The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.spec.11031993 '�-��1� � > > a . t r ,.. ' � �{ 1„yR� y 1E .i`�•1 �t t��}�C7�''.s"�+��. '� ,v,`. � � ��'il''�.,}A't�S.ifr.� 1^('.;i`" .Y �C- `�FJ'C ��!' � �`VZSk �t��,G�.jt` �a�� iy��'1�.�', �;`H _eM��f vl�.�:'� Vi.: :t�'�E> tQ1r i�i,+� 1 .l� � �� dr": � .S'� Rt' f{ � y '��[+y��,l�td ,.T. �� '�+ ! T, ��J1� �.� t . '7 . 4� � ' � 4 "„ � j� � � 4 y' � ��kr«� k� L' .. .� � � �*` _. .. .4' � . �'�' . +'. .F.. ] ;.. .... ... . ..... .. _... . , _ . . � rY .�� . '..-. - , .._..._._. ......... . . �u . . ... . . .. . ... . �- . .... . . ..._. . . . -,� S#T- 'O . 11 4� �t; 'i � y�• ... � y r� ;� y� . NOVEMBGR 3. 19)3 ,; , '.i, �4 � . p� 9-J2 LAND U5�CODE HEARING .,f�y;� = Location: Plazal Conference Room : ,7� r �� . . t�.` . ,i;� .� . � . . . . . �1�4. � �:. . . . . . . . . ' � �::�.� .: r.. . '�' b� 'b:'� ;.�;�:.' �,.- �� _ : � • , • ; �:. \ (,-— �� ,\` :i �tl_ ' ; •4.. � ,. . i . N?. . . . �t�. � �f �== 3� ,,� : � .f�: _ _ :� 5 , ; {: , . ��`.;. ;,�:; . � F'FK' , � � ��,�. $ � 7. �. . ,1�i�Y��r+�_ _ y — a«[a.t�:��+v"�'..0�✓u""'.` .�� +45,4++�,+tir+lkWy.a1� 'werAln`it)'S�'61�.6.�wi( �� ;S<.+N'!a ..aV&�'��ViibKF �. ' . ' , \� .. �� . '.;. . .. . . . . � . . . �. ' �� . . �. . �; � . . . _. _,.. . � . �'.:i .. ��- � � ' , _ . :�. •,. : � ; : _ , _ ,. .. i .. . - _ : � �. . . ; - , ' � `�� , - • . _ �' . �'��i�`).: ., li�I,',.J . `r`i- � .. I ,�i! _ ';� .�. + .:� ' .,.. �; t . -. v�� . o � i: !� t, , i ,. .. �. ��. ,�'p ' t�• � � i �,� � t� 'y'� +E^�• '�i� �Y�,�T,g� -. . ,� � �; . .T,. IS f,•I��s '.�k• ��', t '� , 3 �,�'J (if� �"T�� •'^�'`��^"•�?��+,1�,d t�.'� �`�,� ''K.r�t' � . n�t1±',J� .k� , . ..� ' :'.ewf��1!rT��, i�r hiti.'� � s� .. . . . . .. . ...... ,;�5�.;+ . , � -`�:�'� .r . , " .' �,3 � • �l�d/2UUEt� •:y•l. . ;: Ir-4-�.� �,,,: MINOTES '�` - ;' . •;�.' ;. PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF COi1NTY COMMIBBIONER8 ' " ,�:.:` ;, SPSCIAL MEETING ' d :,..;�,: . $ 'Y='::.:::„ � CONTINUED POSLIC HEARING +«;.,r..<,,; ;�::.::;:•;'. - REVISIONB TO PITAIN COUNTY LAND USE CODB �. ' �;.�, .. �.4;.�. . NOVEMBER 3. 1993 • ((,h-,. ;'{�79 � t�*. •ti . � CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner True called the meeting to order at � � 10:20 d.m. "��:;�_ �� COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Jim True, Wayne •��i1 Ethridge, Bill Tuite, Mick Ireland and Bob Child FIRST RBADING - ORDINANCE ADOPTTNG AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-1� ��FLOOR AREA��. OF THE PITRIN COIINTY LAND OSE CODE - MOTION TO �� t APPROVE AND SET FOR 6ECOND READING ON 11-9-93 Francis Krizmanich, Planner, summarized this item as a continued pu}slic hearing on the �{:+�� Land Use Code. This particular meeting is set aside specifically to review floor area ratio and how the County defines for that when � , it is calculated for building permits. Krizmanich said the new f2oor ratio has become less restrictive. It is proposing to increase areas that are exempt from the calculations which are roof overhangs and decks which at the :� present time are limited to three feet of exempt area, and that exemption will go up to give feet with the potehtial to have a ten _ foot deck on any one side of the building which would also be exempt from floor area. Also, a new section adds that decks, , -, � balconies and stairways with similar features can be counted when � the exceed fifteen percent of the total floor area, which is ,2• similar pravision to the City of Aspen Code. Space below natural '� grade is proposed to be exempted Por up to 20 feet in depth, and �� f this is the major aspect of the present definition that people are � � concerned with. Under this proposal by exempting sub grade space, the allowed floor area for a particular property, the home size � could basically increase from 30 to 50 percent due to the proposed .. � exemption, and this is probably the main topic of today's meeting. � � t Further garages and carports have been exempted by a previous ;� '( ordinance adopted by the Board as also a raise in floor area over ,t S y; � what was previously allowed in the County which will be kept in the ;�:. �s new revision which allows up to 750 square feet and the garage area 5. .a'�,• ,� � can be exempt from floor area calculations. Crawl spaces are going t `:� � " to be counted when they are greater than five foot six inches in ,�, ,; ,R, height unless they are subgrade per the previous provision in the � code. He said the only other provision that is changed is the ' '� calculation of attic space and clarifies when that is counted and +� ' � � • �'� 'I � I:.,�:;,.' BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 1 NOVEMH$R 3� 1993 j;?��;;'; 't'�k•� - . ...v.'! . ��t ,: . � � . 1'':�:":�''� �0 �.( . . �.�.�`,�. . .. ��.:�..: - . � . , . . . .. . .. _. . . . . . _. . � ��- 1 , ' • ;y�:�.a'�` � � • .,,e . ' t}�.-=- �,��Y ;�i",�:. I „ . ��{�� i. [� •^t . 5 ..1.'. - .. �'-A� 1 . '�. :' f : ,' � .�.. ,>•� �Y,4�tA I�{l �.'R: `t + � tJ . �'� , .,'L,'TS �.. `�� ,'• X A ��a . . n�� s. � ��_ � ,p�� n - a��'.. �-s�. k?' . �:r� � 1,�;4,� ..by,.�r+W :d�� W ? �!. tii.. �" f� �,y, ,��. . �.�:r.' .� •� : .�•�5.�''� �4�a �e'��^c ��°� v,.s�.. �"�6•� i"�i.t��. . . �tiw.�� .•�k.�6i: . !'�'��. �`+ J .ta+� '�t 1t�;e `�,� •� �,:; - , :tY..',t• . . >i � 7�� 'G,• --._._ � � _�y., ;.'�. that is when the distance between the floor and ceiZing exceeds ':;a. . .� five foot six inches in height. '�`�� -.S. s.. i Ethridge referred to a letter which was sent out by Bob Walker. - 7 • A copy of this letter is made a part of this record as E7�iIBIT ��A��. � ` ' .z' ': Ethridge said it is inflammatory and inaccurate. He said Bob never � ,", . ; contacted him about the letter or the contents of the letter. The � ; ::r'£ : third paragraph which mentions his name specifically that he has ;sF„ .' �. i indicated to reopen the entire FAR issue that is correct. With �.�,.,,.^� regard to the view to limiting homes to only 5,000 square feet �r? q regardless of the amount of land owned, he has never said that, ��i;�.. never supported that, and have no idea where Mr. Walker came up '•t;•.'�� with this. .�;` • ' With reqard to the other oomments about the Task Force Board that ��. v ' was set up, the only thing he can say about that is the Board '•!p,�`_ i lacked balance and that was their fai2ure as a Board. The Board . was stacked with representatives of the buildinq industry. He did •��" , not support the recommendations and he has been consi,stent with � - that. He thinks what he would like to see before changes are ' enacted to the FAR regulations is a comprehensive review of where ,�� we are with FAR. He noted that the Board got information as late s - as yesterday about size of structures and what effect that has had on Eire districts. There have been conversations about the effect �:�'-• of larqe home sizes on the creations of jobs and the inability to �'�� deal with housing as a result of that. Therefore, he thinks there � . � needs to be a more comprehensive review of FAR than was conducted � in the past, and he frankly does not think that issue was handled r very well. Ae thinks in light of information that the Board is � receiving, it would be a mistake to implement part of an FAR :�, � regulation without looking at it again in some detail because there � S is more information, i.e, the fire district information for one f which came in yesterday. He said everyone knows that large homes 4 create a need for employees but what is not known, is how many '—� employees and what increments, and he thinks this is one of things �` , that needs to be studied. Also, there are other effects on �� services that we are not fully clear on at this point. �� , ,�� Commissioner Tuite entered the meetinq. � � True opened the hearing to public comment. Mickey Herron commented that the FAR Task Force Committee met far over two and one half years on a weekly basis. There were hearings "� �j addressing just about every issue that they could come up with, �.+, hearings on every issue that the Planning Commission could up with �: �`' ' and they came up at that two and half years with the regulations f. .;�! � t which is befoxe the Board as they were modified by a series of �"` � hearin gs before the Count y Commission. He sai d th e co m m i t t e e �,� �4 ' � worked very hard. He does not think it was stacked, he thinks , everybody on the committee was trying to do what they felt was � : ° '�:i; �� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMi3SIONERS 2 NOVEMHER 3, 1993 �; ,r�.�. . 3,;��;:�. , . .1. �,i<,:�i 4, V .',- � . ....... .... . . .. .. ... . , .. .. � ..'. �'. . y , -�. s �, ' : � r .s:Y� � .�H . � ��,-^--..'..�. , , :,!4F � � �c , .,, :;, 1 , i l�.�,� n .s.� ..�, . . , " , � r, $:"^/� ..r �r�f ��S�,,{,,Dy�y'-,�`,�� j„�naR,y �� r �,` }�. ' � „ . •. ,yi f �y.+t ,1,� .'�k��,ly�'��y."'t.LY• ,��&�� Li�. �'11Ad[yY;�� ,4 T �� r. � r'� �� y*" � .�1ty'S.it� ..o�f 1��.'� .�h,`�,:' � �, �`, /^� (�.1 , ` � a n ., ' •' " . • .. n y�^�... . ... , . .. ,..A..�1ER. �p�p�,�� ' �}`Z � . � . _. . . ��.:=7.V,On'. _.. _ _. . . _ ...luii:.:S'1�'.�!` �.. �.� ' r' . :�:Y�' .t' . :::i ' .'r- "4. ... _.-.'�M1 '�y•'�,'��lYr ;� appxopriate and thinks they were trying to do what they feZt was ,�'c '° � '"� appropriate in light of trying to work within the system. And he ! � thinks they addressed all of the concerns that are being raised � a. today. He said one of the big concezns was impact, and he thinks �=r • one of the things that the committee talked about was that no �.;,,;;:._._;, � matter what kind of impacts there is with construction or the size � '�" of a house that is economic to the county, there is an economic „�'! benefit to the county by virtue of building a bigger house because ��..::'.":' - a fifteen thousand square house in theory, is probably going to probably pay three times the taxes that a five thousand square foot z'��:`. � house is goinq to pay, and therefore, the impacts are addressed Eor ��:'' '` .; the life of the house. ��s�, yi i'� . ° With regard to the subgrade space, Herron said that is goin to ��' �` , cause a house to inc�ease 30 to 50 percent, and he does not see the I; lo ic to that because if �,1. g you read the definition of below qrade r••::v� space, the only below qrade space that is exempt, is if that space is totally unexposed so that basically is has a very limited use. „�,�;: But if you read the definition, the definition says that if that � space is exposed, it counts. So the only space that is being - . talked about is space that is totally unexposed space under a house and he would like to hear from Francis how that is going to ,; increase the size of the house. He summarized that all of the issues were debated and hammered throagh, and he thinks to stir up � the community and the issues coming up again would be real2y �+�F� y,. unfair. Krizmanich commented that the subgrade space portion of the code � reads "spaces below natural grade up to a maximum of 20 feet in depth are exempt from floor area calculations", right now they are � counted, it goes on to say "any area deeper than 2o feet shall be counted. If any part of the below grade space is exposed above � natural grade, such as walkout basements, walls or courts, the � entire below grade space shall be included in the floor area 4 '� calculations except that window wells and when egress areas ` ' required by the Vniform Building Code may be provided without j. ` effecting this exemption. The foundation wall or footing map be t exposed to the minimum degree required to comply with the Uniform �� Building Code pertaining to foundation design without affecting � these exemptions. up to ten percent of any particular below grade '' wall surface may extend above natural grade and still be exempt � from the calculation of floor area so long as the finished grade covers the surface that would otherwise be exposed. Garages up to f 750 square feet may be incorporated into below grade space and �� shall not affect this exemption so long as the only sections of the �A:F j buildings so exposed are directly related to garage structuie. �t M•.: � � He said basicaZly you are allowed a lot of different exposures and �,Y•,' �� I you still retain your subgrade exemption. You are allowed to put �� : �� window wells in to meet Uniform Building Code requirements for 2iving area. So Mickey is incorrect in saying that you can't have � windows, you can't use this for living space. Right now in the ;� ;. • ; � „ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 NOVEMBER 3� 2943 �pt';,;. ' ,;��`_ :., ,.., ' - t . , � . , a•,:: .t:.�:,.,-: . ±i�:'.—. - ' � ;e.Y'r _ .- --------- �� . � �„ � ! � �r t 1�� .A�t�i� � P.� '�.. , ..�� t� �� ;... �+q.1. �' �.JC/rr � :+�+: ��='�+'ia . . ' 1 .,'. r�� '�` y x �;�1�;. � 7, r ��! '14. ' ^f� -xst r. � �r y1 s' ` 4Ir K"+ ; 'tii St� .':� �' . �' !��'�t y �y� . .. . �yy � � :-�'M��r,��4 iy9��.��Y �,M� . . .i� } �"4��..: ��t'^i":: .. � .�`. � w�MC�� .f� y��.. . .. . . . .r�A��^"�,� ,�� ' :j� ' 1�I1 . ' • "�•1�' .t� . - - . ,. I� 'L i . _ , .y'1• �.f•. county where there we don't have a floor area, we have a 15,000 �;;-� square foot cap on floor area. With the proposed exemption, ! ;, ',r subgrade space, a single story ranch style hoUSe could be 15,000 ' square feet right now totally above grade. You could add a 15,000 }� °� square foot basement below it and it would equal 30,00o square -'r feet. Under the proposal, you could add it and it wouldn�t count, �''�� , � you could have a 30,000 square foot structure, but it would only � count as 15,000 square feet. You in effect, would be doubling the i" space that you are permitted to have today, and that is what is �t� a�'�y�+� mercent of 1 or area,this was a potential increase of up to 50 �`-�.�� ' � p �'�i � Herron commented that the fact is that most of the houses in the ��+��? county then go without basements because it has not been exempt, ��>,. '•r.•. and it is not economically feasible now to go jack up all those houses and p � �.� put in a basement. As a ractical matter this will v only appl.y to new construction. � '•;��_ ; .{,;: Ethridge commented that he changed his mind on the subgrade space , because what we wound up with was totally different then when we - started. The recommendation was "if you couldn't see the subgrade �• space, what was the issue?" That has been changed entirely �ow so '.,�,�� that it provides an opportunity for a significant increase in FAR and is one of the reasons that he does not support it. He has �;�,,. supported more restrictive and continue to support more restrictive ;�;�'�'��. � FAR but he understands that there needs to be more research on this , issue with regard to affordable housing generation, issue of water ;- 4 consumption and energy consumption, �` � Ireland referred to the letter from Mr. Walker that he has never � participated in a straw vote on this issue, and he has not made a '� 3 commitment on housing caps. He does not favor an absolute cap, but � he does believe that there should be mitigation not withstanding Mickey's remarks about property taxes. Property taxes are falling � under Amendment 1 and will continue to fall under that. To the '. extent research shows that extraordinary large houses require �;, � staffing, he does not think that is an unfair requirement. He said the thought he would offer is that he is not so certain that what �� we want to do is simply exempt basement space and go on with our `� � lives and do all the overhangs and all the complicated formula. ' He thinks maybe it would be better off just saying "look, we are I going to increase FAR by doing this, why don't we just increase FAR � and count everything." Also, he thinks that a mitigation needs to 't be looked at seriously. � Child commented that personally he does not like monster homes, but $�� 'M: ; he is not here to legislate his personal desires, he thinks it is �� s I inappropriate. His concern with larqe houses is the impacts on the �,,:'� i .' community, impacts on employee housing, and the drain on the power �, 8;� _; !' and water resources for the county. � ;!'' . Paul Taddune, representing the Starwood Homeowners Assaciation, �5�.;,� ;. :' ..s?; � . BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 4 NOVEMBER 3� 1993 r•!;'��,.,j'.;. ' � '` , t �Yx� • -». . . ._. r;r..:.:,...�c .� , : :,'-,".�. .;. . _.. _.. t �.�.. ,` . . . . . . . . . . . .. � � �: — � . . � . . ... . . � . � . � \ , . ! ,iiY�� • t��;:,;.. • . ;�y � ..I�. '�., �.:, . 1.'. �Y . , i J �. ' ... �.r � ..� :� ` .� .. ,�,i� � w� f . � �qr� t.� f : .. � : .. . : ` �. . .r ,�. �p'�� rq n�T � ` ♦1, .. + �7 it ��t� �Y.�s ''�1.�' � ._.' C �'�.» . ��n�w�r.� '�+e1,�y��`q k �� . � ��'� �'�'��r:4 ' '� Kr••� �.F� . F� s}�.,, � t'�.� �r& �` " ..'�+�K'-'��..'�' :�"�� 'Y4r�C i�� -tix �t 1,Si:� ,.. • �; - • �y, .r ,�. 'l. (�:.'_�:�_��r ° - commented that the homeowners association took the position at the �': �� ` last go around that there was no rational basis for any cap on the ''`r� ; size of houses, and the issue came to the forefront because of `�'�'`"��"�� Prince Bandar's house and except for one property owner, the rest -d of the association has not felt that there has been a dramatically negative impact so that should be made known. When the discussion = ,- ` ensued and after two and a half years of discussion, the conclusion ,r that was reached that is large homes really do not have a ,� tremendous negative impacts. 3 • Krizmanich commented that he did not recommend subgrade space be ��;; �' exempt, but that is in the code and it did come from a majority n.;; '�. a� vote of the board. It did not come from staff and didn't >Y? . a:,�tn '.f particularly come from the floor area committee. He thinks it is a compromise that happened during the public hearing process. ,��, ,;.-. y , _' Several members of the public spoke with regard to the proposed �''��_ � ° �' amendment with respect to subgrade space. They encouraged � � {'�4� commission members to go with the recommendation of the task force t1� i�� committee that any part of a house which is constructed below the ' �i�° natural grade of a lot not be included in the calculation of the :%'>?°<<='_.. floor area for purposes of floor area ratio limitations. There - were several comments that big homes would not be as much impact � on the resources as smaller homes because people who live in the large homes are not in them very often. �� Steve Hansen a general contractor encouraged the Board to leave the • � language as written. He said the construction industry is the second biggest industry in the valley, and he is concerned that � with this type of legislation, it would have a negative impact on this industry. Also, with the way the legislation is drafted, � regarding attics and overhangs, he feels would encourage people to build flat roofed homes which in this area are not appropriate. f' He said he was also concerned that this issue is splitting the • community. � Ethridge commented that what he is asking for is a more rational f� process than was had last time. There were a room full of people � whose livelihoods were at stake. There were also many people on ,� the other side saying there is a problem with large homes that the � commission has not dealt with, and frankly he feels that issue ' � unresolved. He said he will stand by his statement that he made � earlier about the committee that was appointed. But it is ultimately the Board's responsibility to accept a recommendation � or decide that it is not in the best interest of the community. �.1(�_ It is hard to determine what the best interest of the community is e��)�. u„ � relative to large homes. It is also very clear that the Board did .�}: r�i- � not do the work that it needed to do on this issue. And that what + ��*i?' � he is trying to say. He said people do not know him very well if ( ` � i '� � they think that letters like this is going to help the situation. }' �` �� He has been in the business too long to be influenced by this kind �', . of ineeting. But this kind of process with letters like Walker's y`� i� ?;t;:; : BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSZONERS 5 NOVEMHER 3� 1993 -i :,i. S;�i7,�- r• ' }� ; �,, � ' j . t;��- � �).'...��.. � . � .:.. .. . . . . . _`.. . .. . . . . _ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ` .: :,. �_: . • � . 1 ' . . . r . qq!.. • J�'ry�. , t�-' '. :�v�A r „�.. ' �.� ` . �;:�:: }.,. t!. . r•,� � ��} ._al��'`. . . �: r M.'� � � � � ! � ' ��';'9��` A� 1 �� 'j ,re. ' 1�� ' .. � 7 i. �i 1 ��Si� 'w�,.y� ��A�. ,.� �'�'" \7. . �'. 4 .4h. t��t4' ��d.''�.rT� ��i1��i('.. . t� �.c �:. .. .i�p,rY.�y. �F. . ��df�.F��'tY�i%:�_b..t��- . ft�+�i!:.i„�''LYi . �� :�'• � ��. �'7� . �.-��.�, 'i.. _ t� 'ri••��• ,:� - --''� does not work and is one of the things that is ripping the . '. community apart. He said he has been absolutely consistent in his �•`�:: opinion, on this issue all the way through. ` Ireland suggested simply increasing FAR 30-50$ and counting J!..`��" everything including decks, overhangs, eaves and arberetums and , �, :�. basements. �'y Y ' Steve Hansen said that not exmemptinq certain architectural features would result in owners building boxes straight up from the � • fround and they would be ugly. �; y. ;� r,< rr�.: Rick Neiley, a member of the Task Force Committee, spoke to the �;��7i issue of below grade. He said below grade space is generally quite ^•� ,.�. energy efficient, and requires less demand on public utilities and �y, . whatnot than any other space in the house. He said he thinks the �� committee was affective. They met on a number of occasions with �°:;r� � the Board for the purpose of reachinq a compromise and a '-, understanding of really what made sense for people who are living .:t;�'; in the community. He said the regulations that they drafted in - conjunction with the board, the planning office and public ' _ hearings, were not intended to specifically address the impacts ' iassociated with large homes because they did not thinl� they were �' . � major impacts coming out of those types of regulations. However, :. everybody on the committee shared concerns about water and energy �;n,.; consumption and all of the impacts that development has in general. ;];�� He summarized that he thinks the Board may need to go back and re- . . evaluate the FAR issue as a whole but he does not think this is the time to do it because these regulations don't have major impacts - on those things. He encouraged the Board to adopt the regulations ' at this point in time and then if it wants to look at the overall t' FAR issue again do it. Ireland commented that he agrees that this is not the time or place ' to do employee mitigation on monster homes. There will be public � hearings on that and research before he will vote on it. ��, __ ?; Several other members of the public commented that encouraged the ; board to approve the current version of the new code and ' � �� True closed the public hearing section of the hearing and brought � " the matter back for discussion by the Board. Ireland commented that he is not opposed to moving forward with the ,� part of the legislation and then taking up as a separate issue the � remainder. E��:;. w; � Child commented that he would feel comfortable moving forward with � ,��,'. i this issue but he still has concerns about the attic situation and ��:�:,'' how to address that, but maybe that is something to take up in the �.{� ; I ` �� future in discussions with the building officials and architects i•'` � � to encourage goo d design o f r o o f s r a t h e r t h a n d i s c o u r a ge it. With �`' S'•=�{ j HOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 6 NOVEMBER 3� 1993 ��:". :�. : i�jvtt-,.�i:. r,�:,r.;.-�%.;:.i \. ':;�'` .. ri! � . �- . .... .. . . . � ,: - �.� � s r ', � ' . �� .. !��.: �':�^�. . `'!�A Y � t.l 1. �} / . '. � ^�'.- �Y. �.� � � . .. � . .. - it hU :�. -�r:a��j.. i� :,.�a��Gp ��.• t +�' �l.�k' et�ts� �- _t ��,� , li�' l' � l H 1 r ,`�t �� r,•1 .; . . ? � tiri '�'t ' ��j�R�� `� ' 4 ' � N�� '�� j��'��# � � ..s� `1", "�y�.rµ; :�'��1°�FR�. ��--�^��. . 1� �" . �,y�. -�, . k' • f� �'� fx�� . . �•Ii' �� regard to energy and water he thinks there is a energy and water 1,.;�,_- � code for efficiency in appliances and so forth but maybe there . ;:. could be higher standard that could be imposed on a larger house � which would be a simple step. He said possibly the energy task '� , � y �i force could up with those requirements and how they would differ 5 "��?= from the ordinary code, but he does not see this as being a real "= T � �:�• burdensome thing. '� , �� ,.{; i;,! , True commented that he thinks there needs to be further study of a� the potential impacts from the larger homes and if that is a �w-��..` .. process that can be put together he thinks that should be done as �;� �. soon as possible. He is willing to go forward with the language t',�- that has been suggested and he thinks the compromise on the limit FF"r�t - of the basement is appropriate and he would like to move ahead. j '�:'. ' Ethridge suqqested that the averaqe home size in Pitkin County is �� approximately 3500 square feet he would suqqest that as a •��_ ! compromise on the basement space at this point peadinq further � � review, an exemption of 3500 square feet. And he would like to qet "k+'! this on the table as an amendment to the existinq situation, and ' , � he would so move this amendment. Child seconded the motion. After a 8iscussion, Ethridge amended his motion to 4,000 square �`� � feet exemption. Child ameaded his second to a 4,000 square feet ` exemption. The motion passed unanimously. `E� Krizmanich commented that because the language is being changed to � � more restrictive, he would suggest a third reading with a revised . definition that includes the changes that he thinks are coming and f bring back an ordinance that would amend the code. � �'. F Ethridqe moved to continue the public hearinq on the floor area ' . requlations to 5:00 p.m. on November 9, 1993. With a second by Child, the motion passed unanimously. t Ethridge moved to continue the land use code hearing to 3:0o p.m. � on November 9, 1993. With a second by Child, the motion passed �' unanimously. �i, �\ A discussion ensued with regard to the attic situation. � ` , It was agreed that this matter would be taken up at third reading. - Staff was directed to leave the lanquage as written. `� ADJOIIRNMENT: Child moved to adjourn the meetinq at 11:�5 a.m. E�� w,, With a second by Ireland, the motion passed unanimously. �� tfully sub ' ed, ;1'�t;� �� er, ; ane te Jones �(. � lerk to the B ard of County Commissioners f„.'��} �`, •`'''- � .: . � '. �',. IBOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 7 NOVEMSER 3� 1993 �i 7�� i ��`.tii�i."—��..i.��, . s �� ',{��. � � � -- � � ' • .— 1 � • . r , ��.. . . � � � .,��r�;,:±- . `�•. . ��p„p ''^F. ,�` . , � ' . � r {; � _ - �i:i ;it � .i: t r . � r.� � r � .�. .•tL�� .(y! ..r _ .� � �:�1 x ,��, '+` . . ,'�. ' ' t �.'�� 4 q� � .�,1'� ��' �+� . ,�- ��+ • ` .»�:T"n Yra�i'�N �',+;{, �� d .. � tt y ' s�a��.'� �G � '? � �'k� � �..5�1 . ��. y �F. 1� �I� yh�S " r fi r'S" .. ..� '� Y,�y�y�� t�rlr!�� +^'W'��!1��4C��":',!�1�`_�/!ClI�M1' S - � . .:��::_�i�1., .rI STREET =' ,.. a'� - '.i)�. '3•iy'-C, 816I1 - " ''� GOARG QF C0.Ct;4;•�:,j�R'S ;'s';i•'':1: i'�Tt�.►�l C�� :� i �., r October 28, 1993 {��.�:^'•-1ca��y, ;nri;t:; , '. 3 ! -,.: ' �!_3�5 /�� _ i s.. � Oate:__ �5ti _`!'�"yw . � �; a . To: All Members of the Piddn County&uilders Association ,Z,q�n_ __.. � �:+:•L:t._ �� i . (iJ�:. - � From:Bo6 Walker,President _r�A __°__-...___ ,�:;�. �; ; r:�. r�n. -- . r� ,' ? The Pitkin County Bnilders Association was organized in 1989, i.�part to respond to the ,�, _. . y ` threat from the Pitldn Coun ty Commissioners to place dramatic restricti on s o n t h e s i z e o f h o u s e s i"e:� •. 's i � which could be built in the County. In response to the fantastic show of polidcal strenath by the �7�`�` � Pitldn County Builders Association,a citizen's task force was formed called the F.A.R.(Floor Area ��; � ' 1�; � Ratio)Committee to study the situation and come up with recommenda6ons for the Commissioneis to follow with respect to the enactmeni of any regulations concerning the size of homes. I was a ,�, � i member of that committee and atong with the other members spent over two years(from 194Q to ''"•''��_. u , 1992)worldng towards that end. ` ,t�e j ' 3' • The task force issued a final zeport with recommendations, most of which were accepted and acted upon by the County Commissionezs in 1992. However, the task force also made an informal recommendation, which may not have been included in the final report. That recommendation was that any part of a house which is constr�cted below the natural grade of a lot should no be included in the calwlauon of the floor area for purposes of the floor azea raflo ,�'�� limitations. The City of Aspen has excluded sub-grade space for some time and this provision _ would merely bring the County in line with the City, w;�ich is particularly impoitant in some � subdivisions such as bfountain Valley, part of which is in the Gity and uart of wtuch is in the " r County. . _ % ' "r •..S . � The Planning�and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners accepted � �, that recommendaGon and instructed the plannin;staff to draft lanouage to that effect so it could be p formally adopted. Somehow that seemingly simple process has dra;ged on for almost a year now. 4 A straw vote at a recent meeting indicated ffiat the Commissi.o�ers may now renege on their � commitment to adopt that measure. Worse yet,Wayne Ethridge has indicated a des'ue to re-open :�' '' the entire F.A.R.issue with a view towards limiting homes to only 5000 sq. ft. regardless oE the `; � :� amount of land owned. That would be a slap in the face to the task force which worked so long ` and fiazd and to you members of the building industry and this community,whose politicai activism � . prevented the adopaon of more stringent regulations on building in the first pIace, ?i- We need to ially to the cause once more by showing up in fo�e at the nezt public hearing on this issue which is ta be held on Wednesday, Novembe�rd at 9 a.m, in the i r�� : County Commission2rs meetina room in the�ou use. �`"= N� , f # #., � �, � ; { _ Robert R. Walke�"� � ��, `,`' '� ; ;�i t:� �; ; 1 ' i � � :. f 7i 7. i' : \�.. i ?:,;t.. S ,w i �: 1 ,� , ._ , ... . , _ . _.... ., .. ..__.. ------ - - — --- � . . � . ._ - . . .. . � . � . . --�- _ . _.,._. a . . .. . ..� �.-.. . '- , _.,:.,.: .. ._.-_ ...�..... .�.,,. .... ,. ' . . . . . `'``.. , . r� b , . .� '::` ' � '. . . . .. ��:. .'.�. �� ... �: : '. . :-`� '"... \ • . ' ' � . � .'YY��. � " '_ ' t� „�,. - . • . ?��•