The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.spec.10241995 ��¢ , .��J �.m.,'�YC�Iti:M)�..:�i.. . S hw:d?....... �i' w_"�i . . . � � � .. Ji!. . i " . 1�a� nan.iS^_.ky�:'�trA j�, t�. ��.� �€ �`; _ � F .. ' . � . . � _�.. � . . . . . . . . . . ' . .- �{ . . � . � . � . �.f� ,�:� '::t . . . . . � - i�,i;�' ... �! s '� � . � PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � ~� � WORK SESSION AGENDA '' :i� a . Please Note Different Location: Board Room in Courthouse � . � � � - � - � tr -'� �;�� TiJESDAY.OCTOBER 24. 1995 f- - � � �_ 7- . ___, ___ . r r !,: 110:00 CMC Xearly Updace, Dr. Heelan, President *��' 10:25 Energy 2000 Seminaz Update, Lynn Haines s . I/ 10:30 EXECITTIVB SFSSION �.. Potenflal Liflgadon, GarY EsarY �_: 12:00 AD70URN EXECUTIVE SFSSTON � �.-• � ; 12:00 LUNCH$REAK � ' 1:30 PM COTJNTY MANAGER'S REPORT : 1. Independence Pass Namows Safety Im�rovements,Tom Newland 2. Independence Squue Affordabie Housing,Dave Tolen 3. CCVR Affordablc Housing Contract, Dave To1en 4. Natural Gas Rake Hike Hearing,Tom Newland 5. Memos of Interest BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION - - 6. Future Agendas/Agenda Requests 2:45 Affordable Housing Proposal,Bob Morrow 3:1$ BREAK �. � 3:30 7. GA Issues, Scott Smith � � _ '`� Airport Landing Fees,Scott Smith 5:00 PM AD70URN � 530 PM SPECIAL MEETING-District Court Land Use Public Hearing ; RuraURemote Rezoning and Code Amendments,Cindy Houben,Ellen Sassano. � ; . . . f,' :r�... .� . 1 . . � . . .. . � . . . � - . . . .. .. 1: /F�'�� .�} � . . . . . ' � � . . . . .. ( � . . � . . . � .. ��.:�� . . . . . . � . � � . '� . .. . .. - .. . . F� �1�.� - . � . ' , . . � � . . . � �,�t - . . . . . . .. �':��. .. .. . . ' , . . . . . ' ' . �{ . . �.�� . . :- �� " _ �'u:+..+'-t+--:a �.-ai:::.�.+ .a 3.3a'ai.�iii.��°.urv.."�CM'lj%i��i�eti�+$S."�M` 7 � � .. . „ � . / -: .' � ' .: :' . . -. . . . ' .. . . . _ ,�. � *.. � ., . `' _ ��' J � � � ..' . �♦ .. ' ,�, •. . .. . . . .. - .. . -. �.' � ~ f' ` , . � . i . � f+ - . . � .. . _ . .. ` . .f._ . � - __ .. . ... _ - F . � .. � �� .. �� , . � .� . ... ' . . i{'�" � . . .. . � • ' . � . .. . . . � . . . ..-.s.: . , � � . �' � �t��,�•a. .. .-:�t�.. .:4�n.�,. m...,., � . �. ,. .. . '_a� . .. . u�t:G,L�:t+1kl�3c�:rti�»arX:nK�'d�hFli:diYaf�'ku'3ii�ilr4l��s:s�'�:i�� .v�i'" � .;.,.M1,•n.,�.' *' L _ /�7�/'Ftov�rJ �k "`�� /—�-y-9� !;��: .�:� ,- BOARD OF COUNTY COMbIISSIONERS r�• .`:s PTTKIN COUNTY,COLORADO ':r.�'� .t SPECIAL MEETING ��':'.�,�,r� � � , October 24,1995 c :..:.': i '•`-.;" - S I !'4`::'`. i I '''=?.i`• Y;:' _ _ t::.;;,'': Preseat and voting: Chairperson Mick Ireland,William Tuite,James True and Wayne Ethridge. ;:,::�. Rural and Remote Rezoning Consideration-Mick Ireland spoke about the noticing of the previous public meeting and the rescheduling to today. He explained that notice has been provided and was in the newspaper ''^' .�. and the meedng. He called to order the Special Meeting of the BOCC duly noticed for the purpose of y considering rural and remote zone districts. This is ffie sixth meeting hereof and it is a public hearing. It is ,Y1 � not going to be the last,but maybe the nex[to the last mee6ng expected on this issue. There is a lengthy �, � document and note from Wilk Willdnson entitied Reques6ng Exclusion from the Rural and Remote Zone District. This document was introduced into the record. � �� Mick Ireland noted rhat the new proposed legislation reflects some of the public input. Mick suggested 'tii`� �� beginning with a review of the changes and proposals for transferable development rights and various special • I uses an the propercies involved. Cindy Houben will give that presentarion. Cindy Houben that staff attempted to pull together the information heard in public hearings to date. Cindy reminded the Boazd of one public wmment that was offered by Ellen Fiunt in a letter regazding the number �,�:;� of people that use various sized homes or her esdmate of the number of people that use various size homes on ��. 35 acre parcels. Cindy wants the Board to be aware of that letter which is attached to the packet on the back • side of the front page. Cindy explained that Ellen felt that there may be just as many impacts from small cabins in the back country by muItiple families using those cabins over time as there would be by one trophy � home or]atger(15,000 s.f.)home. Staff felt they could also make their estimates and submit ideas about ,•: ; how many people would be generated by each sized home,but they did not feel they had accurate � ; informa6on to come up with any numbers that are really worthy of the Board listening to at this meEting. • � i Staff believes that fudher research naeds to be done in order to come up with accunte statistics. � ..•�.'-._'1 � � . '; Cindy Houben explained that changes have been made to the proposed ordinance relative to the special � review uses,the aitowed uses and prohibited uses. Cindy pointed out that all of the items in the dratt ; � Ordinance which have bold type face are the changes proposed. . 1 r. � Mick Ireland believes that previous discussions with the property owners and interested parties,in the review ' of the Little Annie area,revealed a sore spot with water supply and sewage disposal system. Mick believes that the problems created by an individual water supply even at alpine levels could be addressed by special , review. The same might be true of sewage disposal systems. He wanu people to have t(ie opportunity to �, live the low impact lifestyle in the back country. Mick explained that he has always thought that an .:�� ; individual water supply system,if it does not impact the environment and the water shed significandy,might :, ='� i be preferable to having a lot of trucks coming in to supply the water. Mick reminded that Tom Cardamone ` � " ; : BOCC Page 1 10/24/95 , •' . ., ._.�._._- ---__._.______...�_ ...._:.. -.__. ,� ._, , _ _ ..: _ ... .,�. �... ..:_,: . �.: _.. _:.:,. : / . 1��;5 �ti r �.. ' . : ' r� � � �; ' .. ,� _ . 5: - , .. - . s . - • . � • . • • . . � � . . - ' . . ,�' . � . - � '. . �; . � . . � _ . . . . ' ;�'s`::� . . . ' - . . � � . . �. ,f . 'a� ,_ ��r��' • .. :'S4sr ,.;t:;...,,. ' , ,. .. . ._ . . � .. ' . . .,_ ... . .. ..._ _. _ . ^ - . i+�'.'?`��:��" .°A 'Y � � �� ; �. • �,h tesdfied that individual sewage systems have the potenrial to have a devastating affect on the water shed and ��!�,�:; supply because you have different types of soils and you have things freezing and thawing. Mick explained �- : �'� '-.: - that he is not certain that individual sewage disposal systems couid be adequately addressed by special ;�,._�� review. There was a proposal for a system out on the Mines property and there was a quesGon of whether a ";,; .�� system could be placed on a section of the hiliside or not. It was determined ffiat this would not have • '� •_ ' worked. This may be more of an engineering type problem,nther than saying this is the situadon in all :i•'�� ' yy � cases. Discussion ensued. " � �� ;e ::�.,_ t � Wayne Ethridge does not support the change being proposed by Mick Ireland. r r. i: ! _ . ,i` Mick Ireland believes that if you are in a subatpine area,a lazger footprint is not as impactive as if you were '��=�^~`:.. in the high alpine. One argument for the limited footprint in high aipine is that it dces have less impact, �;.=�"::'-: heats more efficiently,takes less excavadon and that sort of thing. `:`'-+::�.� , Mick Ireland suggested that under pmhibited uses,No. 1,extension of central utilities(water,sewer, ;��; telephone,cable)should be on a special review basis. He does not think this wiU happen very often. There �: ' may be a handful of pmperties where extension of utilities would be practical and it may be better than s{� � havin a enerator runnin all of tfie time or havin someone di a wetl or se tic s stem or havin trucks �' ' � g 8 S � g g P Y 8 i.,= coming up and down through the sludge. Discussion ensued. !''. Mick Ireland believes in the change relative to disturbance of Iiving native vegetation and people harvesting �' deadfall,firewood,and making the provision that if yoa have a dead tree in five acres,you leave a dead tree '' ' every five acres. Mick questioned staff as to allowance of a small gazden. Discussion ensued. After discussion,it was determined that Jim True,Wayne Ethridge and Cindy Houben could support consideration of gazdens thro�gh the special review process at the subaipine level. ;�� Bob Perry asked about exemptions for spraying of thisttes. After discussion it was determined that an - ezemption should he includeii in the legisla6on allowing for wntrol of all noxious weeds. Cindy Houben explained that this would not be prohibited in any case. Mick Ireiand suggested that the gazdens be restricted W no larger than 20 foot by 30 foot. �' Bill Tuite suggested that all exisdng agricultural uses should be grandfathered in. Wayne Ethridge and Mick � � ��{-- Ireland concurred. . �- Mick Ireland discussed dimensional requirements. A suggestion was that oathouses and mechanical " _ enclosures shall not exceed 100 s.f. The 100 s.f.for that acuvity is included in the overall 1000 s.f. {'t. ' propose�aad if you don't do that,or you do that as part of the house or some otfier solution,then you have a i larger residence, � . , f- ; � Mick Ireland asked the Board for comments relative to allowed,special use and prohibited uses. None were offered. ' I � Discussion ensued regazding jurisdiction over well and water permits and rights. '�� . ! y�-; , � = i BOCC Page 2 10/24/95 5.' � f � �:'; ,. __�_._ ._._ ----.,.�.d...�....L,:.._.�._�:,�,._.. ...._:.::_. ._�.. .:. ,.._.. . ....,,;_ �: .:.. ...__ . ,,, w�..--.:.�,�. ...._ . , ....._ ,:•�� , / . . _ . ' - .. 3fyiY .. A �_ . - �, � . � � ' . Y: � � � � . a��.. �a � � - . � .. � .' � f � - . . . . � � . . . , . . .. . � . . . ,i � . � .� , . -.. � . � � � ✓.� � . � � .. . . t..�� . 1 i _ . . . . .. . . . . • . � .-' �'i �.% . . � . . . .. . . ♦ ..-' . .� ' . .. _. .___ . � . .:i'_ � ,' . . . ! �. . , .. . . . .._, _. _ . ... . . ^YN^: , - _. . . - . � .. . . ''�'��.r'� . ' . . . . � , . . `, . � . ��t;�.. - � � , - ' . ....�a.-",.�.........��::'.nt+sar.m7itlDm.:SV:Saxa;'!tt:iif.�GA'ArLYeS�;ti:ii%+�� y".F i� .� Y��.�. i � 3 t� 1 , �. �..;,. ,-`; A member of the public asked for clarificallon on the installation of fencing. Cindy Houben explained that -,�� '�-. eazlier discussions led to a determina6on that fencing should only be an allowed right in the vicinity of the '�• house and not atlowed on the outsicirts of the property. If a fence already exists,it can be replaced. -: Additional fencing,for example subdividing up a pasture,is proposed to be prohibited. This member of the '�� - public felt this was a problem. Cindy overviewed the history of coming up with this proposal. �'•''. l�. Another member of the public also objected noting that the County is dictaGng to landowners how they can '�� j fence their own property. ��;� - � r � : _ A member of the public explained that fencing is a part of land management. � i�- ,~.� ._ Mick Ireland explained that the Boazd has a problem with building in an area that is very close to wildemess. 'Mick explained that there aze some resonrces up in these areas in terms of animai movement that the County � wanu to preserve. The County dces not want to prohibit the elk from crossing the land. Mick explained that �,�,''''� elk are getting hung up on fences and stazving to death and the sheriff s office has to shoot elk hung up on 14 fencing all the fime. Fencing that is buiit must acwmmodate eIk crossing. Discussion continued. �it . Cindy Fiouben explained that the limitation on plowing is for areas not currently plowed. Discussion ensued. Bil(Fales asked about legitimate agricultural uses by special review. He has an objecfion to doing things by r � special review. �� _ Mick Ireland proposes that fences be allowed by special review in cdtical wildtife habitat areas and crilical migration comdors and by right if it meets the DOW standards. Discussion ensued. {: � A member of the public asked the Board how they came up with tho 9500 foot elevation line for subalpine. ;:�-�ti. Mick Ireland expiained that this was established in public hearings with the assistance of testimony by Tom �,� Cardamone during the rural and remote hearings for the back of Aspen Mountain. The member suggested the elevafion be changed to 10,000 foot. Another member of the public explained that there have been some experts who declaze subalpine to be from 10,000 all the way down to tha valley floor and to Glenwood Springs. A member of the public questioned the Board's acceptance of the 9500 foot eleva6on as the subalpine line. � ;� , Bill Fales said that,in conversations he has had with Tom Cazdamone,Tom indicated that the 9500 foot �; elevation is ldnd of a"red flag"area,but the delinea6on of ihe subalpine has to be made on a site specific � basis. In some areas it will be at 10,500 and in other areas it will be at 9000 and it will vary on the site. Bill j' , understands that it is handy for the County to have an exact drop dead line,but if you aze talldng about what ;: is truly subalpine or not,it does not foltow the exact 9500 foot eleva6on. It is not at one precise eleva6on. �-' � ' Discussion ensued. �. - WiIk Wilidnson azgued that the BOCC is not basing the 9500 foot elevation as the demazkation between �; alpine and subalpine on any lotown biological standazd. ' �' , 'r` '. i '- BOCC Page 3 10/24/95 i � . . _'--. --�w.�:..'u«.x...�_...a�:d.H. a..a ..... ..... ..._+._ . _ ......�� ,.. , v ..�..�...� .... ....�.._ . --.�......` . "'_ ,'�14 . .. , . .. � � . . � ' � .. . , . ��}Y N.. .. . . . � ,. �. . .. .. . � 9 �- . � � . � .. � . . � . .. . . . . ' . . . . . ��:. � � . . � . .. - . ..'1: . . . . -,. - .' . , • . . . . . . . � . .. ".. � � . . � .. . . . � , �� '.i' . • ' . . . l 1 , , . _ . . ' . . . . .' . . .. . ' ._ . . . . . .. . . - � . �. . .. . . / . . . ' _ .� . _,_ . . -... . . -.:f-..�, .. . . � . . ��; �. . � � . . . - ` . . ��r;Y; ' . ' . . . . ' ' t • . .��, _ _._ __.�.. _� __ . � „�„ : . �� ._ .;ra'�TiTM :�i�::�:;i,_ s-r,.:;.,. . �. _�.. ,. ,.rn. ..' t,��f.kFe:ea�S;t�S,akk��}9�Yi.y..�.`�.µu�iF�FV`Ii+F�&�r�dS�'.F'ti}•��` .q Y ._�:�4i. `4 � ) '� ':r' {:r• �`' '�yi • Bill Tuite asked that Tom Cardamone's testimony as a result of the hearings on the back side of Aspen ^;r, : Mountain be made a part of this record. Wayne Ethridge moved to incorporate the testimony and findings of � - Tom Cazdamone into the record of tonight's meeting. Seconded by Biil'Il�ite. All in favor. '`�� , � Mick Ireland opened the hearing to the publia ��I�i , „ � f. �• .. � Wilk Willdnson asked how the BOCC can justify reducing house sizes from I5,000 s.f.down to 1000 s.f. ;: ' r Mck Ireland explained that the Board does not believe it is appropriate to have large scale development in � – - back country azeas. Those areas are not equivalent to areas which already have access to utilities. .. Wilk Wilkinson believes the actions being suggested by this legislation will severely devalue the properties - affected. Cannie Harvey does not understand the purpose of encouraging people to have two story structures. f � � The owner of River Ranch does not see any provisions for dealing with existing commercial operadons. � i Cindy Houben explained that if you aze existirtg and have been in existence prior to the Code amendment, I your operation is permitted under Special Review. � � � It was noted that structures and uses that aze grandfathered have been established in the law. f Mick Ireland informed the public that a TDR discussion will take place after a short break. ; Mick Ireland discussed the inappropriateness of clear cutting at high alpine. Iie contends tat grazing a cow � or goat,and collecting deadwood would be appropriate. A presentation will be heard on the TDR proposal. � , ; Roz Turnbult would like w offer her groups proposal on TDRs. � Cindy Houben noted that the staff inemo has an Exhibit"2",a summary which may be helpful in following j the ueas which are to be discussed. Cindy noted there are severai elements to the TDR program. 'The ! j concept of TDR is to move development outside of the Rural and Remote zone district and when received in i another area that development is exempt from the growth management process that Pitldn County currenfly !' � � requires. Cindy believes that the development right has significant vaiue to someone who does not have to ' —�- go through the growth mar�agement process. Cindy believes that those development rights might be as valuable as$100,000. She believes there is a substandal vatue that needs to be considered when there is an exemption from the process. Technically,the TDR equals the ability to construct or develop a unit or units within Pitldn County and that TDR is tied to a certain squaze footage valne. A TDR has W be ded to a ' square footage so that it has more value. In terms of the RR zone district above the subalpine ecosystem,no � more than 1000 s.f. is allowed to be built on 35 acres. No on-site accumulation of square footage is allowed ' . in those fragile ecosystems. In ueas below the subalpine,there is an accumulation claase that allows you to accumulate square footage per 35 acres so that you could get up to a maximum of 2400 s.f.and this is based • on a formula which is proposed in the staffls document. A TDR in terms of square footage is equal to,when ' it is moved off-site, 15,000 s.f. That translates to a 50% increase in terms of square faotage whecs it is off- � ;_; site versus on-site and the second portion of that is how that ties into what you are allowed to build in terms ; �;�: � of an actual home in a receiving azea or azea where that unit would actually be built. A unit built through ; I " :. I'. ; BOCC Page 4 10/24/95 •' � � f � ' ; �; . _.. _ :: :..,_.�y..�, _.....__ .._..._w. _ _,__.._ . .... ...... ..._.._. .. ,...�_.. .�._...--- - --� ., ._.... �_.,_�. _... - . �I� . .� � � � � - � � . � , . ` �y��t+; .y.-�. � . . . ' . . .. - _- . ti J • . . . . . . . . . � ' � . - � � ._ � � ,� t . .. . . . • . � . . .. . . . . . � , . . . � . � � / .. ' � . . . � . . � .. . . - ' . . - � . �: . . .. . .. . . . . . . , • � ��,��T , ' � . . . . }� � _____ ---�-.�...�..�.. ;,: . . � �.�7E.. . �X:�"f�.YI'l.1:.'!.it.. h 9�i�.. . .n . ` . � . • � . '� . °fi . �_ �ti_,.. i `t r :t1 . i .' ';' . "� '� TDRs must meet a certain percentage requiremert for the square footage of the unit. The basis of that is that �t;;,:� °:` ; the lazger home built,the more TDRs you have to buy in order to construct that house. This woutd place ��;.�'�`� i , .,., i more value on a TDR. If you have a 35 acre parcel and 34 acre parcel,you would get a one percent bonus " •� of square fooGage per acre provided for each acre that is below that 35 acre mark. It was explained that after �•-' -: � the first TDR at 5000 s.f.,additional TDRs would be calculated at 3096 of the square footage for the TDR. :;1� Cindy contends that every house that nePds a growth management eacemption would find this valuable. Cindy !.'�'':-ti: explained that they have prepared mapping to show azeas that have not be�n built out and tt�at may be likely ;� :,;�,'" , to participate in the receipt end of the TDR pmgram. Discussion ensued, i:�" 4:: , ��5�•�'��.' .Y -- � Cindy Fiouben explained the proposed legislation as follows: If you want to build a house of 5000 s.f.or � f .: � less,30 percent of that structure has[o be purchased from TDRs. Your TDR value is 1500 s.f.per 35 acres = If you want to build a home that is beyond 5000 s.f.up to 7500 s.f.,then 40%of your structure needs to be K' � ! purchased through TDRs. It goes up in terms of a sliding scale fmm this poinG The limitation in Pitkin I County is 15,000 s.f. If you wanted to build an home exempt from growth management,at 15,000 s.f., 50%of that square feet or 7500 s.f,has to come from TDRs. This is frve TDRs. . . ! � FS:.��. A member of tfie public pointed out that only the wealthy pe,npte can do this and those that are not wealthy i'� � i cannot. Cindy Houben concurreci that the transfers are to basically valuabie areas. i: It was noted that within the Crystai River and Frying Pan azeas,no growth management process is required. � _ Mick Ireland explained that when a developer buys a TDR they don't have to spend a lok of money going � through GMQS. They also don't have to do the mifigation that wins them the compefi6on. He contends this f is of value. � Mr.1Y�rnbu11 explained that this 3s a economic question with people that have a vested interest. He contends ' that there must be more benefit for transferring. �,.� . � Mick Ireland suggested contemplarion of a 5000 s.f.house cap unless they have a TDR. They become more � valuable as you have a house size limitation. Mick does not anticipate this Board doing anything other than � � ! requiring more control on growth. ` � � Mr.Turnbull explained that their livelihood is based on land,not in banldng. He asked the Baazd to keep ` . _�.__` that in mind. � � Ms.Turnbull was concerned[hat eventually,under public pressure,the receiving areas will be terminated � ' ! from receiving the TDRs and the program could fail. She continued to urge a county-wide cap as an , _ , altemafive to the present legisla6on being proposed. Mick Ireland explained that Hines Interests has already approached the County stating that they want to buy , TDRs to complete their project. i• ' Cindy Houben explained the number of growth management allocarions that have been available each year j. over the last five years and how many people have applied for them and competed for those. This might be � another way of looking at the marketability af an allocation. .�� i '� � j� - BOCC Page 5 10/24/95 �. �'; � � . ---.._,r ,.. . . ,r.,.v�_._�..._:_ 4..._.�.. ,.�,�. r_�:a,.y..... :,�-..�...,�.�:r,,..:.�.�.�.... .....:.:. ...._... ..:,._ ..::,_.....W:._....:_.�.,-...�. � � ._�:.,,�,��i. . �� - - ` � � --� . � . . . � q,� " � . � . . . . . _ . , . � 1 _. w . � . �. � i � �.� 1 � ' . .' , , ^ y . . . . �: • -- - -� -. • r .��'� . . � , �-�. - ' ;�' , �"Mi,:r.. .+ .�.._. ....._. .. . . . . .. ' . ' . .._..... .� . _.....___ _.�.._.�_..._._._ _....._ . .,';,.' i �y, - •�S � ��.�: 4 `S�i�� ,I Wayne Ethridge is not sure that just an exemption from growth management is going to get the County what ,k�`�;3s�ysi they need from the TDR program. Building permits might need to be looked at which could increase the ��,.`=.., i demand for TDRs. �� 'ti , �4._, . Bill Fales commented about land values,acreages and TDRs. �i�,�;•��,.��r Mick Ireland suggested that if you increase the supply of TDRs,you may have an impact on the value of ''�,�="'� , �: � each one. i.%fY`'`. 'r :� ° �" Cindy Houben explained that in order to utilize or build the TDR unit,you will have to go thmugh a special : '__' _ kR�.�:•.,^:�- review process. -�::. �'..;,:�'. Mr.Turnbult pointed out that the Covnty could potendally turn that pmject down if it must go through .�� ,.. - special review. ";':s �. � Mick Ireland explained tfiat tfie altemarive is going through GMQS where your chances of]oosing are 90 •Yt . percent. �, ' C , r.� � : Mr.Turnbull explained that you have effecrively cut off people from doing it which in tam reflects in the ;,=; value of the TDR. Cindy Houben explained a developer who is going to buy several TDRs to develop has already been in the �� . process of looldng at sabdivision. Special Review is just an element of that process. Mr.Tumbull believes that if it is a right,it should be without special review. �' Cindy Houben explained that there are a lot of considentions. Cindy began discussion of the chart reguding '� accumulation. i Connie Harvey believes that these rights appear to be quite liquid and unpredictable and there is no guarantee that the property will have any value. . . f � Mick Ireland explained that there aze no guarantees and they are not in a position to guarantee property •. values. If people suddenly don't want to live in Aspen,they are not going to want back country mining `A claims. The reason back country mining claims aze valuable today is because the floor is developed or too j � expensive. The County cannot guarantee that Aspen property in the valley floor is going to remain valuable. ;, There was discussion as to how the transfer will take place and racorded and monitored by the County. )im suggesied that the pmposed legislation is a taldng,but rather than have the County pay for it,they ;.- , � have found a way for the developer to pay for it. When you take away rights for development of properties, you must give something back. . • ��.. . Cindy Houben ezplained in msponse to a quesrion by Bill Fales that the 2400 s.f.is the maximum that you ,,; are allowed to accumulate and build on your property if you are within the rural and remote zone district :*; � below the subalpine zone. There are some areas within the Frying Pan that are below the subalpine zone but r,.';�. �`".` .- ' BOCC Page 6 10/24/95 � ?` i , .,... �.�,. �.:...�:.. ,,:_ � . . -- N..�.+.�....b,..,,w.-.�.•d...w�,.,,._.,. .,...N<... .j� . ...,..�.._.„_ .W„ . .,.._. ' . . " .. .�n1 �....._ - .,,. .. .._, „. ..>..��. -�... :.:�..�.::. �,. . , .s,... ..u.«_ ... ;.._ .u... ... ' S, . . � ' ... . • . . , ^_��- . . . . . . . .. . . . , .. . . ' . � . . ��. . � . • ri J .' ._ : •� . ,; ___ '1 y:: _ � . .. � . .. 1 � �� • . . � -- - -.- •-=� -- :_ -- �• _ , , � � • ,��;,. . • ,F. . �� '�'� ..�L��balti:Uxii ... _?i;'irK:s: _x� '.W: 'i+Ki: m.:'�' +:_�.a..��?fult�.'�,��-1('R�Yi$�f'�e't7'��..F..� i �'d,. p. �t,f. 'll . � ��ia��' �'_�. S �:,��kl ' yet within the RR zone district which may be appropriate allow accumulation of square footage. Based on � 's". the proposed legislation there is no limitation on the number of TDRs to be transferred off the property other �,. ,�� than the limitation on the amount of acreage on that parcel(for example,if you have 35,000 acres,you can ` �i; i�,;,,� trat►sfer 35 TDRs). �,�•,;�_• -a. � � Paul Taddune asked about the downzoning of receiving areas from 15,000 s.f.by right to 15,000 s.f.by !�,':'"��+ acquiring TDRs. ;;y�:::, ��: ; �� It was noted that these people could still go through GMQS. _.._ . .'':�r>,;,. Connie Harvey pointed out there may be instances in which an owner may need to cash in(i.e.,someone dies :`i�. `: and they have estate ta�ces to pay). In the process,it may take months if not years with all of the special review and steps required. The idea of some type of inechanism to make it possible hold the rights in a bank, � or holding company,or corroboration of that sort should be considered. . �'a � Mick IreIand explained that if the right has value,somebody out there is going to buy the right and speculate f� -a', in these. i.:: �;,. Connie Harvey does not believe she can sell it until the receiver has special review approval. . •�; Mick Ireland explained that it can be sald,it just cannot be transfened. ��} , Connie Harvey questioned why anyone would even buy it. �' Mick Ireland suggested that people will buy the rights so they can hold on to them and sell them to someone ` else who is going to develop it and for the same reason you would buy vacant land. Mick explained that the '�� County is not in the business of buying those rights. They believe the market can support it. ' � Connie Harvey suggested that open space groups should also have the rights to buy them and refire them,but that it must be expedited and must be a smoother process. She thinks it can be done. ��. A member of the public asked,after you sell off the TDR,how the land will be taxe�l. } • r ; .�; � Mick Ireland answered that it would be close to zero. Cindy Aouben explained that there would not be any t --— , improvements on the land. �; Jim True explained that there is a method of doing an assessment when it is now deed restricted in essence to ' �, - open space and it is very minimal. Tf►ere is some value to it,but it is minimal. >: , A member of the public explained that to Tive in a 1200 s.f. house on 35 acres,let alone for an agricultural • S � family,is not reasonable. W ne Ethrid e ex lained that there are no lands within the ro sed rezoning azea for RR,that are �, aY S P P P� _.,! currently assessed as agricultural lands. ' `'A=- <; �.: �: (( 4� - j ; ! BOCC Page 7 10/24/95 ' .i �? i; !}.� _.�..:. _ ___.____...___.._ _-._.... ._---�--�------._ ._...°--___....._.__. _�-- . / v...�-.... �. . +�+..a�.l�.:.:....d.u- , ' �•��1F 1 µ�'. . . . . . . . .. . - .. . . . . . . � ." � � � ' t; ... ,� } J . . . , �. � , . .. . � . . . . � ,"Y; �. . . - . � � . .� . � � . . . � . . .. .. . � . � . . - � '.i�. . _ . . . � ' 1 . - . � . . � . � . � � �' . . - . . � . - - . . .. . .. _ . . ' . . . . , . _ � . �: . . � '. . . .. ._ � - . . . . . � . . . . , • r�N�� , . ._.. . . . ,:t. i�� ._ . - .r�� ,,.,_,.�,. . � �.�• ..,� .. ;4rn- ,.�e�:^,>�: .. . , .. .,.. . '«. '. ::�Br,k�r:xK'6+�t3Ys,g'�:u'9�''.t�N.Ll�1�xt`7i'�.!6+L'�i�9�a�.�;�' ' � , ,�:t::i`;:,; s �` �} �"�,.�"�� '' , Cindy Houben urged the wmmunity to participate on the agricultural committee being formed to deal with :"�r��`'' . ��. the agricultural lands issues and rezonings. -� 'i� '�w Bill Fales is concemed that the system will be sabotaged after a while. �'��"'�'� ��..�; ,;:';., � Wayne&hridge believes that there is an adequate market for the restrictions and a TDR system and a TDR c :.-• system might be appropriate for agricultural lands also. Wayne believes that as a result of wai6ng for the ,. current ro s e d le i s lation an d ricu ltu r a l land le islation to come W ether and the reconciliation �'-'/t, �� P Po 8 aS 8 g , �:r..�; . committee to get the two together,nothing might not ever happen. ��:;=';'-�, ' __ i .;'i;�: I Mick Ireland believes that it makes sense that agricultural parcels should have accumulations and clustering. �;, J Mick does not believe that anyone wants to see a 15,000 s.f.house at a 10,000 foot elevation. Mick , , I explained that the development might be abie to be kept on the land,which is not acceptable in aipine and i subalpine areas. ' ` c � Bill Fales surmised that there is a possibility that the program becomes so populaz in the future that there � 'Ff migt�t be a desire to create a lot more TDRs and the market would then get flooded. If you want landowners . to have a strong level of comfort with this proposal,more questions need to be answered now and people will F;�a �:�.; be less skeptical about coming in. �+� _ �i Mick Ireland understood the point but he does not believe that the BOCC has reached that point yet. He pointed out the economic possibiliries cannot be solved at one rime and no guarantees can be offered - regarding values. The mazket will need to make those decisions. No guarantee can be given that the next boazd might not create a bunch of TDRs. The BOCC can only make reasonable judgments and decisions. � � The best prospect is a continued demand for development rights in this valley. i '>� ( Mick Ireland explained that all mining claims cannot support a 15,000 s.f.house. They don't have an :� ` � inherent top value. Mick then offered Roz Turnbull a chance to make a presentation on the letter she wrote to the Boazd. � �' Roz Turnbull rarplained that they felt that the idea of TDRs might work for some people. Others want to be �f� able to build on their land. This is where a suggesGon came for offering a 5000 s.f.house size cap in the . � County. Anyone who would want to build over the 5000 s.f.house size cap would have to use TDRs to do � it. Roz felt that the BOCC needs to see each individual pazcel in order to determine if it does or does not `; ___.� meet the criteria for Rural and Remote wning. �' � ,, IMick Ireland stated that it is not possible for the Board to look at every mining claim in the valley. •; . Cindy Houben explained that there aze about 741and owners,and about 200 development rights. • , • . � Bill T�ite stated it could be as many as 604 units. � ; '��' Cindy Houben explained in response to questions by Jce Wells that the 200 TDR es6mate includes Iittle � Annie,with the remaining at about 15Q. The receiving sites issues have not been discussed yet. There aze S j_" � 40 under-built properties the County staff has identified that could receive TDRs. No individual proposals + '= - � . � - have come in yet for receiving except for one at Aspen Highlands in the Aspen Metro area. �Irt � BOCC Page 8 10/24/95 �..`� n< _ ___._.�.....,�,_:.;___y. ., »..w:;,..,,:.�_J_.w�. .,7._.._..4 ..�__...._-•---- ----- ------ __...._w.�.. • �4 �� . ... . . ... � ' . . � . . .. . ��i . . � . . . . ' . , . . , . i ' , �� t; _ .� � ..-•`: � , _ • ' �r ;: ' ' � . , , . � . . -- - .r � -. . . .: � .,i �.. . . .. . � - � ._ . ' . _..�. '; . � . . . � . . � � � , • ;�f•.� . . . ' . • ' . . - � . . �.� ._ ;a,,-. . SN.d. . , : .,�,.:. � ._..... . .. � . : . . �.,..�. .;,,fs�_` `i '��,s.i. �. - t i �} Mick Ireland described the transfer from the back side of Aspen Mountain to MCDC across the river from �•a` 'S� �;,��.�:: Aspen Highlands whech has already occurred. ��. : �`-.. Bill Fales conGnued to azgue that the ground rules should not change in mid-stream and he claims this to be a ��_��' credibility issue. Once the issue is settled,the public and ownership need to lmow what they have,otheiwise � - it is not ood. In other words next ear ou mi ht sa ou have to o throa h this whole rocess ��•:,�'�>; g � Y �Y g Y Y g g P again• Every one has other things to do with their lives. - }:: Mick Ireland cannot guarantee that the next BOCC won't be free mazket entrepreneurs that will do away with _ ' t growth control and throw out the en8re TDR program and leave ownership holding the bag. �':•.' Mr.Turnbull suggested that the rights be vested. -:..-i � Mick Ireland explained that they can vest the TDR,but not its value. V� Roz Tumbuil suggested that the people be Ieft enough rights on the property to use the property as is so that 4 they don't have to rely endrely on the TDR program for value. t Mick Ireland dces not believe that what is considered a normal house in an urban azea is not appropriate in �. � the subalpine areas. He does not consider a 15,000 s.f.house to be normal. He considers a 2500 s.f,house �. to be normal in an urban azea. In an urban azea,that is an appropriate use. � � i - Roz Turnbull said the Board should consider a 300Q or 2000 s.f.cap on house size. Bili Fales talked about patented mining claims,vested rights,legal subdivisions,and legal plats. Mining daim owners aze relying on the presidents signature for legifimacy. Every mining claim under thear current ; . zoning would have a right to a 15,000 s.f.This is dropping down to a maximum of 1000 s.f.and a TDR � vaiue of 1500 s,f.to strip that development right off. 1'here is then no use of the property and a little bit of • money, maybe$10,000 or$50,000 in return. It is not equitable. If you are going to strip it down to 1000 i s.f.then he proposes the BOCC give 14,000 s.f.as a TDR to sell off in the muket place. Bill cantends that � the BOCC is discriminating against the mining claim owners. ; Roz Turnbult asked if the USFS selis of forest service laads,how it will work with the legislation. . _ __ Wayne Ethridge explained that nobody Imows who the USFS will seli land to,which is the worst case � . ' ' scenario, T•Iowever,if they sell it to a private entity,it becomes private land,and it is no longer govemment � land. The County still wntends that it has review rights in either case,and certainly if it is private land they � can deal with it fairly effectively. Mick Ireland moved to extend the meeGng to 9:15 PM. Seconded by Wayne Ethridge. Motion carries three . ' � to one with Bill Tuite opposed. � . � Bill Tuite is trying to find zoning that is appropriate ar�d defensible. To just go out and downzone the entire � county because it would make some mining claims go away is not defensible or appropriate. Agricultural issues should be dealt with separately and he is not in favor of an across the boazd downzoning. Bill °•�'-I vs�;: BOCC Page 9 10/24/95 ' �� . f<.� �;:•� ': _._.�.:.�,� .:._��_....:�_ ...__.� .�......__.,..__:�._..._:,.:_�.._�.: � . �..,.,_Y... ..,,---.,_, _..._�. -f ' . ,, ,,„_, �4 . � . . � � . . - � . . . ' � 5-.,". . . . . . � . .. ' . _ . . . � . .. � ' - � � � ' „ . . � . - � � � . - � / . . . . . � . . .y.� �. . . . - .. . � ,� J ( . . . . � . f �. . . � . . � . � . . - ' . - .. � 1 ; ._. _. . . . . . . _ . . .. . . . , '�� . � . � - �__ .�... -'v- -. .. . . . ,Y � . .' � . �; . � . . .� . .. . � . .. . ' . . r�i�kn . . . . . � . , � - � . ;��.: . � :"�"�'�+'. ,�...�i.Z£�R.�u:�l�l:,'5.:... .'i titn.. ... �°i �cv:: . - . ,..n.. , . ' ,., ..� r:I.•v:.�£:e'eef.�a�:%c-�:.4�rr:.+,tA.xTn:..cv�km..:�.:a:rc:...... v r�i:r� �:YA: x � ��J •' ,yI4 F,1 ' indicated there are minin claims that aze on the side of a mountain that are not a ro riate for even 100Q �y ' g PP P : '�4s� s.f.of development. Other ciaims may be appropriate for lazger structures. �"= ., .t+ Mick Ireland proposed the following direction to the staff in preparation for a reading on the ordinar►ce: •.:*� , � Under allowed uses,ailow control of noxious weeds and allow DOW approved fencing;under special review .�,.:ti. uses,change special review for fencing on critical habitat,individual water supply even in the subalpine areas and review whether the County has the ability to require that. The same woald go for sewage systems in ,� special review in subalpine azeas. The asterisks on expansion of footprint to 1000 s.f.would be deleted. �` , ;' r Under prohibited uses extension of central utilities such as electricity,water,sewer,telephone,cable,etc. ..;y: ".` — - would become speciai review balancing the impacts of those extensions against the impacts of having those - things individually supplied,like wells,generators,sep6c systems and so on. Under special review,a further clarifica6on is needed on extension of disturbances of native vegetation outside of the building envelope so that grazing could be allowed. A[so took at the possibility of increasing the square footage appiicable below '9500 foot elevation in subalpine areas to see if 1000 s.f.is appropriate or not. Bili Tuite pointed out the public wanted further discussion to determine if special review is necessary as a part of the TDR process. The transfer off does not require speciat review,only the receiving end requires _z., review. Mick Iretand moved the following: adoption of the draft ordinance before the BOCC with the cfianges which ' can be summarized as control of naxious weeds to be allowed by right,special review will allow fences in _ wildlife areas,DOW approved fences by right in the other azeas,eliminate the three asterisks on 8,9 and 10 , in the existing special review uea,move i.D.from pmhibited use to special review,and balance and considerations to work on the]anguage on 8,prohibited disturbance of natural vegeta6on thereunder,and the Board will look and consider a possible increase in allowabte square footage below the subalpine azea. TDRs � aze a part of the ordinance. � , Wayne Ethridge offered a secottd with an amendment which would require the Boazd W come up with a work I plan to address county-wide limitation on squaze footage in keeping with the requests that have been received ; and in keeping with the statements that have been made tonight and incorporate into the motion the Boazd's intea6on to address the lazger issues that were raised tonight. Mick Ireland was not amenable to accepting the addition to the motion b�t asked that it be made as a separate � morion.He thinks the mo6on is appropriate,but as a separate issue. --�—`_� -� Wayne Ethridge is not certain he can support Mick's motion without that addidon. He believes it is a i legidmate request to look at the lazger issues. Mick Ireland withdrew is mo6on. Mick Ireland moved to direct staff to prepaza a work plan for some ; county-wide squaze footage cap. Seconded by Wayne Ethridge. Bill Tuite noted that this has been discussed . previously. Discussion ensued. Mick Ireland and Wayne Ethridge in favor. Bill Tuite and Jim True opposeil. Morion fails. j_ Mick Ireland revived his earlier moGon on the ordinance with the changes earlier discussed. Seconded by Bill Tuite, Mick amended his motion to confinue the public hearing to November 14, 1995 at 5:30 PM. �'�,; - ;'i' _ BOCC Page IO ]0/24/95 �,`' f } --�._.__ .��.�_ ...��.w_�::._.�._._,___ .____. . _._ ___ __.__ ____�.. _____ � . # �. .:� � , . ,� " .4 .. . . � . - . . . � Y . :1 . .. � . � ..� � � . . . . . � - . . .�. t . . � � .. . . � � . . .. � • � . . . ' , . . . •. .. . -—. ; ._.�.�.. .:a.—' . _—/�.. �. . � . . . � �: . . . . . ' . . . • l,y�!•�!rf%' ' . .. � .. ... . � . . R� :�f. � • ±�� , ' �.. - ' _,- .,r.,�.�,.�� a�zts�"- r. , ��c _ ; _ ? _ _ _._. . ._ }� +`� ;:f , _ • �� r Amendment accepted by Bill Tuite. Wayne Ethridge thinks failure of the first moGon sends exactly the �a : - ' wrong message and he strongly disagrees with that. There being no more discussion,Mick called the �,�. ' ; ,�, �� , ' ques6on. Mick Ireland,Bill Tuite and Jim True in favor. Wayne Ethridge opposed. � .�1 . . sr :�r+ The meeting was adjoumed. `� !t. ' Respectfully submitted, - � � !� �� i � . . . . . . . r2.,^. . . . . '. . . . . . �Y:,' — Janet L.Raczak `1;-��`r -- I RACZAK,INC. 215 S.MONARCH,SUITE 104 F ' ; ASPEN,CO 81611 ° ` �., � (303)925-4869 'f�- : ; ; .. ... ti: • ' BOC10 24.95 `: '�' �� - °� _ � , .., , . . � . .; . , . . , • .. � � . �.: '�. �-----�-; '4. �i ;:, ,'�� '' t��:' : . .� I �_:: .;, �>; +, 3�s'. ` 10/24/95 ,'; Page 11 BOCC � -i !.l t I � � � � . . . . . � �- ' �.. f. �a� �� S i � .�`: �._ �. � - �r ' �._ r j f h � 7 � , � � �: �• , f:� � �. ,�� / ! � �� . $ . ( :. � . S,. ;�=J � ��.W�� J$a'{t .: t"�x � ��'� f � �:-� � ��r`t ��5/i�� ,�.,f b i r �r � � �' ��'�'��Sq �:.a��' T 3 !: K �3}k�� .� ,�4 � +4 S�,�,�?��'� � 3 : a .�,�*�� -,�S - � :� ' \ �� rx 5 �. 1 '� � � �'Y��' 1 ��43��"4.ii�p �krft . . rk%i'�. il :�� . ! 3 1 � y . a �% , �:r t ; � �.0 L - � � ,,,r� - � �� ' ....r• � ..