The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.res.014.1982 _ i _ �. � _ .•:�:4;s} . . , -.}��f,�y't,CY,. . , i:�.:. .. :�� . . .. ._.: � �•�. � .x�-`�y-.c�(�M}�'��ti� n� �,r t�,�'7.�2 �a, '4�:y'�� '� k r�:7 . �. r•".�Y s,. �.� i3� � �r' e. �� w ;�.s P Y5' "1c 'L,: i, .s t `� �`�t't�. j ,,. m a ' ��,�;r�+�-.iu;isl�_��'.�ta.�"�Ras�t.��a.,�iw`'��.�i_a.v�r�h.Hx�,a,.c��rlruiv�'nsr:M"�,R.�:�.,,m;.Sa+ik�dw,�.a�� -..��;:ss. t �zf� ti �,r a� . �u,, �, .�. . � RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY � COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, � �; CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF ANDRE ULRYCH � � FOR SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE 'CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD � _ 14 � /II Resolution *70. 82 �� - ��` � � WHEREAS, Andre Ulrych ("Applicant") has made an application for ' �_ r himself and on behalf of several Colorado corporations for special • review approval for the construction of a roadway within Pitkin County, � r t and � �. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied approval of the application on December 9, 1981, by its resolution 81-20; and the c.` �, t, Applicant has appealed the denial to the Board of County Commissioners, �`�. � and �: WHEREAS, on reviewing the application the Board did find, at its n � meeting held February 8, 1982, each of the following: ,t�, 1. The application fails to meet the minimum submission � ;�f� requirement contained in Section 6-3.2 which requires the Applicant ' �j� to provide evidence establishing his interest and right to use the � �T prbperty which is the subject of�e application. A close review of the documentation submitted by the Applicant shows the property over which . the easement was conveyed by a 1979 conveyance was encumbered by a 1973 � agreement (of record at Sook 273 Page 34) granting to Wilton Jaffee Sr. � a right of first refusal. Mr. Jaffee Sr. has stated during the hearing '� that this requirement was not complied with and he has objected to the i: grant of easement and continues to challenge its validity. 2. The Applicant has a�serted that alignment proposed for the �� roadway is "court-ordeirod" and if not approved by the County will foreclose �. , zro i;:. all access to the property to be served. The Applicant has submitted a �"°' �,�'�.' ;�s°'..:� '., . copy of an Order issued May 15, 1981, in Pitkin County District Court, „ .�. Civil Action 79 CV 300, in support of his contention. However, this document indicates that the order issued pursuant to a stipulation of ;� h the parties in which the Applicant did forego all his rights of access � . acquired by contract or law (condemnation) in exchange for an easement µ over the agreed to alignment. Further, that the County joined in the $ .� stipulation to dismiss providing "that its joinder did not constitute � an endorsement of the alignment or approval of the roadway, and witl�i � - 1 - � '�.:;rro�r ...s:, �k _ i_ .. . ___ ._. _ `zr�`s; . � �.� , . . . .. . ,. . . .. � �` . �v...t �. .». .�A]t�.i:t.. .....__ .7�.ia... .�..._. .. ...... .�...:..iS�,u.sl:,.�?�:.«'.�'.'.��il`�`��.�.�..�r��+^�._Y.Co.!-�L.�.jx+.�0}�yaru..�atL..:.' . '^7pti !:�:•; Fr,;'� �r^�.,-.._. .. 4q �rt the understanding that all County approvals are required for the �� Y:'� construction of the same." Consequently, any hardship resulting from �� ° a denial is self-inflicted, that is,resulting from the Applicattt's : �`- having waived all rights to access (ther than that agreed to) prior �� to receiving necessary County approvals. A further result of Applicant's ' ,�. � f , action is that he is unable to offer to the County alternative �. �� alignments to avoid the unacceptable effects of the proposal (described �� in more detail below) . 3. The application, as submitted, is incomplete. Section 6-3.2(a) provides that an applicant submit "Sufficient information to show that � �. the proposal complies with the policies (Article 2) and general � : � regulations (Article 5) of the Code, and any other applicable state and local laws." � * (a) The County in 1974 adopted the "Pitkin County Standards ' � � �'�, y and Specifications for Roads, Trailways and Bikeways." � � . � These specifications are applicable to the proposed roadway ( � i. ,� (semi-primative mountainness access road). The Applicant � �` has failed to submit the roadway specifications, phasing �; schedule and approvals of the affected ditch company (and :�y..�i � adjacent landowners) required by Section 10.04.06, and the 'i detailed landscaping plan required by Section XVII of those � specifications. Applicant submitted a road cross section. I � However, the design does not meet the detailed requirements � �k; , of the Specifications; and Sections 6-3.3(c) and 5-401.3(h) � of the Code require all road engineering be prepared by � $� a duly registered Colorado professional engineer, not done here. Applicant's inability to get to the site to � do site testing prior to filing his application (a condition that no longer exists) is not a defense to fulfilling these requirements. (b) The application also failes to satisfy the submission requirements of the following sections of the Code: � � 5-202.2, 5-100.2 (the Lincoln DeVore report does not e � contain all the information required) , 5-102.2, 5-107.2 � . (a) and (c) , 5-401.3(d) and (h). � i The Applicant has requested a "conceptual" approval in advance of submitting such required data. However, the special review procedures �'' flo not provide for staged approvals and the Board cannot condition its � � _ 2 _ - •r,r:i.�:�.' . � ,,,,�..,«,r,. 1_f �' .'$yi:' t::s i.;.�,'' . ;'�";.tsn�!?.r� ' . . r�-��'<�„�„[. l ,�v i x :;,'b"a t{ r��.,N�,�3t.:�� S�'s.�.i�.i4'�Il:"'�?�i:��F rti_;.._C:}�q.�}�f ��.�-x'7?+�w 7��j t y��yy ; ��y��,t"�� "� Ls T,4 kl4�_�i 4 .4<alt � � � aL 7it7�.7�....�,�ia-.!l.l_�.._.._�'�.a� c Lu.�+.ie�:,...1"w�i•.1.A��:�--.x�i.,i�.�{...:1��?ht4 w ' y"�t1:': iC��:;� l,. ��;:i:.. . - t;4 Y� action subject to ultimate compliance with the Code's requirements e'�4 and without conclusive evidence that the proposed construction will � k.' create no adverse effects to property, public health, safety and [`. � welfare or an environmental resource. See Sections 6-3.4(e) and � � (d) (3) (A), and 5-400.6(b) (2). �. � J�'.: 4. The application fails to satisfy the applicable review ! �'' t.1' � criteria established by the Code: i (a) Sections 5-100.1 and 5-202.1. The reports submitted � are totally inadequate to assure the County that soils � and geologic characteristics and hazards will be entirely � �' mitigated. The geologic hazard report is not based � on a site investigation and testing, underestimates f � the level of costs associated with the proposed mitigation " ;� measures, and is not based on detailed roadway design • �'. e 1 and en ineerin i• ;�y g' g p lans an d specifications. In addition i .*�' the Applicant does not offer guarantys that all costs 4 .� associated with the project are assumable by him; that ? + " he has received the approval oP the Salvation Ditch Company � 41 S •i r 1 � e � �� (or of any neighboring landowners) necessary to improve � S , � the ditch and install culverts, etc., for proper � �� . drainage; or that the resultant roadway will be a safe � z right-of-way for its users. � (b) 5-1D1.1. The Applicant has failed to supply adequate information to show a drainage system adequate to drai.n � the area and prevent sedimentation of adjacent surface waters or the pollution of subsur�ace waters. � • si (c) 5-102. The Applicant has failed to supply adequate �. information to show that the proposed improvements will � prevent erosion. �'�• � (d) 5-105. The Applicant's failure to supply roadway �, a.,- . specifications and a detailed landscaping plan result in cA � � his failing to demonstrate that the project will lessen ;€ visual damage to the area. � (e} 5-107. There is no evidence presented that establishes � � i that the project will not result in a degzadation of ,. 3 surface and subsurface water quality. �� (f) 5-401.1(b) and (c). The Applicant has failed to adequately � ( demonstrate that the proposed improvements will not create a _ 3 _ t�%i,��.M�'��:J�l!ny.. , t�l' � st �u„�w,ti , 'i'v�.'�^�F f. . . . ..._ . , . . . �n<�t �,s,�s �,tr w�, ��! ' . ..�,.yi �+rS£3'�.�4,��e�`£�cy.h4a��c....::�^�au,lL...�t'�.�'1��.��'�;s'��:7;��-l�ii:'� - !-'Yw:��:�•'^+eiJ�� '.T 3G�..��.t(-.��5 . }f,iYi" L y t' `�Y'�'I. { }{:': ��.�,.j �'r'i,:t�.. i� 7 . �'�{° public hazard and mitigate all dangers due to the 6i:: �. identified geologic hazards. �� (g) 5-401.2(f). The Applicant has failed to provide engineering �• �; , and construction designs adequate to establish that the _� area will be stabilized, that added water will not decrease ` �' /. 3 stability, that the improvements will avoid added weight {, �-- y� �w to the slope, and will result in slope grades that will ; :ii support revegetation. 1h) 5-401.2(h? (k) (1) (m) and (n). The applicant has failed ` ��'' to provide detailed site geoloqic and engineering analysis � to establish that cuts and fills will be minimized, will maximize stability, will permit revegetation, will prevent erosion and provide adequate drainage. ' � AND, WHEREAS, given the foregoing the Board is unable to approve �: ; i• � � the application and must deny the same for the reasons specified above, ; �� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commisisoners f of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby deny special review ��: approval of the application of Andre Ulrych all as herein described. = :�R °t'' Approved by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners at ".� their regular meeting held this ZZ day of F�U� , 1982. '� � '� ,. ,;. BOARD OF COUNT COMMISSIONERS -Y ' ATT� PITKIN COUNT , C RAD ; � � i ' '� Lewis Scanlan e:/ a i anderud . Deputy Clerk and Recorder Chax woman APPROVED AS TO FORM: ii. e- � r �� - � Sandra M. �rtuller � * County Attorney ,. � I _ q _ i { � i ?;< � ��' . . M ,t