HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.09081993 , ::_ • ,� .
�, .
' b�, .. r�h � ' j . ,� , , �,. r
' , �V� t 1`.,h1.�� t�"wti - ?-����4 !. F��. 4�.i. . ; t .._'f� � :.t.��;F'�fr��t.��::'a r4u .,+J 4 t.. t x�.� �.k: ��p�,��
ti,fj,;� �r„+'F�, � r � ` f�,r, ' :* � r;s 4yv��ryy, `Rr .,�. .r,y � r •�'i.-.�}�, w"� r.r1.; : *.:
a A'� ' fy� F} t.-�'
dirr... �>:i��. , , � ,.a.. � a'1:K;� f„� At
. . �. v'l��` 11L . �;ye. � .Y:.• .{Y` � �4
=;� ,�`� :;� �: - �.�r,�" 't. �, ,,�,���� ' . �'•"� 4�
:,a
�s'
�-.,
-$.{.- -�:,
`�,-� .�
� It�.+ �l.
t��;:
i f; s°
PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS r�
,r=
AGENDA •�.?,
f=�M1'�- �`�
� , �,;.�
�.} ..�.
<
�a ,K�'�"�
..�a . . � y�i
a WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER & 7993 ,t �'; �'
�; .
� 9:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING -PUBLIC HEARING g��{
y� . r,f...:: 4.�3
Agenda: Land Use Code „�,,,:
�` Locatian: Board Room ,d".
I...,
7� : -
�� 12 Noon ADJOURN ,t�
�
� i
i
�4 . : .
�
' �• .
� �-': ' .
_ `,� _ � , .
� : T,
`, �
�:.
.\ ,,
t •1
� - i
: � ��'`
.q
�` �f.
� � _
1 � i-
i
, �� ilr`
�1���
� ::,
�,
�g� �r
. . . . . - - � k.��i���-,�
. � . , . . � � � . . t~ e.
'af�{,
A,-.
, �;�
iJ
1 . � _....,�..>,..�.�c
: - .�.�,..:,wa-..�s:'ar:.ra. ».-'�+::`- ( �'
�.._ ..____�----�--+�w�-r..�.i-_.a..�.ri.,..ww..:�-'Lx.,....o-.,-�.:.�:...,.�.....::i:. 1 ' :..�.�.�..a..-s;���..+ �',�-
� .. .. .i:b�, ,t._... . . .4
' r �C..
; : �
\ ; , .
_ . i'
' ,
��: � •
i�•s,3a,!' _ •
C�. ` ' ,
��
,, �� '
� '7. d . �;:1; .'(� ( .l
�•. . .. '. t . ;��/ .�, !(y � I. �'�' ' � �'
( � _ \,�. �1 Y J 1: �r
.;+��•,1;r f �' ; 7f ' a �� J 4� �y'r.���� �m� ,� '.� �R;
. , 'a lh. ��r �ei'.4a*� ' y t c'�- ��, n� �h
. . t��� . _'�'+.{wi ������F � f�l°�i_�yy���, .� �yy,�j i�a ��a�� ��' ���.
.. � r"� � . �. -:+�+�li. •�".MY:7'Y�tT{•� � 'J (V}�{\
- -��"�.����i'
��: ��.
_ � l' /�/,,� f r�J ..`'l.
/I�� -�g-9 3 �� �-
MINUTES ty.,, +'J'
.,L; .
FITRIN COUNTY BOARD OP COt1NTY COMMISSIONEAB � .;5,�•' . ' '
:�:i BPECIAL MEETIN(i � ..+~`:�: -
'' �,_s;',?.•-",'.i..
�� LAND USE CODE PVBLZC HEARIN(3 e�;::^:.;.:'
;� .Y y
4� SEPTEMBER S, 1993 � '•:
_ f.
C�*..�
. �t
.j�'.•
CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairman Bob Child aalled the meeting to ��';.�'?
� order at 9:15 a.m. �'�
r1>..
�
CO1gII88ION MEMSERS PRESENT: Wayne Ethridge, Bob Child and Jifi True ��� J
.�_.,�.
� True noted that Commissioner Tuite was in Washington on County +
� business and therefore, was not able to attend this meetinq. • •`:
� :
• a �1L80 PRESSNT: Francis Krizmanich 2
�y
t; }�. . .
c; PTTHLIC COHBQSNT: Dick Fitzgerald commented that he feels the
�; proposed legislation does not give any rights to the proper�y owner
;a or taxpayer. He said more rights have been given to the animals ����•
�4' than property owners. He noted that in a I00 mile radius of Aspen `+.E�
it is over 95 percent government land and therefore, the elk and •
_ <i the deer and all other animals have plenty of room to do
�; everything. And if someone has a piece of property where a home
might be in the way that they walk down, they will find another
� way. He said in reading the code, the environmental groups and the •,•
�� Historical Society have more to say about an individual�s property j
� and that to him, is not America.
� Joe Wells referred to Article 2, Land Use Policies, Sections 2- 1�
14, 2-15, 2-16, and 2-19. He suggested that the standards need to '
' allow more flexibility because if taken literally there would be '
� no approvals given. ":{1
:.i
��, Krizmanich responded that there are certain policies and �.
regulations in place, and ff those standards are met then someone '
would not adversely be affecting anything.
;� Commissioners agreed that those certain sections would be answered
' by other policies and regulations. �, ,
,� .
T �f
' Krizmanich roceeded to review the `"'`
; P proposed changes to Section 3. ��.
A copy of these changes are as follows: +. .�`,
S
� ; AF-3 zone district is renamed R-1 },� '; 1,
? AF-2 zone district is renamed AF-RZ �'
�,
AF-1 zone district is renamed AP-R10 s:� .;
SOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SEPTEL�ER B 1993 `�'= � '
PTE � �.,,�.,�,
�-7,.:i�.�.
�iy
l 1'•
Y
� -c.
. . . . .. _ .. . . _ .. . .. _ .... . . . ... 1: _ . � -... ... . . . T` .
�
\ . ,
. �
J�z-s`,�7: �
��,=:�s, . �
-+��.
. `t � ��. .. . � . �: -i.� �.r�:.� - -.i� .._;;� : -,�', �
� �: !� . �. S :�,� -�J ',�J7Ii• �`t
{ �, qe.
� � ,f ji�;,t .:'�'„s5�°' r ����w�� � �"� 5 p���.
. � d {t� � ° H> �"�^�r R `;. �.�'�: :: � r f�+. N�`,� y � '
� t���f� '{l� ` r wl'%�M��',+�1�r. lS�. �...a��[���v�,�y�y�,'��� _ l a �4:
.l:. ,�r ' ti .•%�fn�e.t i� "'N.S�� . ... . . .l di +y��r
: i:.
i;•� .
'�.�'y '�',
Y� �•
.. . �r.� . .'�•r
":� PMfi- Moderate Housing is renamed V-H '�t' �. -�.
�� With regard to Allowed Uses the present code says that uses not
listed may be allowed by Special Review. The new code says that � '
uses that are not listed are prohibited. A-�;�;�.~�
- With reqard to the setback standards, they have been changed to be ��
'.{4 based on lot size rather than zone district. So that will cut down ,�'i`f„_ �
- on a lot of variances that staff sees. '��':.,,.'
`,s?; ;�
With regard to Section 3-502 which describes the road setback, �,�..
staff is recommendinq that some chanqes be made to comply with the Ii7?
resolution that changed the setbacks once before. The old language ,��`'
was confusing between what had to meet the variance setbacks from
Highway 82. The difference is, that a12 structures have to meet
the setback. Before, the language said "principaZ structures" and �� u
�t
did not really define what happened with accessory structures. �:
.:E,�`;
With regard to major roads the different streets were added. '
� With regard to Growth Management, a definition of the growth ��
management quota systems areas needs to be placed in the definition -
' section.
�;r::
At the end of Article 3 Section 3-2603 it talks about mobile home :"��`
;�,:
parks. The Board had discussed putting a PUD provision for • .
existing mobile home parks basically saying that the standards
- could be varied as necessary to aid in the approval of pre-
existinq mobile home parks and brinq them up to a standard. Staff
left that out and put the wording which states "a pre-existing ,
4 mobile home park may be reviewed under this section and may utilize `
� PUD provisions to vary standards so long as there is not a health �;
g or safety impact."
i �'
True questioned if the Board wanted to consider creating an A-H
� 2one similar to the City's? "��
� After a discussion it was aqreed that this would be the aubjeat of
'� a future discussion. �
.
' Child referred to Section 3-28 - Takings Determination and the
appeal process. He questioned if the Board were the appropriate
body to be hearing that appeal.
i.�
Ethridge responded that this was the suggestion of the legal staff E�:�
because of both the takings and the vesting legislation. ��, "'
: � ,��.';
j Krizmanich commented that this gives a person an interim step to � � -
�; come into the County Commissioners and possibly both parties can t� , 1
� come up with an agreement or a remedy to the situation short of ��:'
� going to court with the person. �„� :'•
� �;
:�:> �� ,
;-,�,4_,. ;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SEPTF•[�ER 8� 1993 i.eya�:?
� A
�
ti ,•h
T`:=
�'
'•
� . . ... �. .. ., .'�. ... . .. . . '
. . � � . . .. ✓ . . . ,
\ .
/
� 1.Y�+r. . �' . , ' .
d.
:� .. -
,EM+�
� : .
��k. � � . ' . , " . 1� �+iC: . ! '^'y,t
.� • .. . 1 k, ..�r� . :..,� .�':�.. . L.�`.
. Z T : �� y j�.� r, � �'+�s yfl3�����:• . .
'� 7', t i ��}}; � y�'° ����,:
�:���t ; .i.. �R�Y"`� d'���� ,, " m�, � Y�
.t�1't„ � ;s� ...�p��#��*. 4. i�iy�.`� �• '1i m' •r {� �.:,
, .w��ar • �"�`:� ny+Y�L ���� i .,y{4 �
�f ,+'"���. . .. . _.-Ci`A?v�R"Y�'�t',
�..
•i'Y�j 't•
_ ' ~�
'.,r'�i•'`,a'
- Ethridge suqgested that it remain general with the standards �;?L,:_� `r
because that way there can be negotiations or a prooess desiqned ;
�} for each application because they will all be slightly different. -
:j" :��:;:;i: �,:
z� Tt was aqreed that it rill remain that the Board will take the ••
action.
. � .�`.;:�.
a� 'r:
;;� Tzue reFerred to Section 3-29 and the appeal process. He said in "
'� the standards there is no xime period set forth. �>_�
, �<_ .
.�� Krizmanich referred to Section 4-15 which states that a written ry,w
� appeal has to be filed withih 15 working days of the decision. }�n'.:
�:�:c Y i
j.r;.
4 It was agreed that Section 3-29 shall be modified to be consistent �.'
! with Section 4-15. r:�,:,. J
� �:r�
� A discussion ensued with regard to this issue. i ��1*�•
:,
Mioke Herron commente4 that Ian '�`��
� Y guaqe be aaaea to the second ;
,�, aentence o! 2802 that says ��If the Board determines that a takinq
has occurred, the Board can take whatever action it deems
i! approprinte or refer the matter back with directions to the BoarQ S�:
from xhich 1t was appealed fzom.��
r, Ethridqe moved approval of this suqgested languaqe change. With ��,��
' a seconQ by True, the motion passed unanimously. "���'
�,
`� Jeanette Jones, �eputy County Clerk, questioned when the 15 day
� agpeal process would start whether it be the date of the decision
� or whether it is the date the decision is reduced to writing and
z signed by the chairman and recorded? '#�
� '
� Krizmanich referred to languaqe which states that "any final
� decisions taken by the deaision making body shal! be documented in 'F
4 a resolution signed by the chairperson of the body or by approval
of the deve2apment order in a form that is mandated by this code. �,�, -
% No action sha21 be considered to be final until signature and
` recording of the resolution or other developraent order."
�'� .
Ethridge suggested that this language he cross referenced in other '
sectfons.
Herron suqgested that the appeal process be started at the time the �
decision 3.s reduced to writing. He said that often times the '�
period between the final decision and the resoluti�n prepared can f
be very lengthy. �;L M
` �� �,.
� � It was agreed that the language will state that an appeal has to `� • _
� be filed no later than 25 workinq days after the decision. However i+'`` ! "
a po2icy will be set that a decision shall be reduced to writinq, �•, ,� ��'
i signed by the chairperson and recorded no later than two weeks i:
after final action. [�y :,I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISBIONERS 3 SEPTIIdBER 8� 1993 �
7
:,`,',,,?. .
;A .
. . ..... . ........ �'.''�' �
. . � 0 � . .. ... . ._ .. . . . .. ,
, • .
� /
'4���.• ' ' •
.'�.yvY. ' . . � �
,°�.�F
, .
t�I . � .., ' �.r ` � ,J i' �� ' � �•. ..n` �i >.; r �,�'.
:`i�+ � � ` t� '' b i.� +�»1} �tk �'ti:
. , � 1 'k; . .T�� 4 `ii+�i��: �+�,�..aY"�`'�r�f�����"�� � �� �+ r�,'��t
� t �j. 2 x � � 1 x�~�-' Mt� i���'.
�',�,(.��t� '�;[ . I_3y�Y� R`T-h!'p� �D°� ��+c Q �ry, ��'yF�Fa1�t�..Y' �`,, ti��
, ' � i7p4 �"� :�B'!. . -..��-�'7in1'�f�'.' . tiMt�.�`Lls�.
"�•7;:' 't�
ih 'l;
._...:i�`��L'^'1• .��••�. Y.�.t.
Mickey Herron referred to Section 3 and the fact that the use `�`•�� . �.
�,� language was changed to provide that a use that is not approved is ;s,•' `
now a rohibited use. What would ha en with this chan e is that -�%- '
p PP 9 �::��•. -
iE an applicant comes up with a better idea of something to do, =.
they would have to come in an request a change in the code, which -";;.�"
� would have to go before the Planning and 2oning Commission and ��K-::=^;::•.
could be very costly. He thinks the way the code was oriqinally ��=.,;.e;
��::. . ::� •
designed was the appropriate way to do it. a�..;� -:
;r�;.::. ,
Krizmanich responded that anytime a special review is done for a 's?. Y
use not listed, it opens the Board up to charges that it is being �;�•`;
arbitrary and campricious because commission members were thinking i.�,'1
that it was a particular activity in another spot. And then when :�, ••�L ;
another person comes into the same zone district and wants to do
that activity and it has been allowed somewhere put the Board in ����
a very tough position. The thought was that similar activities in ;'�'w1%_
the same district should be treated the same. So rather than
looking on a piece by piece basis at every specific application, �
' the Board would be forced through a code amendment to review the '.
activity in the context of the zone district.
�;.
Joe Wells commented that he thinks the way the code is written
� gives some flexibility that has not been abused. Given the fact „�
that the vast majority of the County is zoned for residential use, ,�:f�
that it is a flexibility that the Board does not have to be afraid �� �
of. �
John Ely, County Attorney, commented that his concern is that if `
i there is a use that is not specifically called out in the use table
� i.e., a new idea by someone it would have a total prohibition by � �;
the County because it is nat called out specifically in the use 1
table.
-� True commented that to address John's concern possibly a new use
in B-1, B-2 and I could be subject to special review review, but �'.
i everywhere else, if a use is not listed it would be prohibited. �'
,
�� ; Ethridge and Child commented that they like the way it is as i
' ( revised.
� It was aqreed that this issue would be deferred until a full boarQ
is present.
� ,�.Joe Wells suggested that the Public Zone designation be more
flexible of what can be applied £or. �'�; ,�:;
'd �`<
After a discussion it was agreed that the intent language would tie �.�•�
� into an IRS tax exempt status as described in 5U1C-3. IJ�`
r�. �.
Wells brought up the issue qf the stream setback issue. He said
there is a blanket prohibition against any work in the 20 foot
BOARD OF COt)NTY COMMZSSIONERS 4 SEPTENIDER 8� 1993 =��`;,:_ ' ;
._yc::_:,.....
F i''
�,
f
� . �� ' . �._ . . . .
. �
\ ' •
�. , l
, a� .
..�+`f3;�. . �
`�•
ry�p
, ^
Sf i i
�''"�t:.,�, �t 1a�' t��..�� `.`"l����� i . sl�.�� ��-s. � � � �� 1 .',� ( � 7 1 t' ' 'f�f �,
�> y i{... . "�� . �,.�,�, . s; � . s;� 5 � � � 1�,�.:L . ,.��� .�.v'.
C.� r.�ys lr a � t r v �� f�'j' +n ,
y � �y. .
.�<�'�';� r .� � . . ..7.`34 ;��W���l. Y:�a�'"r- Y,.. ` i � .�
41L a;rr. A. . � v .� y � i� �`Y
d�� .�',�, ._ffi . ":�j.M.� 4. . �.. .Sn "' r�,�lS.4''. .. ... . F ;�� .
. k� '-K . . -_•:iY�,��- . r .��1...'�-�14 ' �M .�:
w
"�'��� 'c, .
`^ i l
�..." }�. 1,
� , :
�� setback. He would like to see some opportunity where there has '�`'� ;..
been some disturbance in the 20 foot setback that might be able to
��7 S..; r
"�� be enhanced, and this prohibits that because you are not allowed "' �'a., .:.
��i to qo into the 20 foot setback under any circumstances. Also, he •�'���-�
is conaerned about the language that a 150 foot setback or greater r �r
� from streams could be required to protect the public, health, '� , •
safety and welfare. He thinks if the Hoard wants to pzeserve the � �;
�' option requiring a setback greater than 150 Peet there should be �:i`'- t
more specific standards than just health, safety and welfare. '�=::.`
�1:. . _
'+` `� .
Ethridqe responded that the reason for this is because it is on a ,.'��
case by case basis and three different levels. The first is up to �"�,�r�
the 20 foot setback, the second is up to 150 foot setback and the `;i+,, `t':
third is over 150 foot setback. And he does not think the •" -
standards can be anticipated.
;'.'�V�
1
Tt was sqree4 that the lanquaqe trould remain as `rritten. ?
��=:
There being no further public comment, Child entertained a motion �
� ta continue the public hearing.
, �•
Ethridge moved to continue tbe public hearinq reqar33nq P7►R
diacusaion to 8eptember 22, 1993. Aith a aecond by True, the
motion pasaee unsnimously. ' ''
ADJOIIRNMENT: Ethridqe moved to adjourn the meetinq at 11:30 a.m. '
With a second by True, the motion pasaed unanimously.
R s ectfully sub i ted, �
4
������ � .
eanette Jone � ".
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ' F .
� .•
^�
�.` `
n . ;
. ..
t`���
�r''� {W-
�,. � ' �
�<' :` ��,
�� �;: ,,,
�,� �,
HOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SEPTSM88R 8, 1993 =�'�.�s�'.i;:":+; ,;
'I
�i��
; t{
i � ., :`
i �,'
. �.; ..
.:_:. _ .: _ _.. . . .___ _ _ . ...
_ . . _ _
. _.: ..., . .
, ...
�, - �, .
,
�-�;�: � .. '
;�:�� - .
;,.r., .
��j