Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.03262002 TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002 Location: Plaza One Conference Room 10:30 AM CITIZEN BOARD INTERVIEWS—Open Space & Trails Board 10:30 Anne Rickenbaugh 11:00 Amy Capron NOON LUNCH BREAK 1:30 PM 1. Legislative Update, Debbie Quinn 2. Recycling Center Funding Request, Miles Stotts 2:30 3. Memos of Interest 4, Future Agendas/Agenda Requests 5. Open Discussion 3:30 SPECIAL MEETING Land Use Code Revisions Discussion 5:00 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED APRIL 24, 2002 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING LAND USE CODE REVISIONS R-35 AND RC ZONE DISTRICTS MARCH 26, 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: Commissioner Mick Ireland called the special meeting to order at 3:37 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Kay-Clapper, Mick Ireland, Dorothea Farris, Shellie Roy and Jack Hatfield COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED LAND USE CODE REVISIONS - R-35 AND PROPOSED RURAL CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICTS - CONTINUED TO APRIL 3,2002 Commissioner Mick Ireland took over as chairperson for this Land Use Code discussion meeting. He noted that this was a duly noticed meeting of the board for further consideration of Land Use Code changes. It was described to the public, he continued, as an opportunity for the Commission to communicate among itself on the issues presented. Particularly focusing on a proposal for the RC zone (resource conservation) made by the Planning and Zoning Commission hereinafter referred to as P&Z. As prefaced at all meetings, the board would not preclude public comment, although this is not the primary public comment forum. There will be other opportunities to comment public-wise. So if anyone has something to say the board will hear it. He apologized to anyone who was under the impression last time that the board wasn't going to hear their comments. Because, the board has yet to stop somebody from commenting although the board does ask that people raise their hand and be recognized for comment rather than just starting to comment in the middle of a sentence. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 Commissioner Ireland commented that he received a letter from Bob Parry. He said that Mr. Parry apologized for what he described as his rude behavior at the last meeting. And then he went on to raise a number of substantive issues. He will address them at some point and he will address them to Mr. Parry, in writing, as he was nice enough to write. He went on to say that the board was here today to consider the P&Z analysis of the RC zone. Commissioner Ireland informed the board that he tried to group the issues together in a fashion similar to the grouping used by the P&Z and then he constructed a compromised version that incorporates the things that he's heard from the County Commissioners and the public. The hearing was open to public comment: He started with the assumption that the P&Z proposal has some admirable features. It introduces some uniformity through a universal R35 zone and then varies that according to need to create something called an RC zone. It has the voluntary aspects that people admired and it has some provisions for what this board has, at times, supported. And that is a larger than 5750 square foot home that would be created under certain circumstances. He will also suggest some and the board may want to modify. The things that Commissioner Ireland has heard the County Commissioners say are: 1 In creating the RC zone and the R/35 zone, in general,this board is attempting to motivate people to transfer development rights to established developed areas and areas within an urban growth boundary. Although, not to the exclusion of development outside that. 2 The board has sought not to require or create agricultural production but to attempt to curtail development patterns that leave large pieces of land intact for future use as agricultural operation or some other use so to avoid checkerboard development and fragmented development. 3 To minimize fiscal impacts from residential development outside the urban growth boundary operating under the fairly well established theory that development away from an urban core costs more for government to service and creates detrimental traffic patterns and infrastructure development that's undesirable. The things that Planning and Zoning said are: 1 A desire to create a uniformity among all the rural areas. The P&Z wanted to create a standard of 5750 square feet as being a development right if somebody already had it or acquired it through GMQS (Growth Management Quota System). 2 An ability for larger residences for people who preserve a certain number of acres. The defacto came to a 210-acre size as warranting a larger residence. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 3 The P&Z also urged the board to use the GMQS rather than unit development size as the means for creating an incentive for people to develop within the urban growth boundary or transfer development rights off the land. Commissioner Ireland further suggested an outline on how to proceed. His suggested outline would allow the board to use the P&Z framework but use it in a slightly different way. It would be, in a broad sense, less development oriented than P&Z but not greatly. Commissioner Ireland proposed the following that would get the board to a lot of the things that P&Z said which he thinks was a useful suggestion. The board would create on the lands that are not RC, but simply R35, more or less as P&Z outlined it, a 5750 development right, if you already had one. If you acquired one, it would be 5750, all-inclusive. Commissioner Clapper and Commissioner Roy questioned when the board is talking 35-acres, is there a date such as June, 2000 and anything subdivided after that or before that. Commissioner Ireland responded to their questions regarding dates. The dates relate to whether or not somebody has a development right, not what development right it is. Pre-1978 means that if you bought a subdivided parcel in 1977, you have a development right. This presentation goes over what that development right is and basically says, in simple terms, it's 5750. And then there are circumstances under which there are other kinds of structures on the property that he will get to later. Cindy Houben, Director of Community Development, also noted that the Crystal River didn't come into GMQS until 2002 so they have a different date. Anything that's 35-acres that doesn't have a development right competes in the Growth Management Quota System. A board-approved subdivision does have development rights up to 5750 square feet. Commissioner Ireland went on to say that what the P&Z said was that you have R35 and then you have a smaller number but large acreage called RC. And what the P&Z is saying is that they would allocate most of the development rights to R35, not to the RC because they want RC to go through a different process which he is going to describe next. 500-ACRE OPTION: The second thing P&Z talked about was RC, Commissioner Ireland continued. There were discussions on a voluntary zone and using a zone for valuation purposes for conservation easements. He is proposing that in RC you can proceed through GMQS with the P&Z restriction that you would be competing for GMQS and doing 35 acres at a time. Of course, the competition would be stiffer because there would be fewer square feet allotted to the RC zone. However, there would be two other options. In the first option, you could apply for R500 zoning which is the 500-acre subdivision. It's more than the 210 that P&Z talks about but it's something that's already in the code. And then you would be exempt from GMQS because you BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 cut your property into five 500's, for example. And, you would build up to a certain size house, which he recommended at this point to be 10,000 square feet. 100 ACRE-OPTION: In the second option is the 100-acre option which is what staff originally proposed. But it means you get 100 acres per development. For example, on 1000 acres you could get 10 houses at 5750 without the hassle of GMQS. There are other building and structures associated with all this discussion and he will get to those later. One important point of all of these schemes is that transferable development rights, hereinafter referred to as TDRs, are export only. You get one TDR with each 100 acres if you opt into the I00-acre plan. The I00-acre plan does not require the subdivision itself to be 100-acre lots. You could do five 20s and retain a ranch parcel for ranching. It could be commonly owned by those owners or by yourself. It is a 100-acre PUD. The parcels that you cut out and sell to people would be the parcels, as Herb Klein suggested, residential use only not commercial or agricultural use. That gets you around the tax issue. The ranch itself, if there is a ranch, retains its benefit. AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS: The next big issue associated with that was agricultural, hereinafter referred to as Ag, buildings. Commissioner Ireland would suggest that, by special review, you could have up to 2500 square feet of Ag buildings on a 35-acre parcel. Up to 100-acres it could go 5000 square feet and if it's above 500-acres then you could have unlimited Ag buildings. But, you still have special review and the reason is because you want to be able to assess the placement of those buildings, siting and you want to know what they are. The horse problem then, he believes, should go away because the horse could be kept in the Ag buildings. EMPLOYEE UNITS: The next topic was employee units. As with the case of the underlying zoning and having choices Commissioner Ireland remarked, you give people a choice. And the choice is that you could have one fully deed-restricted unit, which you could use for your employees if you wanted, or use it for a qualified family member, the criteria of which is covered in the Housing Guidelines. And if you don't want to do either of those things but you still want to have it, then, and only then, does that unit go into the housing pool to allow someone to come in and rent it through the Housing Office. The employee unit would be 2000 square feet and could be on any parcel in any R35 or RC. This employee unit would count as ADDITIONAL square footage. The key is that this employee unit would be a FULLY DEED RESTRICTED UNIT and is not a guest house, home office or caretaker unit. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 For example, if a 500-acre parcel were to be split up into five 100-acre lots, you could get one of these 2000 square foot employee units for each of the five 100-acre lots. That is a lot of development, Commissioner Ireland said, but the notion is that it will actually be used for a purpose. And that purpose would be for a family member, an employee or your employee. And, the 2000 square feet does not deduct from the total square footage. If, however, you have a block of 500-acres of land then you can get an ADDITIONAL unit by special review by showing some sort of need. A question from the public arose from Allyn Harvey. He asked that in a 35-acre parcel in R35 could you get one employee unit and one 2500 square foot Ag building and your home all totaling 5750? The response from Commissioner Ireland was yes. Commissioner Ireland responded to Commissioner Farris' question about properties 35 acres or less. On a 35-acre parcel that is not in RC you have 5750 for your residence. You can have a fully deed restricted unit on the property up to 2000 square feet. Also, by special review, you could have an Ag building up to 2500 square feet. COMMERCIAL: If you have a complete 500-acre parcel or exempt parcel, then you could have a home occupation as allowed by Code or up to 2500 square feet of compatible commercial use. He would not be outlining all the criteria for these uses at this time. Roz Turnbull asked Commissioner Ireland a question for clarification. Suppose your barn is much bigger than the 2500 square feet that is allowed on your acreage, can you combine your commercial use and your barn use together? Could it be as big as 5000 square feet by combining the uses? Commissioner Ireland responded by saying he doesn't think so but it would be discussed later when the board goes over each of these issues. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ON TODAY'S ISSUES: THE ISSUE - Commissioner Ireland said that people generally like the idea of not RC but the R35 having an underlying right of 5750, the barn and employee unit. These are parcels that are under 100 acres. Commissioner Hatfield asked if there is enough incentive to go into the RC zone with R35, as articulated by the P&Z, as R35 is the underlying zone district? He is talking about the house size. Commissioner Ireland answered his question by saying if you are in the RC and if you are over 100-acres you are eligible for this RC overlay, you don't have as much growth management BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 square footage allocated to you as does the R35 on a 100-acre parcel. The incentive is that you could do that or you could also just say that I'll take my 5750 barn and stuff and skip that process. Commissioner Roy asked if you would have to have a different allotment for the 35 than for the RC in that just by limiting how much is available in the square footage for GMQS it would serve the same effect. Would you have to have two separate pots or in fact have one pot? Commissioner Ireland thinks there should be separate, smaller groups. That's what P&Z says. Ms. Houben said that if you chose to go voluntarily under RC you don't need growth management. Roz Turnbull asked if you are in RC what is the allocation? Commissioner Ireland said that if you are in RC what he is proposing is that the allocation is a very small number of square feet per year. Ms. Turnbull then asked how could you do anything in RC? Commissioner Ireland responded by saying that you could go to the 100 or go to the 500. Ms. Turnbull and several board members were getting confused on the terms used. To further clarify, Commissioner Ireland said let's say you own 1000 acres. That land is designated as having RC eligibility. It is R35 zoned but the allocation to parcels like that is small. Ms. Houben clarified that Commissioner Ireland's growth management is set up on acreage. What P&Z wanted to do in the RC is that if you just wanted to go through growth management those people who are under that overlay or can get that overlay have a hard time getting through GMQS. They're not on the same footing as the guy who's down in Basalt. Joseph Krabacher, P&Z member sitting in the audience today, said that what he thinks P&Z intended was that everyone be in R35 for competition. Even if you were eligible for an overlay you would be in the R35 competition. What you're saying, Mr. Krabacher contended, is that you have R35 and RC you allocate some here and you allocate some here so if you're in RC you don't have to do the "RC overlay voluntary thing" you can do a growth management application. Commissioner Ireland said you could do it. It will just be harder. Ms. Houben asked for more clarification and asked if RC was an overlay or a zone district? Commissioner Ireland explained it this way. Think of R35 and say R35A and if you're in R35A then you are eligible to invoke that overlay. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 Ms. Houben said that is what they were calling in P&Z. She thinks they're both saying the same thing. She further explained that you have everything R35 except for the properties that are RC eligible and those are called R35/RC. And the slash RC indicates that they are eligible. Commissioner Ireland left out one of the basket of benefits. If you go into the 100, each 100 entitles you to a conveyable, transferable, outable TDR. You have 1000 acres and you don't want to go through growth management competition forever and you want a development unit for every 100 acres. You also get 10 TDRs in addition to that. You could build ten homes and sell them to whoever wants them. He clarified that it is NOT 20 development rights because the TDRs cannot be used on your property. They can only be used off the property. For clarification, Commissioner Hatfield asked if the following statements were correct. We are not relying, in any way, shape or form, on square footage as an incentive or disincentive. We are totaling relying on GMQS and the allotments within the zone district or the overlay. Commissioner Ireland responded with yes, that is correct. Commissioner Hatfield said that he thinks it is too much allotment for the basic underlying zone district for the basic non-RC guy. He thinks 5750 is too big and he is concerned about just relying on growth management as the board's tool. Even if you have to compete in growth management there will be an application that has to qualify. And, we'll still be producing X amount of units almost by a use by right. GMQS says we'll have X amount of units. Square footage equals units. So, there would be three in the Crystal if the board looked at that as 17,000. He wants people to opt into RC so he thinks there should be more restrictions. In his mind, the underlying zone district should be more restrictive and then the optional is more flexible and he doesn't know why they wouldn't have more square footage in RC. If you opt into conserving 100-acre and 500-acre blocks there is good public benefit in that. He said that he believes there are plenty of other lands in Pitkin County that can qualify under RC and that's the way he wants people to go. Commissioner Ireland said he is not proposing that the RC/R35 guys who have the ability to do all this other stuff have an allocation of 17,000 square feet. He said at the outset 5000 square feet. P&Z said zero. So, Commissioner Ireland is saying a very small allocation. And if you don't take the program and you go through growth management competition you could get one a year. Even though you could go 100 square feet every year the rest of your life by going very slowly into 35-acre parcelization and make 5750, Commissioner Ireland hears Commissioner Hatfield say that he doesn't want to see the 5750 as a possibility of that particular property. It appears that he wants in addition to the time pressure, he wants a square footage pressure. Commissioner Farris restated what she believes Commissioner Hatfield is saying. She said that he is only talking about limiting the size then of someone who could opt into RC, because he has conservation value. So the guy up the road who has a development right and is farther out in the country could build 5750 because he already has that development right. But, because you're eligible for land that needs to be protected you're going to be restricted. You may even be closed to town, closer to infrastructure. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 THE QUESTION: Do you want to use square footage of the residence as an additional incentive in RC/R35? Commissioner Ireland: No. Commissioner Hatfield: Yes. Commissioner Roy: No, she wants the development right to be one number. Commissioner Farris: No, she wants to stay with 5750. Commissioner Clapper: No, she wants to stay with 5750 although she understands where Commissioner Hatfield is coming from. THE QUESTION: Do you have a separate competition for people who are in the RC/1135 who have that ability to access that"basket of options"? Commissioner Ireland: He says yes, because you want to limit people doing that. Commissioner Clapper: Yes. Commissioner Farris: Yes. Commissioner Roy: She is unsure about answering this without more data from Community Development Commissioner Hatfield: Yes. Commissioner Ireland sets up the next topic for a question to the board. Under the present Code,you can do a thing called a 500-acre subdivision. And,you can go 15,000 square feet and you can be exempt from growth management allocated. This proposal that the board has discussed so far would allow you to do that. He now asks the question. THE QUESTION: Is it 15,000 square feet or another number? (Commissioner Ireland had put out 10,000 square feet as an acceptable,workable compromise) (With this 500- acre, 10,000 or 15,000 square foot scenario,you would also get a 2,000 square foot employee unit,you could also go for another employee unit at 2000 square feet by special review and unlimited square footage for AG buildings,which you DON'T GET with 100 acre) Roz Turnbull thinks that Commissioner Roy's point is well taken that if you have the 100-acres and you multiply it out you have a lot more acreage and she would leave Commissioner Ireland's other incentive for someone to go into the 500 and leave the larger house and leave it alone. Commissioner Ireland: 15,000 square feet Commissioner Clapper: 15,000 square feet Commissioner Hatfield: 15,000 square feet for right now Commissioner Farris: 15,000 square feet Commissioner Ireland sets up the next topic for a question to the board. What do they want to do on the 100-acre PUD? Do they want to have 5750 square feet, plus 2000, plus barn and so on? Do they want that much development there? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 THE QUESTION: Is the 100-acre PUD 5750 square feet, all inclusive, plus the EDU, plus the fully deed restricted, plus the barn, up to 5000 square feet on each 100 acres Roz Turbull reminded the board that they need to remember that you need someone to take care of that Ag ground. She doesn't care who owns the property, someone has to look after it and you have to have the supporting business buildings that go with the business and the employees to take care of it. Commissioner Clapper: She is okay with 5750 square feet, plus 2000 employee but she wants to look at more data with regard to Ag building square footage. Commissioner Hatfield: He is okay with 5750 square feet, plus 2000 employee but he is having a problem with square foot buildings and Ag. He would like to see some of these properties build a common Ag building. But, to have five 5,000 square foot buildings is too much for him. As numerous questions arose on this issue Commissioner Ireland made the following suggestion. The person who owns the parcel within this PUD gets their 5750 square foot and their 2000 square foot fully deed restricted unit and a small, like a 2500 square foot barn and, by special review, staff could draft something for a larger facility for a common parcel or an extended acreage which you could apply for. THE QUESTION: The board members discussed Commissioner Ireland's recommendation. Commissioner Hatfield: With regard to Ag buildings, when he looks at the 35 acres he is concerned that 2500 square feet is too much. He needs that practical feedback about what you can do with 35 acres. THE QUESTION: Do you want to have the ability of each parcel owner to have an exempt, fully deed restricted unit? (From 0 to just under 100 acres you get an EDU of 2000 square feet. If you do the 100-acre PUD then you get an EDU for each of those owners at 2000 square feet, all inclusive with no garages, basements, decks, overhangs, etc.) Commissioner Farris: Yes. Commissioner Roy: Yes. Commissioner Clapper: Yes. Commissioner Hatfield: No. Commissioner Ireland: Yes. THE QUESTION: In the RC optional zone, on, for an example, a 1000-acre ranch do you want each of the ten 100-acre parcel owners to have the ability to have commercial (not a home occupation)? (On less than 500 acres it would be by special review and they would have to prove their case) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 Commissioner Farris: She thinks you have to look at it site specific so at this time she will say no. She thinks it should be not by right, but by special review. Commissioner Roy: If it's appropriate, yes. Commissioner Clapper: Yes, for now, but she wants to focus more on the intensity of the use. There could be a blacksmith shop or pottery shop that is only 500 square feet. It doesn't mean they will all have a10,000-square foot commercial shop. Commissioner Hatfield: No. He thinks a PUD should plan the whole use of the property and have one or some kind of limit. He agrees with Commissioner Farris with use by special review and not by right. Roz Turnbull commented that this is fine and staff could develop it, but she wouldn't put an upper limit maximum on it. If someone wanted a dude ranch they would have to have 30-35 guests to break even. And,the other criteria felt too limited and she's not opposed to the special review. But, if you want any good things in this valley to come in the future, you better leave the potential to go there. Commissioner Ireland recapped the thoughts of the board on this commercial issue. He said that the consensus is to allow this with staff to create some limitations. Commissioner Farris stated what she heard which was the board would allow commercial use, whatever kind, the dude ranches, etc. by special review so it's compatible with a few other things. This is within a PUD. Ms. Houben gave an example of the board's latest decision. If I am an individual with a newly created 5-acre piece and I'm part of a larger ranch, I can come in for special review for my pottery shop. Commissioner Ireland interrupted Ms. Houben to give another example. He said that it seems to him that she could come in for a very limited use, which would be small square footage, maybe one or two employees. If you had a large parcel that was left over from all that residential, then you could apply and say that there would be a larger possibility for something like a dude ranch or something like that. So what he is envisioning is that you have 1000 acres. You sold off ten acres. You did the PUD and there are ten buyers. They can have these little operations and the remaining 900 acres, which there has been an attempt to preserve, is a separate thing. It could come in and say it's going to support itself with an operation large in scope. Commissioner Farris asked a question. When the board talked about opting into the RC overlay, what acreage did they start with? The response from the remaining board members was 100 acres. There has to be something written somewhere, Commissioner Farris added, for those properties that could opt into that because they are truly an agricultural but they don't have the acreage. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 How you put that in there, to her, is by special review for someone who is between I and 99 acres. Commissioner Ireland said what we're talking about there is a proven, bona fide agricultural thing that can get more agricultural buildings for actually doing agricultural activities. And, which buildings stay with that operation. Cessation of the operation could be lose in buildings. Another thing Commissioner Farris would like to add in here with the Ag building concept is that if the board is limiting the size of the Ag buildings is that there are some Ag buildings that probably should not be included such as a shed, or a three-sided structure that's not a heated facility. Commissioner Ireland closed the public hearing. The next Land Use Code meeting will be on Wednesday, April 03,2002 at 3:00 PM and will be held in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. Commissioner Clapper moved to adjourn this special meeting at 5:28 PM. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002 Ige pectfully s fitted, eanette Jones, le rk to the Board of County Commissioners Patti Kay-Clapper Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners ww/g/minutes/2002/03262002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 26,2002