HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.03202002 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002
Location: Plaza 1 Conference Room
11:00—Noon CITIZEN BOARD INTERVIEWS
11:00 Chris Ryan - FAB 11:10 Linda Schmenl - FAB
11:20 Bert Myrin—Library Board 11:30 Walter Frame - FAB
11:40 Martin Flug
(Applying for FAB & Library Board) This completes FAB & Library Board
Interviews
12:00 NOON Lunch Meeting with Eagle County Commissioners
�/ 3:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING—City Council Chambers
Land Use Code Revisions
7:00 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
APPROVED MARCH 27,2002
MINUTES
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
LAND USE CODE REVISIONS
MARCH 20, 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 Mick Ireland called a special meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners to order at 3:10 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mick Ireland, Dorothea
Farris, Patti Clapper, Jack Hatfield and Shellie Roy
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Martin,
Peter Thomas, Joe Krabacher, Michael Augello and John Howard
REVIEW OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS' PROPOSED R-35
AND RC ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS—MOTION TO CONTINUE TO
APRIL 3,2002
Peter Thomas, Vice President, Planning and Zoning Commission commented that the
Planning and Zoning Commission would like to thank the BOCC and the staff, for
indulging them while they continued in a series of lengthy meetings regarding these
issues. He proceeded with his presentation associated with the Planning and Zoning
Commissions' recommendations as outlined in its memorandum to the Board.
A discussion ensued between the BOCC and Planning and Zoning Commission members
with respect to their proposal including clarification of their recommendations.
Chairman Ireland opened the hearing to public comment.
Bill Fales commented that he disagrees with the Planning and Zoning Commissions'
recommendation not to allow TDR's to be used to exempt one from growth management.
He thinks the county will benefit by having more land sterilized through the use of
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20,2002
TDR's and strengthening the TDR margin thereby encouraging more people to come into
the RC zone. He urged the Board to consider that concept.
Pat Fender asked if the R-35 zone district apply to her neighbors the Gredigs?
Chairperson Ireland responded that this property has a total development right of 5,750
because it has an existing development right.
Roz Turnbull said she would like to encourage 20 years vesting for all properties. With
respect to number of employee units, she thinks there needs to be more work on this and
consideration of more units if needed.
Gideon Kaufman commented that he would like to thank the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their time discussing this issue. He would hope that they would be given
more opportunity to try and fine-tune some of the issues.
Mr. Kaufman further commented that that he would like to speak in favor of the growth
management plan being the controlling system and as a tool for getting the type the types
of development that the Board would like to see. Secondly, he said while character is
important, he thinks the Board needs to keep in mind that it has to be balanced against
other important issues as well such as open space, AG land preservation, wildlife
preservation, a market for TDR's, and fairness for large property owners who have
preserved their property for a long time. So he hopes those things will be balanced in a
character situation. With respect to the vesting period he thinks the 20 years for the RC is
very good. He thinks Wildcat is a perfect example of what happens when people have
certainty. He explained that one of the things that was talked about, at the P&Z level,
was incentivising people who were willing to preserve their property for 500 acres.
Some of the incentives that were talked about were with respect to roads on the
properties. He said many of the larger ranch properties have older existing roads. Those
roads are often the best roads to access potential development on those ranch properties.
So he thinks it is important to put into this legislation the ability to possibly get some of
those 1041 issues addressed because that will prevent someone from having to go out and
putting in a whole new set of roads. He thinks this would be a very good incentive as
well as a benefit for the county in not creating a large amount of roads. Additionally, he
thinks the location of building envelopes is important to someone who is willing to
preserve 500 acres. He encouraged the Board to look at some kind of flexibility in
locating building envelopes so as to preserve wildlife critical areas, etc. With respect to
the house size cap, he thinks a special review would be appropriate in large tracts.
Joe Wells said he also appreciates the time the P&Z has put into this. He said the
impression he has is the focus has been on unsubdivided rural lands and perhaps have not
had enough time to talk about the close-in modern subdivisions that were created through
growth management. So he hopes the P&Z will find time, in their future agendas, to give
that some thought. Secondly, on the issue of TDR's, he is surprised that they are
suggesting no use of TDR's in the R-35 zone district.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20,2002
Herb Klein commented that if bona fide agricultural areas are going to be defined in the
RC zone district that horse operations be able to qualify. Also, some ability for people
who have under 70 acres some ability to not have agricultural buildings not count in their
square footage. He further commented that he agrees with what other people have said
about the additional vesting period. Additionally, he encouraged the Board to involve the
Planning and Zoning Commission and allow them to provide recommendations on the
rest of the entire code re-write.
John McBride said when he first came to the valley it seemed like it was mostly all
ranches. He said six years ago that the agricultural committee was formed to start work
on the issues. Their concern then, was to try to find ways to preserve the old ranches and
perpetuate something that is more historic in this valley than skiing. He said all that is
being discussed here today is development. He believes every rancher in the valley has
tasted the seeds of doom. Prices are stable and all the costs are going up including public
land rents, insurance, taxes and everything else. However, that being said, he believes
that there are ways that ranches can be made to work, short of just developing them such
as business being brought in, which are complimentary to ranching i.e, bed and breakfast,
cross country skiing, spiritual retreat, etc.
There were several other members of the public who applauded the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their work, and encouraged the Board to keep this commission involved
in the process. There were several comments encouraging a longer vesting period.
Additionally, there were some comments with respect to what will be proposed for
smaller parcels in the RC zone district.
Chairperson Ireland closed the hearing to public comment and brought the matter back to
the Board for discussion.
Commissioner Clapper said she would like to put to rest the issues of the pre 1978
approved subdivisions. She said a conclusion has not been reached on the actual square
footage, but it is her understanding of those parcels that if they have a current
development right that development right exists and will exist before and after this?
Chairperson Ireland said this is correct. The proposal by the P&Z says that parcels that
exist prior to 1978 or parcels that have gone through a Board subdivision process are
exempt from GMQS. He said there is still some confusion about this is the proposal.
Commissioner Clapper said she has some issues, which she will need further thinking
about Le, the TDR's whether they are exempt or not,the extension of vesting, the number
of employee dwelling units and the issue of square footage of these units. She said she
likes the definition of clustering and she thinks we need to look at the percentage of land
that needs to be developed possibly it should be less than 20 percent. With respect to the
issue of old ranch roads, she thinks that is something to be taken into consideration, but
look at the safety issues associated with these roads. She also thinks that the 500-acre
development envelopes, and house size square footage, is something that needs further
discussion. She does see some concern with the parcels that are 69 acres and caught in-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20,2002
between. She thinks the parcels between 36 and 69 acres need to be looked at further.
With respect to the AG lands and the property tax issues, she thinks there are some issues
that can be looked at as to whether or not a certain property is or is not a commercial
agricultural use. With respect to horses, she thinks the limit of horses needs to be looked
at based on the acreage of the parcel. With respect to other uses on the AG properties she
knows there will be further discussion on those types of proposal.
Commissioner Roy said she concurs with almost everything Commissioner Clapper said.
She does not share the concerns on the agricultural taxing if there is a requirement that
the building envelope is assessed at the residential level. She asked that the P&Z have a
discussion about how we can meet the objectives that we are trying to with this new
rezoning, but retain the prior underlying zoning as it pertains to acreage. She is very
please with the concept of the RC voluntary. She reiterated that she agrees with
everything else that Patti said including that the vesting period would be a three-year
minimum.
Commissioner Farris said she thinks the key to a lot of this is the pace of development,
which is addressed with the growth management plan. She thinks that consideration
should be given to existing ranch roads and try to make every accommodation(if they are
of the quality) to use these roads rather than create newer or larger ones. With respect to
the proposal for 20 percent development on a parcel she thinks this might be a larger site
than is usually necessary because there might be situations were what is being talked
about is a cliff site. She is still in a serious quandary about approving 15,000 square foot
homes anywhere in a resource conservation zone. With respect to long-term vesting she
thinks there needs to be a good reason to extend the vesting period. Lastly, she said she
does not agree with exempting basements from the 5750 in the RC-35 zone district.
Commissioner Hatfield said he is supportive of family units on true AG lands and feels
there could be flexibility there. But he wants to reinforce that in order to be flexible with
respect to the square footage, there needs to be a deed restriction that says the unit will
stay in the family or it is going to be used for housing. Additionally, he thinks these units
could be exempt from special review if a way to site these properties could be addressed.
With respect to new subdivisions, he thinks the square footage should be limited to 3,500.
With respect to existing subdivisions, he said he does not want to change the approvals
for these properties. With respect to clustering he likes the idea of flexibility, but in
allowing the flexibility, he thinks the goal here is to preserve. He thinks 20 percent might
be too high. With respect to commercial uses, he thinks John McBride makes a case for
looking at different uses, but we need to understand the possible ultimate consequences
of what we are doing, With respect to horses, he thinks we need to have advise by people
who know about how many animals should be put on a parcel so that it is not overgrazed,
etc. With respect to the agricultural assessment of parcels, he agrees with Commissioner
Roy that building envelopes be exempted, but he would like to define what we are
looking at if someone goes for an AG exemption. With respect to TDR's he has not
come to conclusion how they could be used. He agrees with the Planning and Zoning
Commissions' idea that TDR's not be used to increase the house size in the R-35 zone
district. He has a concern about how the character of the land can be preserved if
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20,2002
someone can buy their way into larger size homes. He said though he compliments the
P&Z for the work they've done, without understanding what the further GMQS
restrictions and development standards, he is not sure if this is a better plan that what was
proposed. He is very much interested in finishing the package so he knows exactly what
he is talking about before he can give final approval. With respect to vesting, the
maximum doesn't work for him so he concurs with other commission members that there
should be some flexibility with vesting development rights.
Commissioner Ireland proceeded with his comments with respect to the fairness of the
zoning issue.
With respect to taxable envelopes, he said rather than doing a building envelope, it would
be better to simply say out of a 500 acre building envelope, 35 acres of it is going to
classified as residential, not used as commercial. With respect to non-agricultural uses on
the property, he said we need to consider whether we are talking about urban growth
boundaries or research parks, schools, etc. If we allow someone to subdivide a fraction
of their ranch and put 10 units on it, they can maintain their ranch and have AG
buildings, but he does not think further commercial activity should be allowed. With
respect to the ranch roads point, he thinks this is a valid point. With respect to the
percentage of land, he thinks if someone can show the reviewing boards that a plan
maybe will take more than 10 percent, but it is a better for the public then he thinks
someone should be able to come in for a special review. With respect to horses on the
property, he thinks there should be some demarcation between when the operation
becomes a commercial or quasi-commercial level of intensity facility where somebody
just owns a lot of horses. With respect to the square footage of employee units, he does
not want to get much beyond a 1,500 square foot employee unit. With respect to vesting,
he agrees with a three-year minimum with a special review for additional vesting. He
thinks the RC voluntary makes a lot of sense if it's accompanied by a strict GMQS,
which is what the P&Z is recommending. With respect to the goal of preservation and
conservation, he thinks there is a process by where you can reconcile those things, but he
thinks there should be development standards that say certain things are just not on the
table. Critical wildlife habitat, avalanche zones, steep slopes, and wetlands are not on the
table, but winter concentration range may be on the table. He is not greatly concerned
about an under 70 acre parcel having only 5750 allowable square feet. With respect to
the notion of exempt ranch buildings on a small parcel on a property this does not make
sense, to him, because these are not ranches.
Commissioner Farris said that if somebody wants a 2,000 square foot employee unit she
would be willing to look at an additional square footage if it comes out of the total
allowable floor area. With respect to the percentage of development, she would prefer to
keep it at 10 percent rather than 20 percent. With respect to AG buildings, she disagrees
that a parcel under 69 acres will not need these types of buildings for storage, etc.
After a discussion between both boards and members of the public, Commissioner
Ireland proceeded to review the list of recommendations made by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to get a consensus from the Board with respect to these suggestions.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20,2002
• Vested Rights—Three-year minimum with an ability to apply for an
additional vesting period.
• AG Employee Dwelling Unit on 70 to 210 Acres—2,000 square feet
• AG Employee Dwelling Unit on 70 Acres or Less—2,000 square feet but
must be taken out of the allowed 5750 square feet
• PUD vs Cluster—Integrated siting in harmony with the environment and
consistent with land use policies with a clustering effect.
It was the consensus of commission members that the remaining recommendations from
the Planning and Zoning Commission should be continued to another meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Clapper moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10
p.m. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20,2002
sp ctfully submit d,
i r
Je ette Jones
C rk to the Board of County Commissioners
Patti Kay-Clapp Chairperson
Board of County Commissioners
pcj mj\ww\g\minutes\2002\03202002LUC.doc
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20,2002