Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.02212002 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2002 Location: Plaza One Conference Room 1:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING Land Use Code Revisions 4:00 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED JUNE 12, 2002 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE REVISIONS FEBRUARY 21, 2002 NOTE: ALL STAFF MEMORANDUMS,LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RELATED EXHIBITS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED LAND USE CODE REVISIONS FOR 2002 ARE COMPILED AT END OF THE LAST MEETING WHICH WAS HELD ON APRIL 23, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Clapper called a special meeting of the Board of County commissioners to order at 1:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Clapper, Shellie Roy, Dorothea Farris, Jack Hatfield and Mick Ireland (entered meeting late) Chairperson Clapper said that rather than trying to make any decisions as a board without Mick (Ireland) being here, we are going to go through some of the comments that the board has been hoping to make and has not had the opportunity to make. And, discuss them over certain issues and concepts that each individual board member may have. Commissioner Farris has some specific comments that she wants to address as far as the RC zone and agricultural uses and agricultural lands. Agricultural shall be hereafter referred to as AG. Chairperson Clapper said that this is not technically a public meeting. It is a time for the board to be able to discuss among themselves in order to get a feeling for where the individual board members are going, the board as a whole and so that the public can hear those same comments. And, that's where we're going to head, said Commissioner Clapper. That doesn't mean that we may absolutely not open it up to any comment at the end if we have time, but the plan right now is just for board discussion. Commissioner Farris said that we have not, contrary to a lot of things I've heard had conversations among ourselves. And, I really see this as a great opportunity. And, this is based on review of the entire document discussions we've had and what we've heard. And, I do see this, very much, as an opportunity for the board to have a board meeting in public rather than a public meeting because we have not had that opportunity. The most recent comments I want to make and they are just comments so that you guys know where some of my thoughts are regarding this. I am not saying this is my decision about anything,just comments. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 Agricultural structures. If producing agricultural land is being used as a ranch and needs an AG building I don't have a problem with the number and the height and the size. As we know, the size in here isn't big enough to store your hay and some of the machines that they are building today. And I think the ranchers know that better than we do and I don't have a problem with a big barn. We travel around the country and look at the big barns in the Midwest because they're so wonderful to look at. And yet, we say you can't do it. That it has to be one little building. I don't have a problem. I'm talking about truly agriculturally productive land. Housing, as well. If someone works on that ranch I don't have a problem with the housing. I think the size of the house is something we're going to discuss. And, I don't think that every employee needs a 15,000 square foot house or even a 5,750 square foot house. I have serious problems with that. Talking about size...it has nothing to do with shingles so I probably can't talk about my shingle issue right now. Except that it's a land use issue. You can get aluminum or metal shingles that look like shake shingles. Shake shingles, even treated, most firemen do not like because their training tells them that they still harbor the embers, transfer the embers and will be the last house you try to save because it is going to go. We talked about employee housing and children of the owner of the ranch and I have no problem with either of those issues. We also have a long letter on our email with regard to many of the issues that were raised and this has to do with a communication from Bill Fales. I think there are some serious questions and I think that Jack (Hatfield) has mentioned them about the land trust issues. And, I'm not even going to go into that right now. I think the issue he brought up about the ranch, which is next to the urban area and in Carbondale's Master Plan is very true. And, I think we need to look at that property which is four miles from downtown Carbondale in a different way from more remote land. As far as AG buildings, a comment was made about office space. I don't even remember reading in there about you can't have office space in an AG building. Of course you should be able to have office space in an AG building. People work in there and I've seen some pretty nice horse barns with hot and cold running water and office space and they're still used as horse barns. Employee dwelling units, again, housing your own employees has been a policy we've adhered to and I think we want to adhere to it there. And animal production such as buffalo, bison, llamas. I don't want to identify that you can have pigs, but not horses or cows but not something else. I think that's something that can easily be cleared up. As far as the number of horses that can be on a ranch, the carrying capacity was the term that's raised by him. And, obviously the kind of land you're talking about is if it's a cliff then the carrying capacity is a little different from the carrying capacity of good horse land. It needs to be related to carrying capacity rather than the size of the acreage of the parcel. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 As far as land clearing, he comments that in order to do what you do on AG land sometimes you're doing some land clearing work for your AG production. And, if it's related to that and can be shown that it's related to that, it is part of what they do. Again, the height of the building...people aren't going to build buildings higher than they really need. If they're truly working in agriculture they're going to be building buildings that meet their needs. In terms of a plan for the entire site, I think what you need is a plan that designates. We're talking about a percentage of the land that's designated for development. And, maybe you could identify the development area or areas that will be used rather than exactly what will be put there as long as it is within the housing for employees or children rather than a comprehensive plan that requires a land use planner to work with them. TDRs (transferable development rights) on site I really want to hear arguments for and against that. TDRs on site don't offend me but they might depending on how they're used. I want a serious discussion about the TDRs on and off site and how many acres for a TDR. In the first draft, wasn't 70-acres what was recommended for a TDR in the AG plan as it was first presented to us? Commissioner Roy and another unknown speaker responded to Commissioner Farris' question by saying one for thirty-five. Commissioner Farris resumed her statements by saying that on the abatement issue she agrees that if somebody buys a 5,000 square foot house and replaces the house, he has replaced what he had. If I buy a house somewhere and it's a 4,000 square foot house and the zoning has changed to 2,000 I could still replace and stay within the footprint and the building envelope. So those were my issues. Commissioner Hatfield began his comments. He said we're here today to basically look at the RC zone and I have, in the past, complimented staff on the fact that they brought something to us to chew on and, even though to a degree some of it is revolutionary in its thinking, it gave us a starting point. And, I think that's important. We've had numerous public comments in about three meetings. I've actually begun trying to go around the county and to different properties. And, I would appreciate anyone who wants me to go on their property to give me a call at 923- 4680 and we'll schedule something. Being on the land helps me reinforce some of the things that I know and I've also learned some new things so it's a good process. If we look at the structure of what we have in the RC zone and then throughout the whole series of zoning and the concept of the zoning and the philosophy behind it, goes from rural to semi- rural to semi-urban to urban, intensity, in density, on the use of the land. I've looked at RC as currently proposed as a RC with an A and B factor in it. I'm somewhat comfortable with that structure, not necessarily the content, but the structure. I like that philosophy of the rural to the urban. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 But, I am of the opinion, and I have heard property owners loud and clear, that the more flexibility that we integrate into this zoning the better it is going to be for both property owners and, I think, for the whole community because of what I call a sense of working with the people, respecting what they've done or not done with their land, meaning sold out and developed it, etc. So, I have actually come full circle and I support RC "A", as proposed with some tweaking, RC "B", which was the next step up with more square footage, etc. And then, what I'm calling RC "C"program which is, to a large degree, would be based on a lot of the thinking that the AG committee proposed. And, this is a dramatic step for me to have gone this far. But, I think it is important to have another option because options are going to make this thing work, I think, for the long term. I will tell you what I have not been able to get a grip on and I'm hoping, through this process and working with the board, the staff, and continuing to work with the public, we can evolve some of this and make some decisions. But, house size, whether the cap is 5,750 or larger, I don't know yet. I'll admit that. With TDRs I support the concept, but I don't want to create TDRs without value. So, I'm going back and forth about where TDRs land. We have proposed many receiving sites, but I think a good argument has been made about using TDRs on your own land. But, the house size issue is really necessary to get your hands around that and chew on that first, and then we'll understand how to use TDRs. And, what their value is I have a question about TDRs. Is it the 5,000/2500 we have now, is it all 2500? Members of the Planning Commission and the Crystal River Caucus Task Force working on their Comp Plan are talking about weighted TDRs, I think, or at least prioritizing I guess, is what I'm trying to say here. As to different lands would have different priorities. And, I don't know how that works with TDRs and I really don't know what the square footage value is yet. I think we need a huge amount of discussion about the issue of non-conformities and what that means. Somewhat consistent with that, because I understand if we looked at our proposed zoning now, we have how we deal with subdivision, many subdivisions become non-conforming. And, I need a lot more education and discussion on how to deal with that. And, I would like an answer, at sometime from staff, to the question that I'd like to pose. The question is, is it possible, if we have existing subdivisions already approved, platted, all of that, to leave them as they are zoned? Or, is that really too inconsistent with what we're doing? I just really need a lot of work on that one. Then I'll go to the things that I've been able to land a little bit more securely on in knowing where my direction is. First of all,the map is a draft and we need to understand that. Because when you go look at the land and the existing uses around it, it is clear that we need some adjustments. On abatement, there's no way that I'm going to, as a single commissioner, approve tearing down someone's house and all of that. Also, the issue that we have some language in our proposed code about special review if you increase the use, etc. That's something that I hardly want to go to unless it's so dramatic a change of use that, well maybe that would require a rezoning or BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 something. But, I'm not about to be looking over peoples' shoulder because they happened to increase a little bit of their use or whatever, mostly consistent with what they're doing. The subdivisions, existing ones. That one I'm inclined to believe that if it's not illegal or something that I'm hearing...subdivisions might just keep a lot of how their existing approvals exist and that's it. Now you're not going to hear Jack say get rid of 1041. 1 believe in 1041. With AG buildings, I don't agree with the idea of even that RC might, what I call "A" its' AG buildings are included in the square footage. I think AG buildings, historically, have been pretty exempt in this community from development rights. And, I'm real flexible about AG buildings and heights and all those things that have to do with who knows the land and who's going to work the land. Truly AG. Conservation easements, as proposed, we were going to require them as if you moved to another category the RC "A"to "B"or whatever. I cannot support requiring conservation easements to be locked up because you did something with ??(2540). That's completely a property owner's option. And, we understand all those benefits with tax. If, in fact, the individual has enough income to use a conservation for a tax write-off. I would like to integrate within the work we're doing, a lot of flexibility about family and employee housing on these true AG properties. And, I'm really addressing AG properties here. Not the guy that happens to have 40-acres of open space and doesn't do anything. I'm really talking about AG properties. On the real AG properties, I think it's important to understand that our philosophy here and our goal is to keep these in operation, keep these as having the same integrity of use that they have now, we ought to do some things to encourage that and some incentives to make it work for people who are working the land. The issue of what we've called clustering I am actually getting away from that wording, clustering. As proposed, it was hugely limiting and I don't like the term. I would like to incorporate because clustering really talks about siting and future development on properties. You ought to have a lot of understanding of who knows the land the best, where they'd like to put something. We'll have to deal with that but 150 feet from another home doesn't work too well for me. And, lastly, 1041. I truly believe in it and we have to figure out a way to have it work with whatever kind of zoning we're doing because there are sensitive lands and there are dangerous areas like avalanche, mud flow, etc. All this is important and I don't want us to give up the ability to look at sensitive areas of the land in the county. That's enough for the moment. Commissioner Roy proceeded next with her comments. This has been an interesting process. What I think that people have failed to understand, and I've failed to understand this for awhile and that's why I'm stating this, is because of the moratorium and everything that came out of the moratorium two years ago, all of the ranchers have basically been caught in a growth management plan. Which, in the Crystal River I believe, allows 17,000 square feet a year. That BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 is the maximum development that could have happened all along these ranch lands. I know that 1, personally, and the board as well if I recall, said that that is not what we want to do. We want to get into the AG plan and we want to fold it in. And why I'm stating that is that when I was first talking to some of you I was thinking the situation is easy. We just move you into R35 and you get out of this RC. But, what I realized by doing that is that we would put you back into growth management. And for the size of lands that we are talking about, that would have been a very interesting exercise. Let's see maybe Roz's great-grandchildren might have gotten enough to develop their land. So, I do want us to continue trying to figure out a manner in which we develop an exemption from growth management. And, along the way, basically what we're doing is we're looking for subdivision applications that meet the philosophy and criteria that we've all been talking about in the AG plan. And, Jack, you just expressed it very well. What happened when we were trying to work on the details, we all got caught on this and that isn't fair. Where my thoughts are on how to make this work, because I do want to create this exemption and the reason I want to is the same reason I've said before. The best plans for development of agricultural plans in the eight years, when you're counting P&Z time, have been those that were initiated by the ranchers versus those where the ranch was sold to a developer and the developer came to us. The ranch applications have definitely shown more sensitivity to what we're trying to get to than the developer application. Going back to the list here, I want some specifics and Dorothea has outlined most of them. The height, the housing, but I would also like to delete the prohibition on the feed lot. And, the reason for that is you get into a gray area as to what is a feed lot according to Bill's memo. And, the reality is that financially there would be absolutely no incentive at all to develop a feed lot in Pitkin County. We don't have the transportation, we don't have the land, it's not going to happen here. It's just not going to happen so why get everybody half-hysterical by the definition of feed lot when you're not going to have any. I agree with Dorothea that the horse number needs to be related to the carrying capacity. I also would like us to look at moving from the current prohibition of land clearing or land manipulation to instead designating habitat or plant type that we want to preserve. And it has to be permitted before it is mowed over or cropped or anything done to it. My logic on that is it is rather absurd when you go and look at some of the sites we've experienced where a person is not allowed to manipulate a weed infested irrigation pasture that hasn't been utilized in years. On the other hand, we all are very aware that the clearing of sage may, perhaps, not be in the best interest of the wildlife here. So, instead of getting away from prohibition get to a positive. This is what we're trying to preserve and having those areas delineated or marked off. Those are the areas that have to have a permit before anything is done. Because I don't want, as a board, sitting here deciding whether Bill can change from cotton to soy beans. I just don't want to be there. And, I would like to get a focus on why we would not want that move or whether we would under certain circumstances. And, be more focused on what we're trying to preserve with this prohibition versus a blanket prohibition. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 I do want to look at the 500-acres and putting it back in as an exemption. And, the reason for this is that the input that I've received from the development community, the caucuses, and the neighborhood groups indicate that 15,000 may not be what anyone really wants. The buyers will tend to protect value and build that. So, I think that the twenty-year vesting is imperative that we keep in this because twenty-year vesting gives people the assurance that their value will be protected. And, that the outcome of that will be that they build what they need. So, I'm not afraid of that 15,000 as long as it's tied to a proper vesting. Also, I would like to explore the idea of if you have a 500-acre ranch and you get 15,000 residential allocated with that, as it is currently in the Code, I would like to explore how we can use that 15,000 in multiple structures. So, that you could have maybe two ranch houses, two houses for your kids, one main house in a 500-acre exemption. Under the European model you had to go only to the (??2913-I swear she's saying Elvis o that the lands weren't broken up into small parcels. But, how they handled that was there were multiple houses on the site to accommodate the existing family. So, Mom moves out of the big house and the son takes over the ranch and there will be a couple of cousins or daughters or somebody living on the ranch but it does not force the farm to be broken into segments. Now, the down side to that is the State Condominiumization Law. So,part of what would have to be in designing for this exemption is that if you chose to use your 15,000 into multiple structures you would have to have a deed restriction attached to them. There would be no further subdivision of those individual structures. But, they will be tied to that parcel to meet the needs of the family or whoever owns that parcel. It may not matter if the house itself, one house is in Jack's name and one house is in Dorothea's, but the land itself that it sits on cannot be further subdivided. Part of what made me think about this is one of the problems with the 500 exemption was the incapability of the 15,000 square foot house. But, farms and ranches for centuries have had multiple small homes or smaller homes. So, to take the 15,000 and divide it up into four, five or six structures would give us back the small place we're looking for. I'd like to play with that if you guys are amenable. But, rather than us deciding, the family sits on 15,000 square feet so when the son goes off to law school and decides he'd rather be a rancher and comes home, Mom and Dad say hey, I've got an extra 2500 square feet here. No problem, we'll build you and your kids a home. We're glad you came back. In other words, it's not going to be designed today. Another one is, and Jack and Dorothea both touched it, is the map. I definitely want to look at compatibility conformance and conformance to the adjoining neighborhoods and the development going on there. The other thing I'm looking for are carrots to build employee local housing versus more retired second homeowner housing. And again, we might want to play around with the idea that a 5,750 is the development right on the first TDR, first development, the first 35-acres, 70, whatever we come up with. But, again, would we want to look at the possibility of people breaking that into two houses if they're on 35-acres or 60, or whatever. And again, what we might do is allow that second house if one of them is resident occupied deed restricted and the other is a free market as a motivation for again, multiple structures. What I was thinking about that was that it would address the Caucuses concern about a large house. We'll get the houses smaller and, if we tie it to some sort of deed restriction on who lives there, we might end up with more affordable local housing than what we were going to. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 And, what that comes back to is just as I was so concerned when we were working on the moratorium, as we get to mandating this very large acreage we're going to have the effect that we've seen in the Aspen area. In that, you will only be able to have your wealthier person buying it. That the less land you have the more the price is going to go up. And, I want to do this because I do want to preserve the world look. I'd love to get to the 70 and 100-acres. But, we have to understand that if we go that direction, we are closing the door to anybody who works here actually buying 70 or 100-acres. We used to have an outlet for professionals to buy down valley when they couldn't buy up here anymore. By taking those parcels from being two and four and ten and making them 35 and 60s and 100s, we are slamming the door. So, one of the things I'd like to play around with here is as we figure out how to preserve the rural entity with the larger parcels, how do we motivate that there will still be something affordable on that parcel. And, one of the things I'm thinking about is if someone wants to build a second home on their 60-acres and they're going to build it as an RO, would we give them an additional square footage? Do we even want to play around with something there as we go in this direction? Do we want to look at somehow incentivizing (sic) on these larger parcels the ability to create a second resident occupied house, such as Dorothea has on her property. And, one is deed restricted with the county. Do we want to look at trying to build that in and look at some incentives? And then, again, I'm talking about the siting, the clustering. I think we've given that one up. Absolutely agree that TDRs generated in the RC zone are occurring because of lowering density and intensity. If the net effect is going to remain under RC we are downzoning from what exists today. We are ahead with RC even if a TDR is used on a ranch where it is generated. I absolutely feel we have to - - and any doubts I had were extinguished when Dwight and Barbara stood up for Woody Creek and said we don't want TDRs here. I think that the TDR is going to be just too squirrelly (sic) if we're relying on them being moved always out of the RC. Depending on where we land in the RC, whether it be 100-acres or 70-acres or some other manipulation, that amount, exempt from GMQS, would come with the 5,750. If they had other acreage and they wanted to - - say instead of going to 500 they wanted to - - let me just make up numbers so you'll understand. Say we just landed 100. That's a nice round number. And the person owns 250-acres but they really don't want to subdivide it. What they could do is they get their 5,750 for their 100-acre and then for every 35-acres they get 2500 square feet additional. So that person could have another four or five 2500 square feet that they could put into small structures on the 250, if they want. They could then put a couple of these extras in their little pool or sell them to a neighbor who wanted to have a bigger house or something that didn't have the 250-acres. I'm still having a little trouble with the complete prohibition of AH (affordable housing) outside of the UGB (urban growth boundary). Commissioner Roy was informed by Marcella Larsen Chilson that there is not an AH prohibition outside the UGB. There is just not an AH zone. You could build affordable housing outside the UGB as long as it conforms to the density of the underlying zoning. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 Chairperson Clapper began her comments. One of the themes that I've heard throughout the meetings and even from the board, without the board actually referencing, is kind of an individual property development plan with some parameters and some basic criteria under which to create those plans. Like you said, Shellie, about this parcel, the Danciger parcel, that I wasn't privy to because I wasn't on P&Z or the board at that time, worked. Because people know their own pieces of land and they know kind of where they want the direction they want to go in the future. And, I think that that deserves a lot of merit and a lot of- - maybe we really need to look into that. But, in doing so we need to set some parameters and some criteria under which to provide for site specific development plans. And, I would like to do them outside of lawsuits because I think that's better for the general public and for everybody involved. I do support the kind of revisiting the 500-acre subdivision. And, with that, the more specific a development plan or proposal, the greater the vesting opportunity. If you come in with really specific on house size, etc. etc., then you have done your work and we will reward that with long term vesting. I think it only makes sense. It's worked on the Stein parcel really well, which Sunny Vann did. And, the more specific it gets every time he comes back in the longer the long term vesting is. I agree on the AG building issues. I think we need to look at - - I'm not very tall and I can fit into a twenty-foot height building but I probably couldn't fit in on a tractor. So, I think we really need to look at that. And, the number of AG structures and I think we need to look at maybe some criteria for capping the total amount of square footage, depending upon the acreage. Same thing with the horses and I don't even know much about horses. But, I don't think we can differentiate with horses to cows to - -. And that gets to the discussion we had the other day with the very intelligent young man from Rocky Mountain Institute about the grazing capacity on lands and how X percent of grazing and rotation is very beneficial to not only the land but the forage. We've had some comments from people about not so much the owners of the property down there but the people who live in the communities down there about compensating the ranch owners and the big land owners down valley, specifically down valley, mid-valley, for maintaining the land and the AG uses over the years. You know, having a county fund. We already have a great, county open space fund, but it has its limits. And, that might be a potential use for us in the future with percentage of a real estate transfer tax because of the developments that are going on outside the city limits and in the county. And, make it specifically tied to those lands that are generating that revenue. That's a possibility for us. We've been talking about a real estate transfer tax for many years in Pitkin County. We're hoping to bring it to fruition here pretty soon. There are some possibilities that are up to the voters and to tie it to another property tax may be tough. But, there are some avenues in which we could pursue that and I don't know how we would actually utilize that fund. Commissioner Hatfield added that we have been accused in this proposed rezoning of essentially looking at a way to preserve open space. I had one of the families I met with propose an idea that I hadn't thought about and I'll share that. Kind of a view plane tax as it were. Probably BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 that's legal. It would be like an open space tax and ??upon that whole acreage ?? we could create something, and this is a totally unthought of idea, in depth, but we could create something where we could share some monies around the county to help people keep their land open, separate of open space, now. That's a completely different program. Chairperson Clapper said that's why I mentioned the RETT (real estate transfer tax). Chairperson Clapper continued by saying on abatement issues, I believe if your house burns down and you have X amount of square feet you can build it and you look at the issue of maybe if your house burned down and it was not in a good spot because it was in a flood plane or a rock fall, then we can look back at rearranging the footprint. Change of use, as far as under Jack's issues of abatement, somebody has an existing activity on AG lands, or anywhere in the county actually, I think there's some existing uses that we know now that are illegal or not legally approved or allowed within their zones. And, I think we need to look at those separate. I can think of a couple just driving down Lower River Road that I know shouldn't be there. I already addressed AG buildings. Employee housing for employees on ranch lands, AG employees, I think we need to look at house size and number of units to be provided based on number of employees that need to be housed. With Stutzmans what they did on their property to provide for housing for their kids, they didn't like some of the terms under which they had to do it which I think we can learn from. They want to be able to give it to their own children. That's what I've heard. And, I can support that. As far as the conservation easements, that would be another requirement, Jack. We still need to have some way when you allow for a development and preservation a way of maintaining that preservation of those lands for AG uses or something. I'm not sure conservation easements may be the right vehicle, but one of the reasons we even bought - - we have some parcels that we bought as open space and we put a conservation over that is because of the peoples' fear of what's going to happen somewhere down the line of people coming back in and adding further subdivision and why did we go through this brain damage now when it can all be changed. Commissioner Hatfield asked Chairperson Clapper a question. If someone came in and did one of the options on the table that would be legally subdivided property. Chairperson Clapper added that it would be restricted against further development. Commissioner Hatfield responded yes. Of course, I guess you could always come in and apply for up zoning or something, but I haven't seen much history of that in the county. Chairperson Clapper responded by saying that I said restricted against further development. If you come in with a development proposal and it's approved, that part of that approval could be a restriction against further development. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 Commissioner Roy interjected by asking would we need the restriction against further development? Say someone came in and they wanted ten houses on their 800 acres. And, the way they designed it, we loved it because 95% of the acreage was held intact and all that. Would we need to require anything, because the approved subdivision would leave the land vacant? The only way they could build on that land later would be to come through the subdivision process again. And then if they, on their own, decided I can get a $3,000,000.00 write-off on my children's inheritance tax if I put a conservation easement on it, then they do that later. But, either way whether there's a development prohibition or not that land doesn't get developed without a subdivision process anyway that we would have input on. So, I don't know what we have to lose by requiring it at the time of subdivision. Chairperson Clapper said she is asking do we need a mechanism? Commissioner Hatfield said that I don't think so because subdivision accomplishes that. Of course, everyone has the right to come back in, but hey that's what the process is for. I don't want to create an overlay restriction unnecessarily. Chairperson Clapper continued by saying and that goes back to what I said about open space and when people in the community were concerned about a specific open space parcel that they wanted to double insure because of mistrust. That's a sad scenario but that's where we are on a lot of issues. Commissioner Roy said it ties back to something that I've always had discomfort with. I'm very comfortable in 2002 deciding that we're going to sterilize 1000 acres or whatever, make up whatever number you want, but I don't know that we have the right to determine in 2002 that in 2090 nobody can use that land for anything. So, to me this would be a consistent way. We develop today on what's appropriate with our goals and ambitions and viewpoint today and four generations from now if they feel it's appropriate to add some more homes on that land, then fine. But, it would be a decision made in light of what the community character was at that time rather than one made by people who had died several hundreds of years before. Commissioner Farris said I'm going to challenge your comment that you can't do anything with that land that you can't do anything with. The point is you're protecting agricultural production of that land so it's not preserving it from doing anything with. Big difference, otherwise I wouldn't care about protecting it. Commissioner Roy said oh, I see what you're saying. Correct. I hear you totally. Chairperson Clapper went on to say Jack, you mentioned incentives to keep AG uses. Is that what you meant? Like some way to incentivize the actual AG activities. Commissioner Hatfield answered the life style, the character, and the use of the land. I'm using my proposed RCC, the AG program, as really providing over and above. And, that's the most dramatic thing that I think that I've shared with everyone is that I'm willing to go to that type of incentive program to try to do something for preserving the land, as is. Getting away from this constant getting beat up as a board about value. If we give an option, because I'm certainly BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 willing to rezone as we're talking about. But, we have a really dramatic option that gives a lot of incentive and advantage to these properties, real AG properties. I think it's a heck of a positive step forward in meeting the needs of the land and what we're trying to do. Chairperson Clapper said yes, it's a great benefit for everybody. But, your thought process on this RCC zone would be to provide incentives and specifics based on specific AG use of the land that has been well documented. Chairperson Clapper continued her comments by remarking on clustering. As I said at one meeting, I think clustering is those chocolate candies you get with peanuts and caramel. And, I would know about chocolate. I think we really need to site specifically look at what clustering would mean. We need a lot more flexibility on that. I'm trying to go through the comments I've heard from previous - -. The land clearing and feed lot issue, I think, need some more specifics. Proposed zoning maps, she said, we have all recognized that there are some issues of properties that have been doubled, you know, that have two zonings over them. Some may work and may work for the landowner. Some of them are in areas that different zoning makes more sense. I think we have been open to looking at the specifics of that map and that's part of why we've had a draft map drawn up. So we could look at the picture and then come back in and create more zoning issues that make more sense. The use of TDRs. I think that there are some applications for TDRs on site. I think the issues we need to look at for TDRs are receiver sites. We need to have some identified receiver sites work with the jurisdictions. I know we're trying to do a process with Basalt. We did mention it with the City of Aspen who did not seem real receptive but maybe if we work with the Town of Basalt - - . The starting point with Basalt, because we have this funding with Northwest Council of Governments to try and come up with something, may help us then to go back to the other jurisdictions and say - - I don't think it's fair to say we're going to give you all these TDRs, but you have no place to use them. I think we need to really identify. And, I think there's probably going to end up being some kind of mix on what can be used on site and where TDRs can be transferred off site which will be based on your acreage and your need for what makes sense to keep on your property and what makes sense for you. And that comes to a site specific development plan. I think we need to look at the worth of the TDR and be consistent. And, when you get a TDR certificate it states on there that this is what the worth is and that is how it stays. And, I think that is fair. On house sizes, I think Shellie's point about - - I think people have - - it's difficult to just tell somebody this is what you need to live in and this is how you're going to live in it. I think you need to provide options and incentives to do things that make sense for the land, for the natural resources, for the character of your neighborhood and for the long-term impacts. One of the things I think we learned from Braun Ranch was the driveway. When we looked at where they were going to find the final development everything looked good until we looked at an overhead view. And, everybody had these massive driveways cut through with their own gated entrance and it just totally bisected, dissected and trisected the land. And, I think that's something that we BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 need to always take into consideration and think when we're trying to work out plans that make sense. We need to look at the whole property. I think there's got to be some limits. Like Jack said, you could have 5,750 if you let everybody have 1500 square feet or 1000 square feet we'd be looking at a lot of development on one parcel. But, again it comes down to site specific and what works on the land and where that land is located. And, I know that's hard for staff. But I think if we can get to the basic criteria parameters then we can do things like - - my concern with this plan is what is our long-term end result the way some of the things are drafted? Especially, with the clustering. Where you're going to end up with really, excuse my language, but crappy looking subdivisions scattered all over. When if we worked site specifically we could come up with developments that worked for the neighborhood and for the landowners and for where the countywide goals are going. I think we need to create that avenue of flexibility but I also think that we need to have an incentive for people to initiate this process of site-specific development. I think the landowners need to take some responsibility. It's got to be reciprocal here and it would make things flow a little easier if people would come in and say this is what would work on my property, specifically. How do we get there? I wish I could be more specific, for staff, and say this is the exact criteria I'm looking at. I'm still in that thought process. That's why 1 depend on input from the community and from staff in helping us get to those guidelines. Commissioner Farris reminded everyone that what comes to mind here when we're talking about sizes is as if we just picked a number out of a hat. I think we all need to remember why we came to 5750. It was the 3000 or 3500 were the impacts to the community where everyone in the community begins to pay taxes to support the impacts. Sometimes, in the West End or on the boulevard in Redstone, it is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. It has destroyed what used to be small cabins or small homes that became larger homes became massive homes. I think we need to consider scale so that just the size isn't it. Chairperson Clapper said that I know there's a lot of public comment out there so I had Bill write down his points so I have it in writing and if we have a chance, we can come back to these. I think this is very beneficial for the board just to have this opportunity. I think we're all hearing a lot of stuff. I think it's very positive. I think we're going to come to some very fair terms of agreement amongst the board. The board took a short break at this time. Commissioner Ireland entered the meeting at this time. Commissioner Ireland had just returned from a CDOT meeting in Denver. Chairperson Clapper gave him notes of what had already been discussed by the board today so he could now proceed with his own comments. He began by saying that we need to make some tentative decisions and move ahead, I think, with at least something that could be passed at first reading. So, I guess the thing to do is to go BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 through the memorandum that presents a lot of these alternatives and see if we want to decide on those issues. Commissioner Hatfield said it was unfortunate that Commissioner Ireland wasn't here to listen to the other board members' comments. He said we didn't have any discussion and gain direction. We made comments and asked questions and went back and forth. But, he said, he would infer, by the comments we've made, that there is a lot more flexibility - - here's how I'll put it. There's been an evolution of what has been proposed, to a degree. One of the main questions that we haven't really attacked is the structure of how we're going to go down the road. 1, personally, have said that I like what we've proposed, but we also need to amend it. Commissioner Farris said that if we go through the issues in here, a lot of this addresses the issues we all were talking about. I think that it's written in such a way that it's applicable to the Code and I think that it would give staff some direction on how to change it. I don't think it's different from the conversations we've had. Commissioner Hatfield asked Commissioner Farris, do you mean the original proposal - - that original proposal - - the revised proposal? Commissioner Farris responded by saying the memorandum. Chairperson Clapper clarified it by saying February 12`h. If Mick had not returned, she said, my next phase would be to say to staff on this issue this is what we're looking at like with Jack's suggestion of the RCC zone, the A, B, and C plan. So we could give staff some specific direction as far as what our last hour and one-half of conversation was. I think that helps tie it to some format. Commissioner Hatfield would rather start with the original document rather than the February 121h memorandum. Commissioner Ireland reminded him that the original document does not include the alternatives. Commissioner Roy said that I have the same kind of difficulty in that I'm having to sort through the thought process of the alternatives versus and then try to adapt what my own thought processes have been to the alternatives. It would be easier to take, for me at least, the original document and say I don't agree with this and I agree with that. I'll go along with it. Commissioner Ireland said you can always propose something that is not in the memorandum. It seems to me that we have to start with a fundamental discussion from which other things will be derived. Chairperson Clapper said so we can start with the memo and then if there are other issues we can go back to the actual proposals proposed. The board began with the February 12th memorandum. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 Commissioner Ireland said that although this lays things out, it seems to me that it doesn't lay them out in a logical order by which you ought to proceed. It seems to me that you need to decide some things at the outset concerning very large houses and then decide what you're going to do from there. If you're going to allow very large houses, under certain circumstances or what, if you're going to do that then it seems to me that you have decided something about character, what you're doing about character, and your other decisions will flow from that more naturally. Chairperson Clapper said that in line with that that determining what was originally proposed about very large houses being in areas say in the Starwood area, areas where the infrastructure is already in place. Commissioner Ireland said we're talking RC but we have to decide, at the outset, whether or not there are circumstances under which you're going to permit very large houses outside of developed areas. And, once you make that decision, then it really sets up the logic for other decisions. Commissioner Roy said that a conversation we were just having was perhaps the question is not very large houses, but square footage tied to a parcel of land and how that square footage might be allocated. Assuming someone has 500 acres and under the current Code they have 15000 tied to that with a growth management exemption. But, not assuming that the 15000 would be a single structure. But, in fact, the 15000 is an amount of square footage that goes with that parcel that can be broken up into smaller structures. Is the underlying question how big we want the house or is the underlying question to motivate allocations of square footage that are tied to land and to allow that square footage to be broken up or mutated in other than one single structure? Commissioner Ireland said that I think it really comes down to, Shellie, whether or not you're going to create circumstances under which there are houses there over 5750 in undeveloped areas. If you're going to do that, then you're really not talking about a character based Code, you're talking about an impact-based theory. That's how I see it. Do you want to do that conditionally or do you not want to do that at all? Commissioner Roy responded by saying yes, I want to do it conditionally. Commissioner Ireland said okay, then that's the discussion that we have to have. If majority of the board wants to do that under certain circumstances then we have to lay out the circumstances under which you permit. If the board doesn't, then we don't have to have that conversation. Are there circumstances under which a 15000 square foot house is appropriate or a bigger than 5750, let's start there, appropriate in the RC zone? That's one of the places where we have to start. Commissioner Hatfield responded by saying I agree with Mick. That is really a threshold question about what we're doing with this rezoning, the house size. Because, if we can determine that the direction was house size above 5750 was going to be allowed, then we've BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 gotten away from the character issue, the issue of trying to preserve the land without continuing the culture of those large homes dotting the landscape, regardless of what the siting is. Chairperson Clapper said that going back to the 500-acre subdivision and the exemption for that, which I think is a different issue but still the same as far as the house size, that we would allow a 5750 only on a 500-acre subdivision or- - -. To me that's a big issue. Are we going to want to even think about the 500-acre subdivision? Commissioner Ireland said that that's the very first question. Chairperson Clapper said I think there are circumstances that are appropriate for the 500-acre subdivision exemption. Commissioner Roy said what about larger than 5750? Chairperson Clapper said with the potential for larger homes and I'm not quite sure I have an exact square footage or the uses of that exact square footage. Commissioner Ireland stated that Chairperson Clapper thinks there are circumstances under which larger than 5750 ought to be allowed in the RC zone to which she replied, yes. Chairperson Clapper added that if we go that way then we can work on the actual development of that 500-acres. Commissioner Hatfield said I don't like large homes, but there is an argument that they can exist under certain circumstances. So, I guess I'm going to follow the conversation and allow the discussion to go further on that. Commissioner Farris informed Commissioner Ireland about their earlier talk about 500-acres using TDRs from that 500-acres where you use four TDRs plus - - say a TDR for 100-acres. You use four TDRs and 100-acres, you site carefully a 15000 square foot house. I think it is offensive to the character, but I think there are places where it could be appropriate. Commissioner Ireland said I think I have a conscientious obligation to express opposition to large houses in those areas. I don't think that there is something wrong with large houses. Large houses are appropriate for some people and some occasions. Like affordable housing, and like auto manufacturing plants, X-rated topless bars and churches, they have appropriate locations. I think houses in excess of 5750 are not really residences. They're statements. And, I think those statements should be made in urban areas where, at least, the people of this community have an opportunity to minimize the fiscal impacts and the social impacts of an economic structure. The fact is right now you will be faced with large houses and you will be faced with explaining to the voters why somebody who built a house worth $10,000,000.00 is paying fewer property taxes than somebody who owns a mobile home. You'll have to explain that and I can't. I think it's unjust, unfair. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 So, I'm opposed to it, but I guess I'm in the minority and I guess the next issue is how big and under what circumstances. Chairperson Clapper said we did talk about allowing certain things based on the flexibility of three different RC zones possibly or two different RC zones. In that maybe there are some issues that where if you built X amount of square footage on a 500-acre and it didn't follow the criteria of an AG land, then you couldn't do it. Do you accept it was residential property? I don't know how much control we can have over the State with assessment, valuation, and classification. Commissioner Ireland said I was actually on the board when we opposed that on a few subdivisions. We actually limited commercial operations as opposed to ranching operations, commercial operations on small-subdivided parcels. Commissioner Roy said assuming 100-acres would probably receive an AG designation, would we not receive more in property taxes if they had a more valuable, larger house on it than we will The house is taxes differently than the land. Commissioner Ireland addressed that. The fact is the general property tax no levy of Pitkin County is about $284.00 on $1,000,000.00 in value. All the analysis that I've seen that's been done a couple of times is that you lose money on that development. You just don't pay for the service demands created by that residence. I simply don't agree that you come out ahead by doing residential subdivision. COMMISSIONER IRELAND ASKED THE QUESTION UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW IN EXCESS OF 5750 AND HOW LARGE? WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE SO-CALLED 500-ACRE SUBDIVISION AND GATHER THOUGHTS ON THAT AND SEE IF WE HAVE SOMEWHERE TO GO. Commissioner Roy said under the RC zone for 100-acres you could have 5750 square feet. If we had people break up their 500-acres into five 5750s you would end up with 28,750 square feet versus 15,000 square feet on 500-acres. I think what we want to do in the RC zone to be exempt from growth management is to establish a lot size, an acreage, to motivate people to go toward that acreage but still have a development tied to that. What we're trying to do is to get to a point where you don't go through growth management because through your subdivision application you have basically met a lot of the criteria and the goals that we're trying to achieve. Commissioner Ireland tried to restate Commissioner Roy's comments. You want to create 500- acre zoning allowing 15,000 square feet of development exempt from GMQS? Commissioner Roy said correct. Commissioner Farris said if you have a 500-acre site you're asking if we go from 5750 to the 15000 and you've used four TDRs from the other 400-acres. Of that 500 you have a site with a 15000 square foot house and the rest of the land is sterilized. I hate that term. But, you've used the TDRs off that land to increase the size of one house. I have a problem with what is the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 acreage under that house that is taxed as residential. How much is it? What amount of land under that is - - Commissioner Ireland answered that is State law, too. It's all taxed agriculturally. Not the structure, but the land. Local attorney, Herb Klein, interjected that the board was getting hung up on a point. He said if you require a house on a small lot that did not include agricultural uses that parcel with that house would not be tax exempt and would solve your problem. Commissioner Ireland repeated that the issue is 15000 square feet under 500-acres. Two people would make that exempt from GMQS. Commissioner Farris said she DID NOT say she was making it exempt from GMQS. She was using the TDRs for size. Growth management is pace, that's different. After further discussion, she said so, what you're saying is the first 100-acres is the exemption from GMQS and the others are for size? She and Chairperson Clapper would like this idea for thought discussion. But, then it's sterilized for future development. That's where I'm trying to get. Chairperson Clapper agreed with the sterilization for future development. Commissioner Hatfield said that you have 500-acres exempt from GMQS. And, of course no transporting of any TDRs from that 500-acres. There's no such thing as additional TDRs. You're using up all your 500-acres, all your development right and you can have square footage. Commissioner Ireland said from the board, then, is 15000 square feet and absolute cap? Commissioner Roy said I believe that we had discussed the ability to transfer TDRs out of the RC into an area like Starwood to go larger than 15,000. Commissioner Farris reiterated that you put two 500-acres together and you have 1000-acres exempt you can have a 30,000 square foot house. Put three of them together you can go to 45,000. Put four of them together and you can build another castle. One, if the rest is reserved. Commissioner Farris would have an absolute cap of 15000 within each 500-acres. All of those 500-acres would have to be under one-ownership. Chairperson Clapper said I could support that. Commissioner Ireland said that I am not in agreement with that. It may be profitable and it may even have fewer impacts on the community, but the message is there that we do things wherever,whenever, simply because there is money to be made. Commissioner Roy wanted to address Commissioner Ireland's concerns. Why we're do this, she said, is that we are attempting to preserve as much of the open AG land as we can for future BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 18 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 generations. Whether it be for agricultural or whether it be to bring back animal life back into the valley. Commissioner Ireland said it is not about open space to me. It is about character. Commissioner Ireland reiterated,with the majority of the board's agreement, that once you're eligible for this program, that's kind of the end of the road development-wise. Commissioner Hatfield asked the following. What if you had your 15000 square feet within a certain plot of development and you break that development into different size homes? Commissioner Ireland said I would not support that. Commissioner Roy asked if we could sterilize big chunks of land by granting the 15000 square feet tied to a 500-acre parcel, but also get to the character question by allowing that 15000? That's the max residential you get on that parcel. But then someone has that pool of 15000 to allocate in any manner they want. The max they get is 15000 but what we would get in return on 500-acres are structures that are in character. The "compound" would have to be confined within a certain development envelope rather than a sprawling de facto subdivision, but you could still preserve the 500-acres of open space with the small character homes. THE REST OF THE BOARD RESPONDED TO THIS QUESTION OF ALLOWING THOSE 15000 SQUARE FEET TO BE BROKEN UP INTO MULTIPLE STRUCTURES. Commissioner Ireland would not support that as he stated previously when Commissioner Hatfield asked that question. Chairperson Clapper said I think it needs to be looked at as far as some criteria on how it's broken up,what the uses are, and how it is located on the parcel. Commissioner Farris questioned whether this was under one-ownership of the parcel? Commissioner Hatfield said that you could have multiple homes in your"compound". You wouldn't be able to subdivide it up any further, but I think Commissioner Roy was talking about different ownership, not the same family or something. Commissioner Roy said no, I wanted the same family. Additional discussion continued on the one-ownership of the parcel question. Commissioner Hatfield said that the one question when I said I wanted flexibility for the current real AG properties, about employees and family units, was how do we handle that square footage-wise? Does that come out of the 15,000? Commissioner Roy answered him by saying that's all you get. You get 15000. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 19 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 DISCUSSION PROMPTED ANOTHER QUESTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. COMMISSIONER HATFIELD ASKED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE IN ONE OF THOSE STRUCTURES GETS MARRIED AND, GOD FORBID, THEY GET DIVORCED? WHERE DOES THAT PROPERTY GO? WHO GETS IT, WHATEVER, WHEN IT IS NO LONGER IN THE FAMILY? Commissioner Ireland said that it's pretty clear that you cannot prevent condominiumization. You couldn't prevent 35-acre subdivision even with that although you might be able to prevent further development. Commissioner Farris said with the multiple structure idea, you could end up with ten 1500 square foot houses, a little subdivision in the RC zone. I'm not sure that's what the idea is, plus the amount of impacts from that number of homes. Commissioner Hatfield said under the scenario that we're talking about the 500-acre, NO. An AG family or an AG ranch is something else under the AG plan. Commissioner Ireland said I presume that the board would still want to have the ability to create the one house per 100-acres, 5750? The board responded with yes. Commissioner Ireland said that's the basic plan, this would be an option. The 500-acres is not the only option. COMMISSIONER IRELAND RECAPPED THE DISCUSSION ON MULTIPLE STRUCTURES. IT'S EXEMPT FROM GMQS,IT IS THE END OF DEVELOPMENT, STERILIZED, WHATEVER WORD YOU WANT TO USE, IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO IMPACT FEES, 1041. HE ASKED, HOWEVER, IS THE BOARD GOING TO REQUIRE THAT THE 500-ACRES NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR AG CLASSIFICATION OR ALLOW THAT PROPERTY TO BE ESSENTIALLY UNTAXED? Commissioner Ireland asked, as a condition, does the board want to say no commercial profit-making activities. The reason why is that you would be foregoing hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue if you allow someone to build a giant estate and continue to claim that was a ranch. Commissioner Farris doesn't want to do that. Commissioner Ireland said I'm in the minority, but I'm going to object to that. Commissioner Hatfield said I don't think that we should try to cure the defects in the State tax laws with our Land Use policy. THE CONCENSUS TO THIS POINT IS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 20 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO DO THE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES. WE HAVE ONE WHO MIGHT WANT TO DO IT AND ONE PERSON WHO DEFINITELY DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT. AND, THE LARGE STRUCTURES ARE EXEMPT FROM GMQS, IT IS THE END OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER IMPACT FEES AND 1041. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION WAS ON AG BUILDINGS. (NUMBER OF STRUCTURES AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF STRUCTURES) In response to a question from Commissioner Hatfield, Chairperson Clapper said that in the current Code, AG buildings are unlimited under the 500-acre subdivision. Chairperson Clapper said that I think we need to look at the AG building structures as one thing and then we can decide how we prorate it out or don't. The number of structures and the unlimited square footage of structures are kind of a section on their own. I have a hard time with 3000 square foot riding arenas. Discussion developed on the issue of AG buildings. Commissioner Farris said I am willing to compensate for that character impact with the estate home that sits behind its entry gate and its stone wall by saying there are 1500 acres there that the animals have without drives through them. Or without ten little houses through them and the impacts of those houses. She said Commissioner Ireland is not ready to go there, but I'm ready to go there, but I'm not ready to say that's just a rancher who likes a big house. I don't believe that's the case. So, I'm not willing to give that unit the same benefits that I'm willing to give a producing ranch with the rancher living on it. She clarified this by saying incorporating that 15000 to be your units,your horse barn,your ice rink,your whatever. That's different from a working ranch. Commissioner Hatfield said it's unlikely in my mind that the guy who builds a 15000 square foot castle is going to be a really involved in some form of AG production. But, if he is and we can determine that he set up a realistic AG use, is there some consideration for that? The question here is does he get some extra credit for his AG or is it within the 15000? Commissioner Roy thinks that Commissioner Hatfield's question deserves more thought from the board. But, she disagrees that we're going to come to conclusion because we're operating in a vacuum in this particular moment. We can't make an assumption from one guy to another. What we have to do is think about the 500-acre parcel and try to motivate, whatever we write up, to have occur what we want to occur. I keep hoping that we can have it occur where we're motivating people to stay in ranching, even if they're a gentleman rancher. Commissioner Hatfield said that I'm inclined to believe that 15000 could be for the home and that there has got to be a ratio, and I don't know what the answer is, where you can have extra additional AG buildings. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 21 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 Commissioner Farris told Commissioner Hatfield that we're discussing two different scenarios here. One is the AG lands where the rancher has his AG production and needs buildings to support it. And you're talking about a 500-acre subdivision with 15000 square feet. I don't think they're the same thing. If they are the same thing, let's just drop the 500-acre bit and get to the fact that with a certain number of acres zoned and used for AG, this is what it - - Commissioner Hatfield replied that I like that answer because I'd rather work on the AG thing, the RCC, because then I think I don't have to make a social or political decision about how the guy is going to use his land. Commissioner Ireland spoke to Commissioner Roy by saying that you've created this thing where people are exempt from GMQS and they can do certain things. The question is do you want them to be able to do other things in addition to that? And,your (Commissioner Roy) answer is yes. Commissioner Hatfield's answer is yes, in addition to the 15000,with a ratio. Commissioner Farris said a 15000 cap with AG buildings, all inclusive. ?? Commissioner Roy's answer is yes, in addition to the 15000. ?? Chairperson Clapper said that the board is thinking out loud, but we're not getting anywhere. She's not sure where she's going. Commissioner Ireland agrees that if you're going to allow this 500-acre zoning there ought to be somewhere to park all the horses and so forth. Chairperson Clapper agrees with that. My concern is that the guy who buys it today is going to build a 15000 square foot home with no AG uses and no horses. The next guy comes in and says I own it now and I want to have horses on my other 400-acres or I want to run cows. But, then we have to say sorry, but the last guy agreed to not have any square footage for AG. Commissioner Farris added but we've agreed that it's within that building envelope that's established, that percentage of the land. Chairperson Clapper agreed. Commissioner Ireland stated that the board needs to set a time to meet again and continue discussions. The board will especially be going to the following issues. The 5750, the 100-acre, whether we want to go beyond the 5750 on the I00-acre, how we want to use TDRs, and whether we want to create TDRs on these properties in addition to those development rights. If there are other thoughts on the 500-acres we will need to hear those, too. He said I assume, from what the board said, that we want some sort of approved development plan that minimizes roadway and impacts if you're doing that. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 22 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 Chairperson Clapper said what she also stated earlier in today's meeting. The more site specific a development plan, the more incentive you get for long-term vesting. After checking board member availability, it was decided to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, March 26 from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM to continue discussions. Commissioner Ireland said that we will start that meeting with a brief period of public comment on the issues raised so far. Bill Fales was given the opportunity to comment at this time. He said that he wanted to frame the discussion the board is having about this 15000 square feet on 500-acres. The RC proposal that the board put forth, he said, allowed one 5750 house for every 100-acres, plus one TDR for every 70, plus one agricultural employee's house at 1500. My math tells me that five times 5750 is 28,720 square feet. Add in 1500 square feet for the AG employee and that makes 30,220 plus you still have seven TDRs. You are taking, he said, the "draconian", for lack of a better term, proposal that was put forth and slashing it from 30,220 plus seven TDRs to 15000 square feet. Commissioner Ireland responded to Mr. Fales. He said this proposal does not preclude the same 500-acre person and I heard the board say that it precludes you from coming in and saying that I'd rather have five 100-acres up to 5750 and all that other stuff. That's different from this. That's separate. You might elect to take one big one and go over that 5750 to a really big house. You can do that. Or, presumably, and we'll see where the board goes, you could elect to have five 100-acre things and the 5750 and the things you described. They're not mutually exclusive. They're alternatives. Mr. Fales asked to state what he thinks Commissioner Ireland said in a different way. What you're saying, continued Mr. Fales, is that you could use your TDRs, but at a diminishing rate where the first home would give you some and then each additional one gives you less and less and less. Is that what you're saying? Commissioner Ireland responded by saying what this proposal does so far is it places a premium on that really super huge house. You have to forego more total square footage development in order to get to 15000. And they're argument with me was, and they prevailed, that yes, we want to allow 15000 square feet because it's less than five times 5750. That was exactly Commissioner Roy's comment. So, you get over the 5750 to build this jumbo house, but you don't get as much total square footage in development. That's where the board is, but they'll have to consider your proposition of whether they want to make 30,000 square feet on 500-acres. Chairperson Clapper moved to continue this meeting to a special meeting set for March 26 from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 23 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002 ;eectfully su7dOf d,,tte Jones to the BoCounty Commissioners Patti Kay-Clappe{� Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners ww/g/m inutes/022120021uc BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 24 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2002