HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.039.1978ATTACHMENT G
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD Ov COUNTY cosniSSIONS
OF 1•ITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING A REQUEST
UTILITY EXTENSION TO THE SECTION 36 SUHDIVISI
Resolution No. 78- jeq
WHEREAS, Boly Cross Electric Association has su
an application for approval, pursuant to the provisi
C.R.S. 1973, Section 30-28-110(1)(a), for the instal
of an approximately 15,600 foot, single phase, two x
XV line, to service the 'Section 36• Subdivision loa
Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M., and
WHEREAS, the Section 36 Subdivision was createdjby the
parcelling of approximately 16 lots (35-40. acres in ize)
in September and October of 1974 without review under any
local subdivision regulation, and
tl
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conxidered
the request and on April 17, 1978, at which time th�e:application
was denied for the reasons specified in its Resolution dated
May 17, 1978, and
WHEREAS, Section 2.10 of the Pitkix County Land Use
Code eatitled 'Logical Extension of Utilities' provides,
in part, 1
It is the policy of the County to discourage utility
extensions to areas not suitable for the typeigr amount
of development necessary to support the service or
which is likely to result from such extension
It is also the policy of the County to regula �ee-;ten-
sions in a manner which will insure that utility
resources will be contained to -areas of, or acent.
to, existing deve:opment and areas suited tlop-
sent consistent with other policies of the ty and
that such areas should be providedlue fall capplement
of necessary public utilities rather than create many
areas which are not fully serviced and are premature
for the development contemplated.
F
It is also the policy of the County to discourage
extensions...which would be subjected to abndrmal
construction, msintaaaacs'or opesatioa costs du. to
topographical, soil or geelogic conditions; and to
discourage extensions of which'tha coat -including ..
environmental -exceeds the general benefit to be gained
thereby.
witted
ens of
ation
re 14.4
ted in
hifi 5 /!ijt
A11 of which policies are further refined in Section 5.23.01
of the Code establishing the guidelines ` for administering
applications for utility extensions, and
WHERFAS, the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed.
the recommendation of the Commission, and the evidence and
testimony presented with respect to the application, and has
found:
1. The Section 36 Subdivision is located at an
approximately 9000 foot elevation and serviced by
a single lane access roar: rising initially
(approximately) 6000 fee'., with a further 3000
foot change in elevation required to gain access
to the subdivision. The road is a one lane road
which (a) has steep grades, most in excess of 20%,
sae no shoulder', (c) traverses soils with
weak bearing strength, (d) has no drainaca (and
is very highly eroded) and (e) is, in many places,
when wet, impassable except by 4-wheel drive
vehicles. In addition, the road is cut into hill-
sides whose slopes exceed 70t which (a) in
case a vehicle slides off, would result in its
falling several hundred feet and (b) makes
revegetation impossible and results in extreme
erosion.
2. The subdivision lies within several geologic
hasa_d and other areas defined in the previously
adopted C.S.O. maps, more specifically: (a) all
lots lie within areas of slopes 301 or greater,
(b) most lie within areas designated as 'non -
occupancy lands, (c) an elk migration route
traverses the subdivision and the entire subdivision
lies within an area shown as critical winter range
THE BOARD Or cOOMTy ccomassIoomas
or PISRIM coot; C tattoo
for elk, (d) a majority of the subdivision lies
in an area of high visual vulnerability and a severe
wildfire hazard area and (e) several avalanche
areas are shown within the subdivision boundaries_
3. The utility line is proposed as an above ground
installation which will require destruction of
several miles of trees and other vegetation
resulting in substantial environmentalidasage, and
WREREAS, inasmuch as the subdivision has not received
any i,cal subdivision review, all development will require
Building Permit Review approval; approval which is very
unlikely to be given because of the site characteristics
noted above, and the constraints of the Growth Management
Policy Plan (third draft) adopted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on August 17, 1977, and
onE.nzv. giver ..._t_ .____?n, e.52Eider=tIttr, fie e.._-w
has determined that the Section 36 Subdivision is 'unsuitable
for development and there is little liLelihood that any
development permission will be granted therefore; and,
further, that the construction of the line would: result in
seveL< environa.ntal damage, all of which findings require
disapproval under the requirements of Section 2.10 and
5.23.01 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code,
NON, THEEEPORB, be it resolved by the Board frf County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that i does here
by
affirm the actions of the Pitkin County Planning.. Zoning.
Commission and deny approval of the utility ..ion re
quest
of the Holy Cross Electrical Association here .
.. - described.
Approved by the Board of County Comisai of Pitkin
County, Colorado, at its regular meeting held 12,1.978.
� JITis�
l
�eDecicflere sea_^a"o—ice