Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.01082008LUCPITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA Plaza One Meeting Room SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 2008 5:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION (closed session) Plaza 3 Meeting Room 530 East Main Street, 3rd floor, Aspen TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2008 WORK SESSION AGENDA Plaza One Meeting Room 530 East Main Street 9:00 AM Memos of Interest Future Agendas/Agenda Requests/Monthly Calendar Board Membership Reports - RTA, NWCCOG & QQ, ACRA, CCI, RRR, RWPA, NaCo, CAST, PEIS I-70, Club 20 BOCC Open Discussion 10:00 SPECIAL MEETING Executive Session -Lunch Provided 3:30 ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION 3:30 BREAK 4:00 SPECIAL MEETING WITH P&Z Land Use Code Amendments, Ellen Sassano 6:00 PM ADJOURN THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2008 1:30 PM ASPEN MUSIC SCHOOL SITE VISIT 2 Music School Road, Aspen APPROVED FEBRUARY 13, 2008 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ON LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS JANUARY 08, 2008 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted to the record, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR JANUARY 08, 2008. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Michael M. Owsley called the Board of County Commissioners special joint meeting to order at 4:00 PM. COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael M. Owsley, Dorothea Farris, Jack Hatfield and Rachel Richards COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Patti Kay-Clapper not present PLANNING & ZONING COMMISION MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Krabacher, John Howard, Paul Rudnick, Michael Augello and Mirte Mallory STAFF PRESENT: Senior Long Range Planner, Ellen Sassano; Assistant Director of Community Development, Lance Clarke; Phyllis Mattice, County Internal Services Director; and Warren Rider of Pitkin County Environmental Health & Natural Resources While waiting for all of the P&Z members to arrive, Chairman Owsley asked Ellen Sassano to talk about the issues that will be before both boards today. Ms. Sassano proceeded by going over the staff memorandum that covers today's issues. Staff is not asking for action from either board today. Rather, they are asking for staff direction as to whether or not staff should come back with specific Code Amendment language for each of the respective Sections they will be discussing today or whether the Code Sections should be left as is with no changes on the basis that they are working as they were intended to work when originally drafted. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 SECTION 7-20-80 RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS & WETLANDS -STAFF WLL COME BACK WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON FIRST READING AS DIRECTED BY P&Z AND BOCC A. Little Elk Creek Subdivision requests to have no Stream Setback requirement from the Little Elk Creek as it runs through that Subdivision. NOTE: Staff recommends that the setback be reduced to 50 feet rather than eliminated altogether. B. Regarding the request to give the BOCC direction to allow encroachment into the 100 foot stream setback based upon a finding of "a greater community good," NOTE: Staff recommends that no changes be made to allow such discretion when there is an option to build outside of the setback on the property. Lance Clarke went out to Little Elk Creek and walked the entire length of Little Elk Creek stream ditch as it goes through the subdivision. He said that it really is a stream/ditch which is why it's being brought to the BOCC. At one time there was a different channel for Little Elk Creek that has been totally diverted to this channel. The other channel does not ever carry water but you can see where it was. Chairman Owsley commented that until these questions on Little Elk Creek could be totally clarified all that the boards could do is discuss it. A decision could not be made until this has been determined. STAFF DIRECTION -The first discussion the board entered was to clarify Little Elk Creek. Is it a ditch or is it a stream? What is its source, how is it used and what is its terminus? Is it diverted by a head gate? If so, it might be a ditch. Dale Potvin, local realtor spoke about the Little Elk Creek irrigation setup including ditches and head gates. He has a lot that is affected by this. He handed out the Little Elk Creek Irrigation Map for the board and for the record to help with the discussion. Said map can be located at the end of the meeting packet material. He walked the subdivision and looked at the lots. He said that there are at least 4 head gates above the subdivision that divert water in and out of the ditch systems. He said that it acts like a ditch, lives like a ditch, contains tail water and it has been re-routed. On the 1987 US/GIS maps it's in a totally different location. He said that increased setbacks will create many unknown hardships. He wants the setback left the way it is at 20' STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Richards asked for the following from staff: / Real GIS maps in the future with types of overlays to show setbacks and see where the building envelopes are BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 / Hydrological study on that basin -what did the study show with respect to Little Elk Creek / Can we craft a part of the Code to say that any re-building of an existing residence could not be any closer than the current residences / The Code should seek to protect the quality of the vegetation around the stream Eric Stall also owns a lot in Little Elk Creek affected by this and joined in on this discussion. He and his wife's home in Little Elk Creek needs to be torn down due to environmental issues with the house. He was in the planning process when he discovered the setbacks had been changed. He requests that Little Elk Creek Village Subdivision be exempt from the 100' setback and put back to the 20' setback. He informed the board that there are no wells in the subdivision and that his wife, who is 5'4", can walk across Little Elk Creek in winter, spring and summer. P&Z Commissioner Howard suggested the following staff direction coinciding with Commissioner Richard's directions. STAFF DIRECTION -Look at a potential prohibition on what happens in the 20' setback, such as no concrete, no bluegrass, etc. Ted Frisbie and Jeff Ellis addressed the board. Mr. Frisbie has property adjacent to Potato Bill Creek behind BRB in the Crystal Valley. He said that Potato Bill Creek does not run all year round. The source is snowmelt off of Mt. Sopris and the terminus is the Crystal River. There are no fish, very little wildlife and very little riparian and it is a dry gulley part of the year. He suggests considering a 20' setback which he believes was the original setback. Lance Clarke suggested that in the long run the solution seems to be mapping on every stream and having setbacks for different classifications. To have a blanket 100' setback for every body of water is probably not going to prove administratively sensible. But, to do the kind of study that would look at each intermittent stream to try and establish the appropriate setback based on the characteristics of that stream would be a very big, long process which staff is not able to do at this time. P&Z Chairman Rudnick asked if a setback could be established on a case by case basis based upon riparian impact and in no event less than 20'. Ellen Sassano offered the board two choices. They were: / One -Staff could come back with information requested on Little Elk Creek, but also with some proposed Code Amendment language at a first reading in order to move forward. OR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 / Two -Just come back for another discussion meeting with the new information. The BOCC chose option one. Another exhibit regarding this particular discussion was submitted by Glenn Horn. It was a January 04, 2008 letter from local attorney Gideon Kaufman to the BOCC regarding stream setbacks. There was also information in this letter regarding properties with vested rights and a parcel where there is a vertical rise between the stream bed and the property where the 100' setback might not be appropriate. He read the letter into the record. Said letter will be attached to the meeting packet material. Mr. Horn was informed that the board needs to consider what is in front of it now. STAFF DIRECTION - On the stream setback issue, Commissioner Hatfield would like staff to come back with some flexibility. STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Farris would rather look at these site by site. She reminded everyone that the reason the board did this in the first place and that was to protect that riparian corridor. STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Richards echoed Commissioner Farris' comments. She also suggested some form of sliding scale zones looking at a variety of factors relating to the site such as the existing envelope, is the new envelope no closer than existing, is there an ability to pull it back somewhat, etc. Ms. Sassano said that she feels staff has gotten good direction on how to address existing development, existing subdivisions as they relate to stream setback and will come back with specific language on first reading. SECTION 9-50-20_RESTORATION, REPAIR, RECONSTRUCTION, REPLACEMENT, REMODEL & ADDITIONS TO LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES - DISCRETIONARY ON THE PART OF THE BOARD WITH STAFF DIRECTION NOTE: VERTICAL RISE - NO FURTHER DISCUSSION WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION A. Regarding the request to allow modest expansion of the footprint of a non-conforming structure within the 20-50 foot stream setback, Staff recommends that a one time expansion of the footprint of up to 300 s.f. be allowed to give owners an option to building a new house. B. Regarding the recommendation to clarify when structures in the stream setback are considered to be conforming versus non-conforming, Staff recommends that such clarifications be made. C. Staff concurs with the recommendation to reorganize, or at the very least, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 to re-title subsections within the nonconforming section of the Code to better reflect what changes to anon-conforming structure trigger a significant versus insignificant review. Ms. Sassano said that she believes this Section addresses the second part of Mr. Kaufman's letter where he suggests that the board have flexibility where there's a vested right for new development to make some exceptions to the standards that exist today based upon a finding that there is some enhancement to the community that's better by allowing new development. She said that staff has good direction on existing development, but for new development the board needs to decide on making decisions regarding allowing development in reduced setback areas on a case by case basis or have a standard in place. Mr. Clarke explained to the board a situation that is close to Mr. Kaufman's client's situation. He said that it's an approval for a new house with a 20' setback and the house is approved at 8250 feet. The owners would like to change the envelope and perhaps agree to make it 7500', but they can't meet the 50' setback and so they'd like to negotiate. In other words, they want to alter their vested right which means they would have to immediately meet the new Code. Mr. Kaufman's proposal is that there should some flexibility in the Code to allow the board discretion to not have to institute the new Code in that kind of provision. Discussion on this request ensued. Commissioner Krabacher said that he assumes the approach is that we can build the approval that we have now with these vested rights and if we come in with a new development it has to be 50' back. So, what we're proposing is not something 50' back, but "not as bad as" what we could do now. The board members think that this is a legitimate concern. Commissioner Richards was interested in knowing how many type of vested right situations they are probably dealing with related to the stream setback. Mr. Clarke said probably one or less. No one else has approached staff on this, he said. If it's trading up on a better outcome, Commissioner Richards would like to see the board have the flexibility. Ms. Sassano said that if the board wants staff to come back they can: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 / Make it board discretion OR / Draft specific language Many of the Commissioners agreed that it would be strictly discretionary on the part of the board and only for vested right cases where modification of the vested right is sought. The greater good sounds good but there needs to be reasonable criteria, such as smaller house, a little further back, or lower profile, and environmental good. Note: Commissioner Rudnick said that he would be willing to draft some standards and, if they sound like they work they could adopt them. And if not, they could go back to the more general. STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Hatfield would like the words "significant" improvement used. Commissioner Richards began the discussion on vertical rise. She said that she needs to see some practical applications on things like this. Glenn Horn added that there is a requirement to setback from the bluff and so what happens is that you measure from the stream 100' back horizontally it could be well back on the site. From an environmental standpoint, the only setback that really matters is the setback from the top of the bluff, not the setback from the stream. The setback from the top of the bluff, typically, is 20', due to geological stability, he concluded. Mr. Clarke added but this is not specifically stated in the Code. Staff would get that setback from a geological study. Chairman Owsley commented that just because you are 100' above the stream doesn't mean that you are not affecting the life of the stream. STAFF DIRECTION - Do not bring this vertical rise issue back. The boards would have to see more information on this issue in order to make any modifications. EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE 100' RIPARIAN SETBACK -STAFF WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN A WORK SESSION OR IF COMFORTABLE, BRING SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FORWARD ON A FIRST READING Further information on this Section of the Code can be found on page 5 of staff's memorandum. The issue to be discussed was this. There may be circumstances where allowing the footprint to expand by a small, specified amount makes more sense BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 than requiring a new structure to be built outside of the setback to accommodate the need for an expansion (using amud-room as an example). There may also be circumstances where it makes more sense to building a (small) bedroom or bathroom or kitchen nook on the first floor because of the existing layout of the house. Staff recommends that there be a one-time allowance for up to a 300 s.f. expansion to the footprint within the 20-50 foot setback area with the expansion being away from the stream. This modest expansion would be on a one-time basis. Discussion developed on this issue. One of the questions raised was whether the 300 s.f. was footprint expansion or floor area expansion. Mr. Clarke said that staff was thinking floor area, but they can draft it whatever way the boards choose. Ted Frisbie and Jeff Ellis addressed the board on this issue with regard to their specific property. This particular house was built in 1977. The home straddles that line as do many homes in the Crystal area. They would ask the board to consider either saying that the majority of the home is under those standards a conforming home OR consider that the part of the home that conforms goes with the appropriate setbacks and the part of the home that is considered non- conforming goes with those appropriate setbacks. Mr. Clarke responded by referencing page 6 of stafFs memorandum which lists what structures are considered legally conforming and legally non-conforming. As a general zoning standard, he said, the entire structure is non-conforming if a portion is non-conforming. Mr. Frisbie asked the board if there is a way to examine something more like 500 or 600 s.f. and then just limit the floor area in the 1041. Discussion continued. Commissioner Farris informed Mr. Frisbie that properties in the Crystal are difficult as the lots are poorly defined and tiny. She said that it seems to her that what the board is saying is there is no place beyond the 100 ft from the riparian therefore we can use 50 ft. If no new development occurs within the 0-50 ft, then it's okay to build between the 50 and the 100 of whatever exists. This is important to her, she said, because the impact of building a new structure to go up and down along the river, the truck traffic, etc. all the impact of construction is really a pain in the neck on all this ill-conceived sites along the river. But, she continued, she doesn't think it should be built any closer to the 50 ft and she doesn't think it should be restricted to 300 s.f. as long as it's outside of that 50 ft setback. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 The board reminded Mr. Frisbie and Mr. Ellis that this is not the process that can actually solve this particular problem at this time. Mr. Rider of Environmental Health reminded Mr. Frisbie and Mr. Ellis that the 50- 100 ft is not a freebie if you can't develop outside the 100 ft. Any applicant coming in would still have to show that their proposed actions are not going to have impacts greater than what would have happened in the 100 ft based upon the Code standards. Further discussion ensued. STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Hatfield wants whether it's the footprint or the total square footage for the 20-50 ft to be clarified. He reiterated staff's response that we are on square footage. STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Howard wants the one-time clarified so that you couldn't come back later and build a second floor that's provided for elsewhere in this Section. Commissioner Richards asked if this was applicable to existing houses in subdivisions and non-subdivisions. Staff's response was yes, applicable in both. STAFF DIRECTION - In the memo, staff stated that they want to make certain Sections clearer for the general public. Commissioner Richards suggested making an if, then flow chart. Several Commissioners said that they thought 300 s.f. was an arbitrary number and this caused further discussion. STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Richards suggested whether the number on these expansions should be based on a percentage of the current house size or perhaps on a sliding scale. Commissioner Richards would like staff to bring back some examples of what could expand. STAFF DIRECTION -Commissioner Rudnick made the following suggestion. You might consider a larger square footage allotment, but add a limitation that in no event shall the total square footage of the house exceed 2500, 3000, or whatever number you pick. Ms. Sassano said that what she's hearing from the boards is that they would like staff to come back at first reading with some language and some alternatives for how we arrive at the proportional number with a cap. Staff will come back with BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS S SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 some alternatives. They will also try to use some existing houses to provide examples. Some Commissioners would rather have this come back for more discussion but not yet for an action item. Commissioner Richards said that if we're going to open a window, then there needs to be some evaluation of that site as a whole in terms of what they've done with Kentucky bluegrass and how they've approached the river buffer and native vegetation. Commissioner Richards will try to get hold of some information from Boulder regarding zoning that isn't riparian setback, but protects that riparian area. Mr. Rider added that when someone is looking for that 100-50' reduction that they should have a wildlife biologist come out and assess that riparian habitat. DIRECTION TO STAFF -Commissioner Mallory would like some creative approaches (such as RO) to make tools available for people who want to live in their homes and want to have children, rather than using it for a speculative tool. Regarding this last item, Ms. Sassano concluded by saying that we need to clarify the Code to make it very clear to everybody what's considered to be non- conforming and what's considered to be conforming relative to the stream setback, in particular in this case. She said that staff will come back to the board in a work session or staff will bring specific language forward regarding these clarifications if they feel comfortable enough to bring it to the boards on a first reading. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 PM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008 Respectfully submitted, L e~ ~. Dean _ ` C ~ k t the Board onty Commissioners Jeatte Jones Cler to the Board County Commissioners i, ` f ~:.: r M chael M. `Ows y C~air~n of the Board of County C mmissioners %~ / ~~ r ~~ ~~ ~~~~ Paul Rudnick Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission g\bocc\minutes\2007\01082008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 08, 2008