Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.095-99 RESOLUTION # ~ ..... (Series of 1999) A RESOLUTION DENYING EXTENSION OF WATER SERVICE BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE URSCHEL TRACT "d' PARCEL. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a proposal to extend the water system operated by the City of Aspen, Colorado, outside the current municipal boundary to serve the Urschel Tract "D' Parcel in Pitkin County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby denies the request for water service provided by the City of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed to be extended to the Urschel Tract "D' Parcel. Dated: {Rachel E. Richards, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted ~Council of the city of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held __ ~ ~, 1999. Katb~ S. koch, City Clerk TO: Phil Overeynder, Water Director FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director DATE: September 21, 1999 RE: Urschel Water Service Agreement Thank you for forwarding the Request for Consideration of Water Service Extension Outside the City Limits for the Urschel Tract. In reviewing the information and discussing it briefly with the County staff, I offer the following comments: 1. The subject property is a five lot subdivision approved in the county. The total FAR for the entire subdivision is 48,000 s.f. The approving Ordinance indicates that no house site is allowed to exceed 15,000 s.f. 2. The Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically address this property. 3. It appears that the subdivision is located within the 1993 Metro Area Boundary. This boundary is not l'~kely to change under the proposed 1999 AACP Update. This property does show up as a "Proposed Annexation Area" in the City of Aspen Annexation Plan. 4. If the total FAR is divided equally among the five lots, each home site would have approximately 9,600 s.f. of FAR. Currently, the City's least dense zone district, "C" Conservation zone caps the FAR at 5,000 s.f. 5. Though the site would be eligible for annexation, staff does question the impact of such high water use sites (both internal and for irrigation) when the commnnity is currently discussing the desperate need to provide up to 1300 affordable housing un/ts over the next ten years. Unless and until the community can be assured that adequate water is available for the much needed AH, staff does n. Qt believe it is in the best interests of the community to serve this property (and this much FAR) at this time. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to call. H:/annexations/urschel.doc Vltl MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL THROUGH: AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER THROUGH: JOHN WORCESTER, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE- URSCHEL TRACT "D" PROPERTY SUMMARY: This is a request to consider extension of water service to a five lot subdivision approved by Pitkin County in 1994. If Council approves this first step, a more detailed review and water service agreement would be necessary at a later date. An implementing ordinance would then be necessary to provide water serv/ce outside the Cky. Because staff is reco~nmending denial at this preliminary stage of review, the proposal has been brought before Council for early consideration of its merits. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has taken no previous action on this proposal. In 1993, Council agreed to extend water service to the Maroon Creek Club, which borders the Urschel Tract "D' parcels to the north. The water system improvements constructed under the Maroon Creek Club agreement include a water main which was terminated in proximity to the Urschel Tract "D' parcels in order to provide the potential for later extension of the system. Subsequent to entering into the agreement for water service, the City annexed the Maroon Creek Club property such that the current municipal botmdaries border the Urschel Tract "D" property. PREVIOUS PITKIN COUNTY ACTION: Pitkin County granted a rezoning for the property and approved a five lot subdivision for the 14.2 acre Urschel Tract "D' parcel in 1994. Pitkin County's approval permits five single-family dwellings fimited to a maximum floor area of 48,000 square feet provided that no single-family dwelling exceeds 15,000 square feet in floor area. Pitkin County's approval requires the owner to first apply for water service from the City of ~ Aspen. If water service is unavailable, the aPplicant has the option of demonstrating the adequacy " of an independent, private supply of water at the t/me of detailed submission. PREVIOUS STAFF ACTION: In response to an earlier request for water service in July, 1994, staff provided a "preliminary determination that water system capacity is available." This determination was specifically limited to a one-year period and specifically noted that pending applications and developments under consideration by the City at the time conld util/ze any remalulng capacity. The letter also stiptilated that no water service could be provided in the absence of a Water Service Agreement approved by City Council. BACKGROUND: The current "Request for Consideration" of water service is only the first step in indicating that the City would provide water service. Because water availability has tightened considerably as a result of current consideration of affordable housing projects, staff is bringing this application before Council for early action in order to set priorities for the types of projects that will receive the remaining supply of developed water. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The City calculates its tap fees and water rates to provide for full recovery of the cost of water service, inchding requked capital replacements at the end of the service life. No net costs will be incurred by the City or other water customers if service is extended. CURRENT ISSUES: Resolution 93-5 as amended sets forth the City's policies with regard to approval of extraterritorial water service. Prior to entering into a water service agreement, Cotmcil reviews each of the findings relevant to the project to determine that the policy objectives are satisfied by the project. Because this is only the first step in the process, staff's analysis has focused on areas with potential conflicts. ADEQUACY OF WATER SUPPLY: In 1994, the City completed a Water Supply Availability Study, which evaluated a number of components necessary to provide a reliable supply of water, including water rights, treatment capacity, and the physical availability of water. The limiting factor in the 1994 study was the physical availability of water. The study evaluated potential extensions of water service, as well as continued buildout within the city and existing areas with water service contracts. As measured in terms of the number of water-using fixtures to this system, the 1994 study concluded that up to 18,300 Equivalent Capacity Units (ECUs) could be connected to the system without impeding in-stream flow values established by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Current commitments for water service are approxh~aately equal to the capacity of the system as evaluated in the 1994 study. Since 1994, the City has established an aggressive leak correction program which has exceeded assumptions made in the Water Supply Availability Study in terms of elLmination of leaks in the 2 water system and increasing the overall number of units that could be served w/thin the physical limitations of water supply as described above. The current proposals to expand affordable housing by 700 to 1300 units (as discussed in the proposed AACP update), have not been stud/ed in detail to determine their precise water demands in relation to availability of water, but staff has indicated that it is probable that the leak correction program would free up sufficient water to meet needs somewhere in this range. Given that the current proposal may be in competition for the finite supply of water available for new affordable housing, staff would not advise an expansion of private development at this time. AACP CONSISTENCY: See the attached September 21, 1999, memo from Julie Ann Woods on this subject. ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS: One of Council's environmental goals is to ensure that the operation of the water system does not interfere with the maintenance of in-stream flow valnes set by the Colorado Water Conservation Board to protect fisheries and other in-stream uses. Water availability is constrained by this policy. If water supply commitments exceed the values set forth in the Water Supply Availability Study (1994), potential impacts could occur to in-stream flows. (See discussion under "Adequacy of Water Supply.") UTILIZATION OF RAW WATER: The current application indicates that the Urschel Tract "D" Parcel has no water rights to provide for landscape irrigation. The 1994 application listed a number of water rights associated with the parcel, including rights in the Willow/Herrick Ditch and the Vorhees/Urschel pipeline, which cross the property. If water service were to be extended to the property, this discrepancy would have to be rectified and, ff appropriate, landscape irrigation could be limited to raw water sources. DEDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS: As indicated above, the current application indicates that there are no water rights associated with the property, while earlier documentation listed ownership interests in water rights. If water service is extended, this discrepancy would have to be rectified. If there are no water rights associated with the property, an in-lieu fee would be required. If water rights can be documented, a dedication of water would be required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request for water service because of the finite availability of water and conformity issues associated with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Higher priority uses of the remaining available supply of water, including affordable housing, should receive priority. 3 ALTERNATIVES: Pitkin County's approval of the Urschel Tract "D" five lot subdivision leaves open the potential for development of a private water system. As part of the general submission in 1994, the owners provided documentation from a local water attorney that this option is feasible and that a legal water supply can be developed for the property. An additional alternative would be to approve the extension of City water with additional conditions that address consistency with the AACP, including house size. This alternative has been used in a number of other cases including development on North Spruce Street and the Nevin parcel in Mountain Valley. This option is also suggested in the review by the Commuinty Development Department. PROPOSED MOTION: I move that City Council adopt the resolution denying the request for consideration to extend water service to Urschel Tract "D". CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 4