Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.10242012 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Rio Grande Meeting Roorr� (Commissioner Ittner Not Present) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24,2012 11:00 AM Pitkin County Cares Reception 12:00 Pitkin County Cares Awards ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Approval of Work Session Minutes of September 25 and October 2, Regular Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2012 2. Resolution Appointing Citizen Board Members, Charlotte Anderson CONSENT ACTIONS-lst Readin�s, Set for Public Hearing on November 14th 3. Resolution Accepting a Grant Offer from the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, Jack Wheeler CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING,2°d Readin�s 4. Ordinance Amending Title 9 (Roads and Public Places) of the Pitkin County Code by Adding a New Section 9.08 Titled Address Standards, Ginny Bultman, Bruce Romero, Cindy Houben (to be continued to November 14) 5. Ordinance Accepting a Conservation Easement and Conveyance of Climbing Areas on Red Butte Ranch Subdivision- Barb D'Autrechy 6. Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of the Kanan Parcel-Barb D'Autrechy 7. Ordinance Approving the Purchase of Columbines At Elk Run Unit 603 for the Pitkin County Employee Housing Inventory and Authorizing the Chair to Execute The Necessary Documents, John Redmond, Brian Pettet, Jon Peacock LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING 1. WCCP1 LLC, WCCP2 LLC, Compass for Lifelong Discovery PUB Master Plan Amendments, Amendment to BOCC Resolution No. 036-2008, Subdivision Exemption for Lot Line Adjustments, Activity Envelope Review, Minor Amendment to Development Permit, (Continued to 11/14/12), PH (PN 8/23/12), S. Wolff 2. WCCP 1 LLC, WCCP2 LLC, Compass for Lifelong Discovery Rezoning, 2"d Reading, (Continued to 11/14/12), S. Wolff LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING 3. Anthes/Brown Constrained Site TDR, Designation to Historic Register& Historic Incentives, (Continued from 9/12/12), PH (PN 4/5/12), S Wolff LAND USE ACTIONS 4. Appeal of Stein Activity Envelope Review, S. Wolff 5. Le Chamonix Code Amendment, 2°d Reading, (Continued from 9/26/12), M. Kraemer 6. Le Chamonix Rezoning to RMF, 2°d Reading, (Continued from 9/26/12), M. Kraemer 7. Le Chamonix Conceptual Subdivision Submission/PUD, 2"d Reading, (Continued from 9/26/12), M. Kraemer BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION OCTOBER 25,2012 NWCCOG—Call In Meeting AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE APPROVED BY BOCC ON � -/ -,�0/Z MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2012 PLAZA ONE MEETING ROOM NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted to the record, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR OCTOBER 24, 2012. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Michael Owsley called the Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting to order at 12:00 PM. COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Owsley, Jack Hatfield, Rachel Richards, and George Newman COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Ittner is on vacation PITKIN COUNTY CARE AWARDS: The following people and organizations were each given a Proclamation by BOCC Chairman Michael Owsley as part of the Pitkin County Care Awards for their volunteer work in Pitkin County: Marc Lipman, Aspen Elks Club Lodge #224, Dorothea Farris, Beth Meager, Aubrey Wolfe, Amy Gordon and Barry Gordon, Alexandre "Alex" Roy, Bobby Mason, Gail Mason, and Peggy Johnston ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: There are no deletions to the agenda, but there is one addition. There will be an Executive Session added to the end of today's meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Richards, Commissioner HatField and Commissioner Newman all spoke about the upcoming election and how Colorado is a swing state. They urged everyone to either vote by mail, early vote from October 22 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 through November 2 at the County Clerk's office or vote on Election Day at your polling place. CONSENT ACTIONS: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' WORK SESSION MEETINGS OFSEPTEMBER 25. 2012 AND OCTOBER 2, 2012 AND REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2012 — MOTIONS TO APPROVE STAFF: LYNDEE R. DEAN/JEANETTE JONES. CLERKS TO THE BOCC Due to various Commissioners being absent for some of the above meetings, the following motions were made. Commissioner Richards moved to approve the September 25, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Work Session minutes. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, HatField, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the October 10, 2012 Regular Meeting minutes. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with Commissioners Owsley, Hatfield, and Richards voting aye, Commissioner Newman abstaining and Commissioner Ittner not present. READING ON RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITIZEN BOARD MEMBERS — MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF: CHARLOTTE ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT The following citizens are being appointed: Steve Stunda, Housing Authority (regular) Peg McGavock Senior Services (regular-term #1) Laurie Moore Senior Services (regular-term #1) Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the Resolution appointing Citizen Board Members as presented. Commissioner Newman seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, Hatfield, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. CONSENT ACTION — 1ST READING, SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 14, 2012: FIRST READING ON RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT OFFER FROM THE COMMUNITY OFFICE FOR RESOURCE EFFICIENCY (CORE) — MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 14. 2012 STAFF: JACK WHEELER, PITKIN COUNTY FACILITIES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 County Manager, Jon Peacock proceeded with the presentation on this item in Jack Wheeler's absence. Mr. Peacock explained this item to board listing those projects for which the grant funds will be used. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the Resolution accepting a grant offer from the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) on first reading and set second reading and public hearing to November 14, 2012. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, Hatfield, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS — 2ND READINGS: SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 1ROADS AND PUBLIC PLACES) OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 9.08 TITLED ADDRESS STANDARDS — MOTION TO CONTINUE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGTO NOVEMBER 14, 2012 STAFF: GINNY BULTMAN AND BRUCE ROMERO OF COMMUNICATIONS AND CINDY HOUBEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue this Ordinance to November 14, 2012. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Owsley opened the hearing to public comment. There being none he closed the public hearing and called the question. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, HatField, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND CONVEYANCE OF CLIMBING AREAS ON RED BUTTE RANCH SUBDIVISION — MOTION TO APPROVE, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF STAFF: BARB D'AUTRECHY. OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS Dale Will gave Barb D'Autrechy's presentation in her absence as shown in her Agenda Item Summary. DIRECTION TO STAFF - Commissioner Richards said that she realized that this is not necessarily something for Dale Will, but in terms of the larger rezoning she would love to have staff check in on how some of those other conditions of approval are being exercised. Two of things were one, re-vegetation of the sage brush area that was going to be restored as a natural area. And two, there was going to be an allowance to let some of the corner of the meadow next to Deer Hill begin to re-grow with native BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 _ �...�..,.�... _..� r » � �,_ vegetation so that there would be more of an access corridor and kind of a safety zone for the wildlife that use that area. Commissioner Owsley said that although he appreciates the Hurst gift on this, it didn't quite work right as the County had to wait three years after an approval to work out the arrangements to get it. He said that something is lacking in our approval process. He said that his preference would be to link these kinds of things to final approval that we give the applicant. In other words, these representations of easements shouldn't take three years to achieve. They should be done as soon as the applicant is willing to give them. Then, their application should become effective. It's an impediment if we don't get it done in an expedited manner. He said that he thinks it's incumbent upon the County to change their approval process when we get grants like this. He deeply appreciates it, but three years is too long to wait for this. Commissioner Newman moved to approve the Ordinance Accepting a Conservation Easement and Conveyance of Climbing Areas on Red Butte Ranch Subdivision. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Owsley the hearing to public comment. There being none he closed the public hearing and called the question. Motion passed 3 to 1 with Commissioners Newman, Richards, and HatField voting aye and Chairman Owsley voting nay, for reasons stated above, and Commissioner Ittner not present. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF THE KANAN.PARCEL— MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF: BARB D'AUTRECHY, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS Dale Will gave Barb D'Autrechy's presentation in her absence as shown in her Agenda Item Summary. The board had no further questions on this second reading. Chairman Owsley the hearing to public comment. There being none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Newman approved the �rdinance authorizing the acquisition of the Kanan Parcel. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, Hatfield, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF COLUMBINES AT ELK RUN UNIT 603 FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY EMPLOYEE HOUSING INVENTORY AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS — MOTION TO APPROVE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 STAFF: BRIAN PETTET, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR; JOHN REDMOND, FINANCE DIRECTOR; AND JON PEACOCK. COUNTY MANAGER County Manager, Jon Peacock gave the board the presentation on this item in John Redmond and Brian Pettet's absence as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary. The following questions from the board at first reading were responded to as follows: QUESTION -What is the number of parking places? ANSWER - There are two assigned parking spaces. (There is a discrepancy on this between the contract and the memo. They have confirmed this now to be two and there will be an amendment made to the contract). QUESTION — Use of the property ANSWER - Mr. Peacock said that there has been time set aside on the Work Session on November 7, 2012 to discuss this issue. Staff's recommendations are that we will continue to recommend the policy that the fund will be used both to support housing for the community as well as housing for County employees in the organization. Mr. Peacock stated that the County is currently in the process of various stages of negotiations on three properties, this being the first of the three. Two are in Basalt and one is in the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) of Aspen. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the Ordinance Approving the Purchase of Columbines at Elk Run Unit 603 for the Pitkin County Employee Housing Inventory and Authorizing the Chair to Execute the Necessary Documents. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Owsley opened the hearing to public comment. Michael Stern is an Elk Run resident in an adjoining complex. He asked if the County had done their diligence yet on the Association matters and looked at the rules. Mr. Peacock replied yes and gave Mr. Stern further information on what the County has reviewed. Mr. Stern said that he thinks it is the concern of the owners in that complex and owners in his complex that the County will turn these into Pitkin County flop houses. This is a ski town and there's a long history of that, he said. He reminded the board that this is destined to be single family units. Mr. Peacock said that when this is put into the rental pool, the County will be honoring the HOA guidelines themselves. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 v...� .�a.����� Further concerns of Mr. Stern's were answered by Mr. Peacock. Chairman Owsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Newman responded to remarks made by Mr. Stern during public comment. He said, with all due respect he would not characterize this purchase or any purchases that APCHA is involved with as flop houses. These are units that need to be purchased, rented out, sold, to continue to enable us to have a work force in the upper valley. Chairman Owsley informed Mr. Stern that if he has any concerns or questions about County business he does not have to wait until public comment is opened. He can feel free to contact County staff or the County Commissioners themselves. Chairman Owsley called the question to approve. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, HatField, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONTINUED READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO COMPASS, WCCP1 LLC AND WCCP2 LLC FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPASS AND ASPEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL PUB (PUBLIC) MASTER PLAN• AMENDMENTS TO THE ACTIVITY ENVELOPES ON COMPASS PARCELS 1 AND 2; AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 036-2008; SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS; AND EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 14, 2012 STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF. SENIOR PLANNER AND SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE REZONING A PORTION OF THE COMPASS SCHOOL PARCEL FROM PUBLIC (PUB) TO RS-20 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 2, COMPASS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, FROM RS- 20 TO PUBLIC (PUB) — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 14, 2012 STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR PLANNER APPLICANTS: COMPASS, WCCP1 LLC and WCCP2 LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend the approvals granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution Nos. 128-2005 and 036-2008 as follows: • Amend the property lines to add 9.8 acres from the School Parcel to Parcel 1, and 0.1 acres from Parcel 2 to the School Parcel. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 • Rezone the land added to Parcel 1 back to RS-20 from PUB, and the land added to the School Parcel from RS-20 to PUB. • Amend the PUB Master Plan for the School Parcel to reflect the amended School Parcel boundary. The resulting School Parcel will contain 20+ acres. • Increase the size of the Activity Envelopes on Parcels 1 and 2, and create pond and landscaping envelopes on Parcels 1 and 2. • Increase the maximum floor area for Parcels 1 and 2 from 7,500 to 8,250 square feet. • Amend the road corridor that serves Parcels 1 and 2 and the adjoining Apogee Associates. • Amend the School Parcel Activity Envelope to accommodate a future realignment of the main road to lessen the grade. • Obtain a 3 year vested rights extension for Parcels 1 and 2 (extend from April 9, 2013 to April 9, 2016). • Amend BOCC Resolution No. 128-2005: (1) To defer the requirement to house 4 employees on-site until such time as a new school is constructed; and (2) To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of the improvements to the intersection of the driveway with Woody Creek Road and the septic system to December 31, 2013. The current deadline is within one year of the sale of the first free market lot, which occurred July 29, 2011. The Planning Commission considered the application on August 14, 2012, and recommended approval by a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Richards moved to continue both the Resolution and the rezoning Ordinance on the above titled items to November 14, 2012. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Chairman Owsley opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing and called the question to continue. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, HatField, Richards and Newman voting aye and , Commissioner Ittner not present. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE ANTHES/BROWN PROPERTY TO THE PITKIN COUNTY HISTORIC REGISTER AND GRANTING TWO TDRS AS AN INCENTIVE FOR THE DESIGNATION — . MOTION TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR PLANNER � NOTE: Originally this Resolution was entitled Denying Two Constrained Site TDRs for Parcel 7 of Section 36 to David Brown and Jody Anthes. APPLICANTS: David Brown and Jody Anthes REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicants are seeking to have the parcel deemed a constrained site based on the archaeological resources identified on the property, and to obtain two TDRs in exchange for severing all future development rights. In addition, the applicant agreed to designate the parcel to the Historic Register as an archaeological site, if finro TDRs are granted. The BOCC continued hearings on May 9, June 27, July 11, August 8 and September 12, and conducted a site visit on June 7. Staff from the Archaeological Conservancy, Assistant State Archeologist Kevin Black and Lisa Hancock with the Aspen Historical Society visited the site on August 2 with Dale Will and Paul Holsinger from Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. The Archaeological Conservancy has prepared a draft management plan for the site. It is attached to the staff packet material. Also present for this item were Dale Will, Director of County Open Space and Trails and Chris Seldin, Assistant County Attorney. Commissioner Newman had questions on the Management Plan for which Dale Will responded. They were: • Does the Archaeological Conservancy have any grants or funds they can utilize for protection of some of these types of sites — He did pursue that. The Conservancy is a non-profit 501 C.3.and have locations around the country with the closest one in Albuquerque. They fund efforts through capital campaigns similar to what the County did for Mountain Park. They have two of those in Colorado. One for a petro glyph site in Montrose and one for preservation for a Paleo Indian village near Pueblo. They are not in a position to focus on this site in the near term, but they may be able to raise some money a year from now. • Who is the Land Manager— Based on his conversations with the Conservancy, he thinks we're looking at a partnership there. We can't train ourselves to become as expert in this type of resource as they already are. • How will it be coordinated and available to the public — Some of these details are not yet done and the decision Ms. Wolff and Mr. Will made to recommend conceptual approval with ultimate conveyance of the TDRs tied to identifying all of the details that you just described, and a lot more as well. Knowing that the basic financing is available gives us the incentive to solve those problems and we certainly want to come back to the board and make sure that the solutions we work out with Mr. Brown and the non-profit partner are acceptable. • There was talk of needing fencing and an erosion engineer to BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 look at this. Who will be paying for this — He hasn't compieted those discussions. They've touched on it briefly with Mr. Brown, but they haven't tried to reduce every one of those things to an agreement. On the fencing, particularly, the Conservancy's view is that you have to have some sort of a boundary delineated so that anyone who is tempted to trespass has to do that deliberately and knowingly, but no one is thinking that we can use a fence to stop someone who has those intentions. We just want everyone to know what areas the public should not be in. Commissioner Richards had the following concern: • Using 5 string barbed wire fencing — is this in line with our Wildlife Fencing Code? If not, she wants to make sure that whatever comes forward passes those other wildlife and habitat standards as well. Commissioner HatField's questions: • The County has no experience with sharing funds on an archaeological site. Is it something in general that the County Attorney's office would feel we could proceed with and spend public money to manage this site — Chris Seldin said yes, with Open Space funds. • Who will be responsible for installing the perimeter gates and the locks — Mr. Will said that again, he doesn't have a specific answer for that. He will have a much better answer to his question prior to us asking for the certification of these TDRs and the board's acceptance of the Conservation Easement. DIRECTION TO STAFF — Commissioner Richards would like staff to look at some initial photo documentation of what is on the surFace now. David Brown, applicant and Mitch Hass, his representative, thanked Suzanne Wolff and Dale Will and everyone who has helped in the process all the way. Mr. Brown said that he would like to be part of the Committee that will be formed. With regard to the barb wire fencing, he proposes what looks like a 3 rail cedar fence that's compatible with wildlife. There needs to be defined exact boundaries of the site. Till that's done, he is guessing that the fencing could cost between $10,000 and $20,000.00. They have incurred a lot of expense thus far, he said, into the purchase price of the property and a loan coming due in a year. He would like help with the initial costs and asked the board if they could issue one of the two TDRs now in order to put it on the market and recoup some of their costs. Commissioner Richards said that she looks at two TDRs as being the financial support of the preservation of this site. She doesn't see Pitkin County having a role in fulfilling the terms of the Conservation Easement in terms of assisting in the cost of the fence. She does not support this request for an initial TDR. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 Dale Will said that he has ways of seeking help and will find help for what is needed. Commissioner Newman and Commissioner Hatfield will not support an initial TDR as requested by Mr. Brown. Chairman Owsley stated for the record that there will be NO preliminary TDR, as requested by the applicant. QUESTIONS ON CONDITION 4 IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION - Commissioner Hatfield questioned condition 4 in the draft Resolution where the sentence reads, prior to conveyance of the Conservation Easement the applicant may be required to provide the County with a current title policy to the property and baseline documentation for the property. He questions the word MAY and the mechanics of how this works and he questions baseline documentation. � NOTE: Dale Will said that there is a County Policy that gives the County Attorney some discretion in deciding what level of due diligences will be required on a given conveyance. He said that he has never seen the County Attorney once not require a title policy. He said that baseline documentation is a term in the Conservation Easement world that generally describes a process like what Commissioner Richards suggested where you photo document the condition of the property on the date of the conveyance of the Conservation Easement. DIRECTION TO STAFF — Commissioner Richards wanted to follow up on Commissioner Hatfield's concerns about the weather and how quickly it could snow and whether that snow will stick. If the issuance of the TDRs is premised on the completion of the Management Plan and the Conservation Easement and that meets the baseline information and is buried under snow, she would hate to see this delay the activity until April time wise CHANGES TO CONDITION NUMBER 3 IN DRAFT RESOLUTION — Chris Seldin had several changes to this condition as follows: ✓ The second sentence shall be changed to show the word MUST where the word SHALL now is shown. ✓ The third sentence shall be changed to show the word MUST where the word SHALL now is shown. ✓ Commissioner Newman asked for a change in this condition also. He would like that sentence to read, The Conservation Easement and Cultural Resource Management Plan must be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Open Space and Trails Director, the County Attorney and the Board of the County Commissioners. NOTE: Chris Seldin informed Commissioner Newman that because the second sentence clearly covers the BOCC's approval authority of the Conservation Easement and to the extent that the Cultural Resource Management Plan is incorporated into and made a part of the easement, then it is therefore subject to the BOCC's approval pursuant to the last sentence as well. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 O REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 ✓ Commissioner Hatfield requested the following word change in the second sentence. With some word smithing from Chris Seldin, the second sentence will read, The Conservation Easement and Cultural Resource Management Plan must be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Open Space and Trails Director and the County Attorney, and must be finally approved by the BOCC by Ordinance. He would eliminate the grant of easement final sentence in condition 3 so that it runs all in one sentence as to the steps. THE BOARD WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THESE CHANGES AND SO CHRIS SELDIN MADE SAID CHANGES BEFORE HANDING OFF TO SUZANNE WOLFF. Chairman Owsley opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Richards moved to approve the Resolution Designating the Anthes/Brown Property to the Pitkin County Historic Register and Granting two TDRs as an Incentive for the Designation. Commissioner HatField seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, HatField, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. LAND USE ACTIONS: READING ON RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION NO. 55-2012 BY THE GERALD S STEIN, M.D. REVOCABLE TRUST — MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO WORK ON A CODE AMENDMENT STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR PLANNER APPLICANTS: Gerald S. Stein REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman, Jody Edwards SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is appealing Administrative Decision No. 55-2012, which granted approval of an Activity Envelope that complies with the 100' setback from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and Snowmass Creek. The applicant asserts that the Community Development Director erred in the Decision and that a 50' setback should be approved. The grounds for the appeal are presented in the notice of appeal dated August 20, 2012; staff's packet material also includes pertinent information from the original application and the recorded Administrative Decision. Ms. Wolff began her presentation to the board as outlined in her staff memorandum. Commissioner Newman asked Chris Seldin, Assistant County Attorney, to explain the choices the board has on this appeal. Their choices are: that a clear and demonstrable error has occurred; that there was an abuse of discretion, or that there was denial of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 procedure due process in the application of the facts in the record to the standards of this Land Use Code. DIRECTION TO STAFF — Commissioner Richards would like the board's choices on an appeal to be clearly shown in staff's memorandum: Ms. Wolff responded to questions from the board to their satisfaction. Alan Richman proceeded with his presentation by walking the board through this appeal as outlined in his August 20, 2012 Letter of Appeal to Suzanne Wolff. The applicant believes that imposing condition #3 in Administrative Decision 55-2012 represents a clear and demonstrable error. After Mr. Richman's presentation, Commissioner HatField asked staff if the board could consider this under historic qualifications. Ms. Wolff responded by saying that staff does not feel that the incentives provide that discretion, to give an incentive of a reduction of a stream setback. She said staff would recommend the board deny the appeal and if the board wanted to the Code could be amended such that the board could take this into consideration. You either allow it as a possible incentive under the historic preservation or where essentially the constraints - - where staff limits your ability to use the reduction in the setback that you could somehow add in the possibility of looking at that if there is a constrained of an historic resource in addition to the stream setback. Commissioner Hatfield asked if it is staff's opinion that this cabin is not of enough historical significant to create an incentive to allow the board to jump forward through the hoop of no developable site? Staff does not believe that the cabin is enough of an incentive. Jody Edwards, legal counsel for the applicant, suggested the following path to the board. Instead of denial, he would prefer to table this and allow discussion of a Code Amendment with staff. Perhaps the Code could look at properties on a property by property basis and maybe the Code Amendment should say something like the applicant could provide a community benefit that is significant. He said that he thinks saving that cabin could be significant. Mr. Richman responded on behalf of the applicant. He said that they had hoped the board would have granted the historic preservation incentive that the board thought was right. He was not in support of the 100' setback in 2006 knowing that there are a lot of small, older properties along the river that would have a hard time complying with this. He said that he thinks the answer might be giving the board more discretion in the Historic Preservation section. There are about five things the board could be authorized to do. He thinks that section of the Code is less problematic to work with and his client BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 would get a more direct solution to the problem. His client would work with staff on a Code Amendment, he said. Chairman Owsley asked if the applicant wants a continuation. Mr. Richman said yes, with the understanding that he would pursue a Code Amendment with staff. Chairman Owsley asked Chris Seldin is this were a continuation, it would still be a continuation of an appeal. So, what would be the outcome of that, he asked. Mr. Seldin said that an intervening statutory change when a case is on appeal can be used to move an appeal, in some cases. He said he thinks we would take a look at whether or not this would be the case here. He stated that a tabling of the application of this appeal is not necessarily improper. Chairman Owsley said that he would be in favor of denying the appeal today as the applicant has not addressed the appeal standards which are: a clear and demonstrable error has occurred; that there was an abuse of discretion, or that there was denial of procedure due process in the application of the facts in the record to the standards of this Land Use Code. Commissioner Richards said that perhaps an appropriate place to make a change could be in the Historic Preservation Code. And, should that be passed by Planning and Zoning and the BOCC, the applicant could withdraw his appeal request. Commissioner Newman does not see a clear and demonstrable error and thinks this should be denied and that the board may have to look at a Code Amendment. Commissioner Hatfield said that the key here is timing. If we are committed to doing an amendment, he tends to agree with Commissioner Richards' about the historic versus riparian but I'd rather throw it back to staff and ask what the best path is. Chris Seldin said that under the Code as it currently exists, he doesn't see a way to approve the appeal and he hasn't heard the applicant make any arguments that there is a mechanism in the Code that would allow you to approve the appeal. With regard to the question of tabling the application while a Code Amendment moves forward, he said that he heard that proposal from Jody (Edwards) and then heard it retracted by Alan (Richman) and he doesn't know if that proposal is before the board or not. To the extent that it is, he said, a statutory change can mute an appeal under certain circumstances, but typically an appeal is decided on the Code that is in place at the time the application is submitted. If a Code Amendment were to be processed, that would not be a ground for granting the appeal subsequently based on the statutory amendment. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 Chairman Ows(ey asked the applicant's representatives if the applicant wished to withdraw. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Richman responded by saying no. He added that it is , more significant to the applicant that the board members are saying to the staff that they want to work on a solution to the problem than it is whether the appeal is denied, withdrawn or tabled. Commissioner Newman moved to deny the appeai based on not seeing a clear and demonstrable error. He directed staff to work on Code Amendments regarding the 100 foot setback with regard to historic resources. Commissioner HatField seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsiey, Hatfield, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. CONTiNUED SECOND READING ON ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE PITKiN COUNTY CODE, SPECIFICALLY THE 2006 LAND USE CODE FOR LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS — MOTIQN TO APPROVE STAFF: MIKE KRAEMER. PLANNER AND CONTINUED SECOND READING ON ORDINANCE REZONING THE LE CHAMONIX MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX, UNITS 1 THROUGH 12, FROM AR-10 TO RMF - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF: MIKE KRAEMER. PLANNER AND CONTINUED SECOND READING ON RESOLUTiON GRANTING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVIStON AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR LE CHAMONIX MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX UNITS 1 THROUGH 12 - MOTION TO APPROVE, WITH DIRECTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION TO PUD GUIDE, ITEM G, MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR UNIT 1 AND UNIT 12 AND FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ADDITION OF LE CHAMONIX A/K/A LE CHAMONIX ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED. IF NEEDED STAFF: MIKE KRAEMER. PLANNER APPLICANT: Le Chamonix Homeowners Association REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn, Inc. (Glenn Horn) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Code to create a new multi-family zone district called the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district and to rezone the Le Chamonix multi-family housing complex to RMF. Even though Le Chamonix is proposed to be governed by this new zone district, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 the structure wili not comply with the established setbacks from roads and lot lines. In effort to attain a conforming status, the Applicant also requests Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to vary these setbacks. The Code requires that with any PUD request, Conceptual Subdivision review shall also apply, though no land is being subdivided. This request necessitates drafting a formal resolution for the Conceptual Subdivision and PUD request, an ordinance for the requested Code Amendment to create the RMF zone district, and an ordinance to rezone Le Chamonix to the newly created RMF zone district. Staff has drafted one memorandum for the BOCC that addresses these items collectively. Mr. Kraemer gave his presentation that encompasses all three Le Chamonix documents as outlined in his staff memorandum Commissioner Hatfield asked if there would be reflections to the Highlands area if solar panels were used. Mr. Kraemer responded by saying he doesn't know if there would be any reflections in the Highlands area or not. But, the Code is written as recently adopted in 2009, he said, and there is a certain size panel that is less than a certain square footage can go right to building permit and the larger one goes into review through Community Development. That is how this would be applied to the RMF zone district. If there is something that the board desired in addition to that we could discuss that. Commissioner Richards wanted to clarify that the final PUD, the detailed Final Plat and PUD would be forthcoming later, she asked. Mr. Kraemer said that it is at the applicant's discretion. Commissioner Richards continued by clarifying that the new zone district that this would potentially be zoned to would legitimize the basement space, allow those without basement space to construct basement space, but it does nothing else. So, the zone district itself does not now offer variations for the parking situation or the setback from the road and that's what would be addressed and approved and supported or not in the PUD application? Lance Clarke stated, yes, you are correct. Glenn Horn, applicant's representative began his presentation on this item. Seated with him was Rick Jones, President of the Le Chamonix HOA. REQUEST TO THE BOARD FOR TITLE CHANGE OF DOCUMENTS - Mr. Horn informed the board that he would like the following name reflected in the Resolution of approval: Le Chamonix Association Incorporated. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 S REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 Commissioner HatField asked if it is known what size the basements would be for those units that would have the potential to add them. He would like Glenn Horn to answer that. Mr. Horn directed Commissioner Hatfield to the draft of the Le Chamonix Association Incorporated Planned Unit Development Guide, page 3, item I. Expansion of Dwelling Units as shown in staff's packet material. It shows the square footage of the units that have a crawl space that could be expanded to a basement space. Mr. Horn explained that the main reason they have a PUD Guide is so that there's only one document that you can go to. Mr. Horn explained that there could be other expansion that could take place outside the footprint of these structures, whether it be a deck or pushing out the front a little bit or going up. He discussed this with Rick Jones and they thought it would be great to come up with that plan, but they don't think it's going to happen right now with 12 different individuals as it is such a big task to get everyone to agree on something. Their current thinking is that that's probably going to occur, if at all, in the future as a PUD Amendment. It's not precluded, but it's not entitled by this proposal that they have. Mr. Horn addressed Commissioner Hatfield's question on solar panels. He said that it's a flat roof all the way across. He said if you have a strong feeling about solar panels it could be addressed in the PUD Guide because you can use that to make things more restrictive or to vary some of the requirements. AMENDMENT TO PUD DEVELOPMENT GUIDE RE: MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA - Mr. Horn noted an error he made on page 9 of the PUD Development Guide. It deals with Item G, Maximum Floor Area. He said that units 2 through 12 are each going to be 2,855 square feet maximum floor area. But, unit 1 and unit 12 are already over that. In Attachment 6 of the application was the first draft of the PUD Guide and in recreating the second draft he forgot to carry over the floor area limitations for unit 1 and unit 12 which are a little different to reflect the existing size. Unit 1 is actually 3,174 for living space and 379 square feet for the garage. Unit 12 is actually 2,855 for living space and 461 square feet for the garage. He would like that to be incorporated in the PUD Guide as the limitation for units 1 and 12 as they are different from units 2 through 11 (from the origin). A discussion started on solar panel use. Commissioner Richards said that she doesn`t see creating a separate or different solar ordinance or sub-section of the solar ordinance. She doesn't know if staff feels our current solar ordinance is inadequate in some way in terms of single family homes versus residential multi-family. She doesn't know if the existing ordinance is silent on this matter or not of a multi-family versus single family. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 REGULAR MEETING OCTbBER 24,2012 Mr. Kraemer informed Commissioner Richards that there is no distinction between single family and multi-family in the solar code. But, he added, staff would treat it as the same standards that apply to a single family residence. If you go over 400 square feet you're going to do the noticing and have the review. If not, then it will go through the building permit process. NOTE: Mr. Horn suggested putting a section in their PUD Guide that states, if solar panels are installed there will be a plan for the entire condominium complex. It won't be on a unit by unit basis so there would be a full plat for the condominiums. Commissioner Hatfield said that would work for him as this is multi-family and it's different than any of the challenges that we've seen in single family. Why not have a plan and the PUD Guide doesn't reflect on changing the Code? Commissioner Richards is not at all comfortable with that approach. She said that she thinks the State legislature passed laws that homeowner associations cannot ban solar panels within communities as so many neighborhoods were saying, no, not us, we don't want those. It was an inhibitor to solar energy development. Chairman Owsley said that he thinks the environmental surroundings cancel out solar panel uses being of any benefit there. Chairman Owsley asked Chris Seldin about the Affordable Housing Impact Fees as shown on page 2 of staff's memorandum. He said that it shows a difference for local and second homes. He asked if that wasn't a violation of equal protection to have a different fee structure based on where you live. Mr. Seldin said no. This is consistent with the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Ordinance which is codified in the Land Use Code. And that Ordinance, in our opinion he said, is constitutional. Commissioner Richards moved to approve the Resolution Granting Conceptual Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Approval for Le Chamonix Multi- Family Housing Complex, Units 1 through 12. (NOTE: Includes Administrative correction to the PUD Guide, Item G. Maximum Floor Area for Unit 1 and Unit 12 as shown above in minutes AND Administrative correction, if needed, to show A/K/A Le Chamonix Association Incorporated based on remarks from Chris Seldin). Commissioner Newman seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, Hatfield, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. Commissioner Richards moved to approve the Ordinance Amending Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, specifically the 2006 Land Use Code for Land Use Code Text Amendments. Commissioner Newman seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, Hatfield, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 Commissioner Newman moved to approve the Ordinance Rezoning the Le Chamonix Multi-Family Housing Complex, Units 1 through 12, from AR-10 to RMF. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ittner not Commissioners Owsley, HatField, Richards and Newman voting aye and present. BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION: There was no open discussion. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Richards moved to enter Executive Session at 4:40 PM for discussion of personnel matters pursuant to CRS 24-6-402 4f. Commissioner Newman seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Owsley, Hatfield, Richards and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Ittner not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 18 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 Respectfully submitted, e . De n lerk o the Bo rd of County Commissioners ; -�� � � Je ette Jones � CI k to the Board of unty Commissioners � ichael M. Owsley Chair of the Board of County Com ssioners g\bocc\m i n utes�2012\reg\10242012 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 19 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 .�,�F.�.��,�.��.,�,k„��_, , . John Ely County Attorney The above igned attorney, representing the Board of County Commissioners and being present at the Executive Session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-client communication. g\bocc\m inutes\2012\reg\10242012 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 20 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24,2012 -- - - -...._.�,.,.,.�,_ ,,..,.,.� ��.&,PM..,.,�.�,.�.