoning) which might require rezoning in the public
interest; or that an error was made in the adoption of
the existing zoning. The area was last rezoned i.n 1978 ,;4
(Resolution 78-148) and the Applicant has demonstrated
neither an error in that rezoning action, or a material
change in the neighborhood since that time to support
the request made. In addition, it is the finding of
the Board that even if such change were demonstrated,
the proposed rezoning would not, for the above stated
reasons, promote the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County !; -
i Commissioners o£ Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby
deny the application for those reasons hereinabove stated,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board does hereby incorporate ���
by reference (and in support of the action taken) those documents ;
- itemized on the Addendum attached hereto, as well as the record
made in these proceedings to date. -
. ADOPTED on this 9th day of October, 1979-
. ,'. � 1. _ :. THE $OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
' .: , , ,, , PITKIN COUNTY� COLORADO
�'''" �
ATTES,�s� � '
. . r d . . `y ��� 1
� t S_
lE1�,�111111� Sy: �
e�h � '•Stewart d , r. �
' }� flQeputy�C�erk`.and Recorder ��hai� n
s., .; '••-....... •� ��
APP1101PED'P,S TO FORM:
�
� S a M. �tu11e�
County Attorney
- 5 -
t
'n-ti-� :t:"�
;u.:�_+ �
C...:.._ . .
!' �Y f.
� {��y,l��, .. . . .
j�* F'�h~'r� . .
� e� F'`4'
°�,��- �.�
''- _ .. . . �'-,�''`�y . ;.;. y�
w. � �.�Q��!:
ki� .
�1 �'�ew',���
�.
� ?�����
� ADDENDUM TO RESOLUTION NO. 79-� °
1) Aspen Area Genezal Plan, 1966, and Amendments, 1973
an Z975
2J Pitkin County Land Use CoBe, Title II of the Pitkin County ;
Code,Adopted January 22, 1979, and all subsequent amendments.
3) Board of County Commissioners Resolution 74-116 78-148 (as
- these concern Highway 82 corridor zoning) and all resolutions �
referenced therein.
i
4) Pitkin Count�, Colorado, Road Network Analysis, Briscoe/ ! `
Maphis, 1973
5) Aspen/Pitkin Countv Growth Manaclement Policy Plan, 1976 {
�
6) Aspen Metro Area 1479 Empioyee/Employer Surv� and Employee `
� Housing Demand Analysis, 1979 �
7) Colorado State University Resource Analysis, text and maps, ±
1974 I
8) A Highway Safety Stud , Colorado State Hi hwa 82, 1971-1976,
S rotski, 1 77 �
9) Pitkin County Road TraEfic Safety Study (volumes one and two) �
Skrotski, 1979
10) Growth Options-Woody_Creek Area, Woody Creek Caucus and �
Design Works oTi'p;19�
E
17.) Planning Office files for rezoning application including: '
Memo to BOCC from Planning Office, September 6, 1979
Letter from Barbara Ornitz to Planning Offioe, June 20, 1979
Resolution of the P & Z No. 79-12 and minutes of June 20,
1979 meeting
Referral memos from: -?
Mark Danielsen, June 12, 1979
i Homeowners Association, June 13, 1979
Mark panielsen, July 9, 1979
12) Letter from Barbara Ornitz to Board of County Commissioners iF
dated October 4, 1979
. ;�
� ;f
!�
h`
1
��
* .
l
.:�:. ;: - . .
S�
��
.._'..�' � .
C
�;
. ..'.F'.' . .,
, ,fi
, �
..E- .'y e:N��'.z_..
.+lw.. . �