Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.08061996 (2) , - ... _. . ,. . . _ .,:�, . .. . . . .. . . � �°;,:<;,�:: �''''i;'� �� PITKIN CQUNTY COMMISSIONERS �-` `"� _' .: WORK SESSION AGENDA Location: Board Room in Courthouse ` �.. TUESDAY. AUGUST 6. 1996 ���. �., 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING 1. Board of Eqvalization Ratifications, Jeanette Jones EXECUTIVE SESSION Litigation,John Ely ;..�' Personnel,John Ely , ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION _ - 11:30 2. Moilie Gibson Park, Ellert Sassano,Tom Dunlop,Bud Eylar ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING 12:00 LUNCH BREAK i� 1:30 PM COUNTY MANAGBR'S REPORT � 3. Leadership Aspen Request, Suzanne Konchan 4. Elk Mt I.odge Liquor License, Angela Rishel " 5. Hi�hway 82 Shale Bluffs and Aspen Village Design Issues,Stan Berryman, Tim Malloy 6. Healthy Mountain Communities Transportation Matrix, Tom Newland � 7. Memos of Interest (?r; t BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION � 8. Future Agendas/Agenda Requests BOARD MEMBERSHIP REPORTS RFTA Housing Authority NWCCOG QQ Fund Ruedi Water& Power Colorado River Water Conservation District Early Learning Center Healthy Mountain Communities Rural Resort Region . 2:45 BREAK � 3:00 9. County Ballot Issues, Suxanne Konchan ' 4:00 � SPECIAL MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION with City Council _` Paepcke Estate Land Negotiations , i �- i � � ;,;;* . �-�"�` ' • � ` -,. , . ... . �. .. . . .. .....� � ... . ... . . . ;.. �r�ui��:, . i.`��.',�� , -���;�:"• �,'.�ti �. ':�.�,i ..`:�:. - • 5:00 PM ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION , .,. ✓5:30 PM SPECIAL MEETING - Board Room in Courthouse �: 1. Brush Creek Incorporation Hearing, John Ely, Tom Newland ''�.'. 2. Koutsoubos Lot Split Conceptual Submission, GMQS Facemption 1041 � Hazard Review, Scenic Overlay, Caretaker Dwelling Unit & Historic Designation, 2nd Reading, Francis I{rizmanich (PN 5/11/96) ADJOURN �� ` ' _°.;+,. : I_• ' �j Y.: { 9 . � �_ s �. � • , I .�: ;� �,. _ �• �` c :;� �u �� . . _.' ' �..... . . . � � _ � � � � `,��,�., . i � t � . �;.i' 4: • o,'! ,, !1,�,�WEr �r-c� �i� �:;���`.:. �: MINUTES � �.. P(TKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEi2S � SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 6.1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman True called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. in the . Courthouse Room, COMMISSIONER MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bill Tuite, Mick Ireland, James True,George Krawzoff and Leslie Lamont. COMMISSION�R MEMBERS ABSENT: None. � SECOND READING: BRUSH CREEK INCORPORATION HEARING- MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING INCORPORATION- Harry Schulman,attomey for petitioners,stated they will address some of the concems that were raised by Commissioner . Ireland in the last heazing. Jim Crowley prepared a written submission and stated he will also present it orally. A copy of the written submission is made a part of the record and attached hereto as EXHIBIT"A." Jim Crowley proceeded to give his presentarion as outlined in Exhibir"A." Commissioner True asked Mr. Crowley if t[�ey plant to adopt the Land Use Code. Mc � Crowley responded they would adopt it but they would change the accessory dwelling unit � policy. They would keep the units smaller because of the shortage of water in the uea Also, they would change the setback requirements to a lazger amount. Commissioner True stated if they adopted the Land Use Code,they would need to contemplate ihe possibility of litigation. This would require staff and(awyers. Mr.Crowley responded they woald not have staff. They would hire a lawyer for Jitigation purposes only. They would join the Colorado Municipal League and get some protection from them. Commissioner True asked him if they have factored in all of the extra costs for something like this. Mr.Crowley responded they have not anticipated significant legal costs. Commissioner True asked Mr. Crowley how would enforcement of traffic and parking violations be enforced? Mr.Crowley commented they would have a court not of record. Hazty Schulman stated that mosquito control is not the only thing that needs to be done for Brush Creek. He stated in the past,Brush Creek had to fight for provision of water, snow removal,and trash removal. Mr. Schulman explained there is no present possibi(ity for annexation. Annexation cannot occur for a period of at least one yeaz. He stated it would take at least two years to be annexed to the Town of Snowmass. FIe also said he has a letter from Gary Seuter,with the Town of � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l AUGUST 6, 199G e. � - . '����-.:_i.. � � �:.� _ �Y"-.. .... . . .. . . . � . . . . ._ . . � . . . ". . ���! k�, i �p~ Snowmass Village, stating they have no interest in annexin�Brush Creek. The citizens of .�' Brush Creek also have no interest in being annexed to the Town of Snowmass Village. He �;r'� �:�, cannot see why Aspen would be interested in annexin�Brush Creek. Mr. Schulman stated � � annexa2ion is available if incorporation is not possible. If an annexation cannot occur for a �. . '• couple of years,then Brush Creek becomes disenfranchised. No municipal govemment would - '• be available,on(y County govemment would be avai[able. � � . Commissioner Tuite suggested if Brush Creek formed a homeowners'association,a lot of their � complaints cou(d be addressed. Stronger restrictions than the County's restricrions could be . imposed. Empowerment will be there by forming the association. Also,Commissioner Tuite Y stated he spoke with Jim Hooker and T.Michael Manchester of Snowmass Village. They said k�� . i�t- . they had never intended to annex but it does not mean that they could not or would not. Mr. ?•- Schulman responded that the empowerment of an association is no where near the scope of �:, ` � empowerment of a town. �%` i, i: Mr. Schulman stated the citizens have a right to be able to vote on this issue. The citizens ' should have a say as to whether incorporation is a good idea or a bad idea. !� Commissioner True opaned the hearing to public comment at this time. ••`� : � Jerry Shinebaum,a member of the public,reiterated ihat Brush Creek has taken caze of their ,� . own needs for quite a while. j Commissioner Krawzoff stated Brush Creek sfiould be awaze of the road mill levy. � Commissioner Ireland gave the figures for road maintenance. The road department wi11 put $183,000.00 averaged annually into the Brush Creek Road area over the next 15 years. It works out to be about 15 mitls per year that wou(d have to be assessed each yeaz in addition to what they are doing right now to work on the road. Mr. Crowley responded he feels the estimate for road repairs is over estimated by County standards even for a five-year period � Commissioner Ireland explained that it would require an increase of proper(y taxes of 30 to 40 percent to Yake care of the roads. :� Commissioner Krawzoff expressed his concem that if Brush Creek incorporated,they wilt not 3' participate in County-wide concerns. Mr. Crowley responded Brush Creek would anticipate taking part in discussions with the County for county-wide concems. Mr. Crowley stated he has always been involved in this area Commissioner Krawzoff also expressed a concem that the standards Brush Creek adopts might be less of a standazd than the County's. For example, he wanted to know how will their Land Use Code applications be quicker and cheaper? Mr. � Crowley answered that there would be less applicants so they would not have to stand in line so , long and also there would be no 104] hazazd reviews because it is already a platted `, . subdivision. Commissioner Krawzoff asked what is the avenue by which ather entities are going to interact �;• with the new incorporarion? Will there be council meetings? Mr. Crowley responded the (;, metro district meets once a month or sometimes twice a month. Govemment would be � addressed by statute. , ��` i _- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 AUGUST 6, 199G +� / • �', . .-. . e �;�� ,.: �::.:: Commissioner Krawzoff commented one to two years time frame for artnexation is a minimal :�;�` � amount of time to wait. Entities exist for a long time. Mr. Schulman responded if the � ittcorporation does not work out within two years time,then Brush Creek could always annex. ` �.. Suzanne Konchan,County Manager,commented in reference to the discussion of the finding ' ;^ that the Board will have to make with whether or not an annexation to a nearby municipality • would avoid unnecessary duplication of services,road maintenance and policing of roads aze a duplication of services. Commissioner Krawzoff feels incorporation will create a burden to the homeowners. He sees • rapidly escalatin�costs for the homeowners and vety few benefits that could not be achieved ? through an annexation process. � Commissioner Ireland is concemed about balkanization. He stated caucuses are very effective • and much more efficient than municipalities that concem small,local neighborhoods. Opinions have merit. Commissioner Ireland also stated if Brush Creek adopts the Land Use Code,it will be hard to incorporate and then defend. He feels there is no basis for estab(ishing a � municipatiry. Commissioner Ireland explained complaints can be taken care of if they are approached properly. Their proposal to have a court of no record is a major concern to him. A court of no record could be a prejudicial system, Mr.Schulman stated balkanizarion cannot happen because of the way the statute reads for that - criteria Hans Gramager, a member of the public, dces not agree with the idea of Brush Creek incorporating. Suzanne Konchan stated she agrees with the idea of annexation to the Town of Snowmass ` Village. Ms.Konchan also entered into the record the Road Plan Funding Summary that was discussed by a coaple of the Commissioners earlier in the evening. It talks about some of the costs for Brush Creek Village. A copy of the Funding Summary is made a part of the record and attached hereto as EXHIBIT`°B." Commissioner Ireland stated the figure of$958,302,150.00 is not totally correct. This number applies only for the fair market value for the total County and that the fair mazket value in Brush Creek Village is approximately $80,000,000.00. He is basing this figure on Jim Crowley's representation since he served on the road plan committee. It would make a difference in the total property tax rates in the columns. The key figure in the exhibit is the annuat funding needed for Brush Creek under the analysis of the committee and Staff is $183,000.00 a year which would cost approximately 2.5 million over I S yeazs. Commissioner Tuite stated there was a question of whether incorporation of Brush Creek was � in violation of the Down Valley Plan. He stated that the answer at the time was no,that it was sileni on it. Commissioner Tuite countered that silence does not,in itself,mean yes,you can,in fact,incorporate and it was envisioned. Commissioner Tuife still questions why incorporate? He remarked he will not vote for incorporation. � i � BOARb OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 AUGUST 6, 1996 �i�' i , �� � ' I ":R .4.' �.� �`; ;'. f...- Commissioner Krawzoff stated his responsibility to the voters of this County is foremost in his mind.'It is clear to him that if his wte on this issue is contrary to the interests of the voters t County-wide, they will have an immediate recourse because the primary is coming up in a week. He is very comfortable voting on this issue. He stated if Brush Creek annexed to the +. . Town of Snowmass,it would be an infusion of good blood and diverse views that would credit the Town of Snowmass Village. Commissioncr True moved to approve the Resolution permitting an election for •� incorporation. The motion died for a lack of a second. � Comnlissioner Krawzoff moved to adopt on first reading a Resolution denying the proposed town of Brush Creek an incorporation election with the amen8ment to the � p�r:tgraph on page 4 stating there is a denial of the incorporation and set for second � reading and continued public hearing on August 14,1996 at 3:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tuite. A discussion was had at this time. Commissioner Ireland strongly recommends that Brush Creek form a caucus. He will support the caucus who(eheartedly. He reiterated that the County will help them solve the other problems. Commissioner Lamont explained she changed her mind from her original vote because of the discussion tonight. She feels Brush Creek is not ready to be a town. Ms.Lamont expressed • her concem that there were no Brush Creek residents at the meeting tonight to voice their preferences. Commissioner Lamont promotes the idea of Brush Creek annexing to the Town of Snowmass Village. Commissioner True called the question. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner . T�ve against the motion and the rest voting for the motion. SECOND READING: KOUTSOUBOS LOT SPLIT,CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION. GMOS EXEMPT[ON. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW. SCENIC OVERLAY. CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT AND HISTORiC DESIGNATION-MOTION TO APPROVE - Joe Edwazds, attomey for applicant, disclosed he is representing George Krawzoff for a legal matter. He feels there is no conflict of interest because it does not relate to this matter at all. Francis Krizmanich stated the only outstanding issue on this matter is the location of the building envelope for one of the lots. , Lot 2 is on both sides of Brush Creek. It was agreed at the last meeting that the square footage , for the new structure would be 7,500 squaze feet. This excludes the square footage exisring for the farm house and the bam. Even if the storage structure is removed,applicants would have to go through a scenic review to add more squaze footage. Joe Edwazds confirmed that any place on the east side of Brush Creek is fine with the applicant. � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOIYERS 4 AUGUST 6, 1996 i . t��,". . ... . ' . e .:.� . : , . , ,,:,, _ �,�. _ .. . . , ... . . _.... _ . __ . _ C� �� �:'� r. :�.,�.. _,:. i ti.` Francis Krizmanich concurred that the two sites on the east side of Brush Creek are fine. Mr. �� ., Krizmanich prefers the site neaz the maintenance building. Landscapin�for the lower sites are �.. less of a concem than for the ones on the upper sites. ;�.�•�� It was agreed Lot 2's building envelope will be the lower site next to the creek. Mr. Krizmanich clarified they will amend the building envelope as shown on the plan. It will require a lot line adjustment. He will separate out I.ot t and Lot 2 into scenic approval to say '�.. Lot 1 will be zoned to 7,500 squaze feet total,and Lot 2,with the new structure in the proposed �'�` building envelope,is limited to 7,500 square feet. All the other lots can come back to P&Z if -• r•�` they want to exceed 7,500 squaze feet. This door is srill open to the applicant. Commissioner Krawzoff moved to approve the Koutsoubos Resolution as amended. . With a second by Commissioner Tuite,the motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Tuite voting against the motion. Commissioner Lamont moved to go into executive session to discuss P&Z appointments. With a second by Commissianer Tuite,the mofion passed unanimously. � ;ii. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed by Commissioner True at 7:30 p.m. �, Respectfully submitted, _ % ,.� i ��-> .� C_/��''��'��- _... Lynne Cordova Depury County Clerk S TRUE,CHAIItMAN PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COLTNTY COMIVIISSIONERS nate: /0-13-9G PCLSGW WlDOCC'X.Mii�J8-6-96-2doc Submillcd Cm apqoval on Nwcmber 6,1996. I�: 1 Ij �-_ �� . ��: '� l} .. 4. i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 AUGUSP 6, 1996 I ;1. / . . .t1�j�:- 1 • , . • _ r.l` • ..i . .._._.,. - �. « ' �; �-(P'C�� rl �'r�,,�� ' \'1 K , . . '. `�' Memorandum � '` :`'' ,:.. ti, �:, To: Mick Ireland " CC: George Krawzoff {.•'.s•. Leslie LaMont ?"r ! ' Jim Tive ' � . f: Bill Tuite - From: Jim Crowle Date: August 6, 6 , Re: Bivsh Creek Incorporation .,;r i� �:; Mick,I've reviewed the comments you made during the BOCC � • meeting on Jviy 3I,1996 and I'd like to take this opportunity to respond. You said that you,"believe the burden is on the applicant to show the need for an additional level of government" Before I go into a discussion of the needs that exist,I think it is imperaHve that I point �' . out that we are not"applicants"seeking your approval for incorporation but rather petitioneis asldng that you not deny the people the elecrion they have asked for,and the only burdens we � have to,meet are those that are imposed by the statute. Be that as it � may,the citizens of Brush Creek do have needs that can only ` efficiendy be met by incoiporation: i. • The need for a single entitv to govern and speaic for Brush j Creek. There are currently two entides,the Brush Creek � Metropolitan District(a governmental,quasi-municipal entity), • and The Bivsh CreekLandowners Association,taking care of the residents'needs. Additionally,at one of our earlier • meetings with the BOCC,you suggested we form a caucus to communicate the community's concerns to the commissioners. 4 If we were to take that couise,we would have three entities ; - � 1 y I : _ ,'_,.K --• ' . :x • •:..: ___...__.�.. rw�rrrr�r�rr� ...� .._ -______..,...... � .� ..,.,_.�. . a� .. . . ��'..�� ..�},,.;�, ys�,A., ' August 6,1996 .,�.�. ;-'.: � ;:: dealing with Biush Creek matters. Instead,it is our vision that r,� .�, . the creation of the proposed town would consolidate the '�; functions of all three enHHes into one entity and not,as you 'y r. characteiized it,create an additional layer of government. � • • The need to�rovide for the Qovernance of Brush Creek in a � ` manner consistent with conditions that exist in Brush Creek. �� f•;: Two quick examples of actions taken by Pitldn County that would not have been done if Brush Creek were incorporated: k`;? ' Approving an accessory dweiling unit policy !�`. � " having the potential to double the populaHon ` - of Brush Creek after having restricted the size i;� of the dishicYs water hansmission line to limit �..: growth. �` Revising the front yard set-back requirement � ` � from 100' to 30',a revision that will almost � 'r certainly result in houses being built closer to �', the road,substantially alteiing the look and ,� feel of the area. � . i • The need for enforcement of zonin�and parking re�ulations , to be done on the basis of observed violations rather than on r� the tedious and contentious policy of enforcement bv complaint This would elintinate the need for the"rat out your neighbor"system currently in place and allow the dtizens to � deal direcdy,through their own government,with violations. .� • The need for better re¢ulation of utility companies operatinQ - in Brush Creek. The Holy Cross faciliHes in Bivsh Creek are � i aging and will have to be replaced sooner rather than later. A town would have the ability,through its franchising powers,to require that new and replacement lines be buried. The town would also have tlte power to set permitting procedures, restoration standards,and require restoration bonds to control ; damage done by utility companies. Cunently this all has to be �, handled by the metro district(which bears the cost of repairing . � • damage)in conjunction with the county Public Works '� Department(which has all the leverage in dealing with the '�; utilities). We are in the midst of dealing with approximately �!' ���f i, , - . 2 � i - :�� � ?:� � �.i'. / . . , / a _,i .1i -. �ii�!i3�i j�•�/�+.'�'��. August 6,1996 �` " • ..`,. three miles of ditches which have been destroyed by US West , � and the process is unbelievably cumbersome. 1 • The need to reduce the cost of propertv tax collection� '`. �. $8.000,00 per year_ The county heasurer collects a fee of 5q'o of receipts kom special dishicts and only 2%hom oties and � . . towns. • The need to more legitimately provide services to the citizens ;.�` of Brush Creek which have benefits to the wider communitv . in terms of traffic reduction on Hi�hwav 82 and in Aspen . - The Btvsh Creek Metro Dishict cunently provides both central ' • trash coIlecHon and removal faalities,and postal pick up and delivery facilities to the residents of Bivsh Creek. These services,in addition to providing a convenience to the � residents,also have the effect of reducing the number of vehicie hips leaving Brush Creek for Aspen or the dump. We would ]ike to insulate ourselves from suggestions that we lack the !' power to provide these services, . • The need to have a eovernment that focuses on the needs of Brush Creek rather than on the needs of the Citv of Aspen The BOCC's attentions seem to be so tighdy riveted on solutions • for Aspen's perceived problems of housing and transportation ...as an aside,the real problem is growth and focusing on the �i symptoms only exacerbates the problem...that it is incapable r�J of adequately discharging its responsibilities to outIying con�munities and,in facY,sacz-ifices their interests to the interests of Aspen. • The nee@ for basic e4uitv. The residents of Bivsh Creek fund and nianage its municipal seivices but are denied the ability to determine how best to govein their community and,if the BOCC denies d�eir petition,they will have been denied the right to self determination. You also expressed a concern about,"an extraordinary expansion of the bureaucracy in the county where we already have quite a few . • government employees:' You mentioned as examples the creation of, "a municipal clerk,a n�unicipal judge,a land use code,police protection,fire protection,whatnot." We have indicated time and time again duiing the course of these proceedings that it is our 3 ' I i � . f tt' . ^ � . a •:� � t�ry`t;Y;:,�. August6,I996 � ,;;e.;.�;` : �a .; t' intention to run the proposed town with no employees. We have :' `- . successfully taken this approach with the metro district and see no ti= ',, reason that it cannot be extended to the administration of the Town of , '`: Brush Creek. Specifically with the examples you cited we would -'� '::; probably proceed as follows: 1 • Municipal Clerk: this position would be conhacted for on a part time basis as we have done with similar J:``: requirements for the metro district ;.Y.� • Municipal Judge: if the municipality elects not to t��� , have a court of record,this function can be �`,' performed by anyone(not necessarily an attorney) �;' � and I'm certain we can come up with a volunteer. i'' i:. .:. • Land Use Code: We would not attempt to reinvent �, the wheel. It is most likely that we would simply k , adopt the provisions of the Pitkin County Code t• which apply to our zone district. � � • Police Protection: The state statutes require the �! . county sheriff to respond to keep the peace and ;� apprehend felons anywhere in the county if called. �' We would also have the ability to negotiate for the purchase of additional protection if the minimum required by statute was deemed to be inadequate. . • Fire Protection: Since the proposed Town of Biush Creek is located in and pays taxes to the Aspen Fire Protecrion District,this service would conrinue to be ' provided by the district. � _ p� It seems to me that the incorporation of Bivsh Creek might actually result in a reduction in the requirement for government employees since we don't intend to have any and to the extent that Pitldn County administrative staff has been devoting time to Brush Creek, that would no longer be required. + 1. , . ., :� . �i� 5 � �� ' J. �1j. A . i �=; . , , . � . - �.. , , � . . . .. . , .. . -. �';�.:,,., �`.�;µ;;;''` t..��%f%:tf::;' .. ' S�,n�,•,,n- . ��� �� � 'rJ � V�" � ..:�%�bl'. `;,. Road Plan Fund'tng Summary � ;;., .� �.. :.� . �.- . , incl Brush Cr Vil excl Brush Cr vl � - 15-year Road Plan Totai 46,967,876 44,226,136 j:�` Annuai funding needed 3,131,192 2,948,409 '-' (l:�'�•�, .- Funding sources: i�":r-' Use tax reauthorization 1,400,000 1,400,000 General fund sales tax 300,0�0 300,000 , Property tax 1,431,192 1,248,409 3,131,192 2,948,409 �`.. . i . Property Tax Analysis ' 1995assessedvalue 958,302,150 958,302,150 t: , Tofa11995 ptax 34,157,777 34,157,777 ""-t county share of ptax 1,431,192 1,248,409 1Y muni share of ptax 664,257 590,651 • total ptax increase 2,095,449 1,839,060 ) mil!levy 2.2 1.9 avg%increase 6°/a 5% Aspen share 450,522 395,398 Snowmass share 204,3D6 179,308 ' Basak share 9,430 8,276 Brush Creek Vil share 7,669 664,257 590,651 / �, { t I � � . i -_ � i + ; / , �,,�.. � . . � . . � t;�a� • .�; . . ,,',