Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.02122002(2) PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA Note: Meetings will be in Plazal from Noon to 2:30 and at Health & Human Services from 3 to 7 pm. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 NOON All Employee Potluck Lunch in Library Conference Room 1:30 PM SPECIAL MEETING—Location: Plaza One Andlinger Permit Revocation(to be continued to Mar 12 at 2 pm) EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING AND EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT 1. BOCC Open Discussion Memos of Interest Future Agendas and Agenda Requests 2:30 PM ADJOURN k3:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING Location: Health& Human Services Building Land Use Code Revisions—Rural Zone Districts 7:00 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING I APPROVED FEBRUARY 27, 2002 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE REVISIONS FEBRUARY 12, 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 Ireland called a special joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Commissioner to order at 3:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Dorothea Parris, Jack Hatfield, Mick Ireland, Patti Clapper and Shellie Roy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Martin, Paul Resnick, Joe Krabacher, Peter Thomas, Michael Augello, and John Howard. PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE REVISIONS—RURAL AREA ZONE DISTRICTS—MOTION TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 21, 2002 Chairperson Ireland explained that today's meeting is to consider revisions or adoption on first reading the Rural Conservation(RC) zone district. He said the last time this matter was considered there was a list of issues created, out of requests from the audience, and by board members for consideration by the staff to prevent alternatives to the proposed legislation and those alternatives are presented in staff s memorandum. Ireland continued that this is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on any or all of the issues outlined in the memorandum as they see fit. He said he will then close the public hearing, go through the issues, then ask the Planning and Zoning Commission for any recommendations on the issues and then the Board will have to decide which, if any, of the various alternatives, proposed by the P&Z or in the memorandum, it wants to adopt. He further said there are issues that people have raised that may be studied further. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,2002 Commissioner Hatfield commented that it his hope that we agree down the line that we should have first reading of the legislation today, if the day has been productive and we feel like we can move on. He hopes that this is not going to be a first reading if we don't agree that we are ready for that. He said he couldn't predict where we're headed with all the comment and the timeline. He does not want to be put in a position to have to vote no against a good idea because, as he has expressed at two previous meetings, it was is feeling that we were just slightly ahead from approving a draft for first reading. Attorney Bart Johnson, commented that he is concerned about the nonconformity section of the proposed legislation and the abatement provision that says the Board, at its discretion, can abate any nonconforming use or structure. Assistant County Attorney, Marcella Larsen Chilsen, said Mr. Johnson is correct about the language in the draft legislation. Peter Martin, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission stated he does not think that the commission will be in a position to vote on a recommendation today, but they will make that determination after public comment. Several ranchers and large land property owners were in attendance that reiterated their comments in opposition of the proposed down zoning of rural and ranching lands. They testified that the proposed regulations would adversely affect their already-weak ability to work their land and penalize them for keeping their land free of development for many years. They expressed that they were willing to work with the planning staff and the board, but were not willing to accept the regulations as proposed because of the potential of devaluing their properties. Additionally, other members of the community offered comments with respect to the proposed legislation. The following is a partial list of those people in attendance who spoke or had representatives speak for them. Note: Not all persons who spoke identified themselves and some spelling of names may not be exact. Karen Aldrich,the Perry family, the Fender family, Roz and Tom Turnbull, Carol and Michael Craig, the Jay , the Nieslanik Family, Richard Jellinick, Jason Sewell, Bob George, Sally Vanolsen, Sharon Bouchet, Holly McLain, Bill Fales, Bo Cote, Connie Harvey, David Goldstein, Bob Friehart, Ron Timroth, Art Daley, Lane Schiller, Mark Kister, and Darrel Drostein Mitch Hans and Glenn Horn, Land Use Professional Planners, commented on the proposed amendments. Barbara Omitz, speaking on behalf of the Woody Creek Caucus, thanked the commissioners and stated that the caucus approves and applauds what they are doing. She said they would like to offer some clarification type of comments. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,2002 Herb Klein, speaking on behalf of several of his clients, voiced their opposition to the Proposed regulations. He said all these people would be severely affected by the proposed regulations. Dwight Shellman encouraged the board to move forward with the proposed zoning regulations and applauded them for protecting large parcels of land and bringing in the next generation of stewards of these large habitats. He told the board that it is facing the same pressure he and his fellow commissioners faced when they adopted growth- management policies in the 70's. Additionally, the board's actions, as proposed in the regulations, would not take away from the fortunes of the large landowners. The question is will the next generation receive $30 million or rather$60 million for their property? He said he believes that the bulk of the voters, in this community, desire commissioners to pursue this process that they are embarked on to bring it to a technically good conclusion and not confiscate anybody's rights. Marty Schlumberger, a resident of Woody Creek, said the ranchers only have a growing season of a few months so if you look at it as an agricultural community it is not. He said this land is not to produce food. It is only good for one thing, which it is meant for and that is to provide housing for people. Gideon Kaufman, Land Use Attorney, reiterated his comments from previous hearings that he has a concern with respect to the process that has come forward by staff through the Board of County Commissioners and it has not involved the planning and zoning commission nor given the public the opportunity or time to review the draft, prior to adoption. He said he has perceived, from the very beginning, that there has been a rush to push forward certain legislation in a way different that it has been done in the past. He said if this legislation goes through it would be a reduction of millions of dollars from the tax roles. He questioned if there had been an analysis to see what services the county is going to stop? Another issue he has is the language affecting the RC zone district is so broad that every piece of property, outside the urban growth boundary, could be included in this particular process. He said it seems to him that there should be further defining of which properties the board is trying to preserve. Another problem he perceives, with this particular process, is a "rush and scare situation". He urged the Board to slow down the process, involve the public and the Planning and Zoning Commission, prior to moving forward with further action on the proposed regulations. And with respect to the 500 acres zoning (Wildcat Ranch) he asked that the board reconsider this issue because it is exactly what the community would benefit by due to the fact that this particular kind of subdivision is wonderful for the wildlife and a tremendous improvement for the habitat. Chairperson Ireland recessed the meeting at 5:45 Chairperson Ireland reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and advised the board that Peter Martin has a statement from the Planning and Zoning Commission that he would like to read into the record, and his question to Peter is when was this statement arrived at? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,2002 Peter Martin responded that he thinks this matter is up to the P&Z. He is the chairman of the P&Z, the word-smithing is his, and he believes the sentiments, reflects the five member and the two alternate commission members that serve on the P&Z. Chairperson Ireland reiterated his question if this statement had been adopted by the P&Z and if so, when. Commissioner Peter Thomas moved to approve the statement. Commissioner Augello seconded the motion. Mr. Martin proceeded to read his statement into the record. P&Z Commissioner Joe Krabacher commented that he agrees with some of the factual statements that Peter made in the memo. For example they have not been involved with the planning staff or the county attorney's office in any meetings to prepare modifications or anything like that. Although he is a lawyer he is not here to act as a lawyer, so he would defer to the county attorney whether he thinks there is a violation of the process? Mr. Krabacher further commented that in his view of it, is he thinks the goals are admirable that we are trying to achieve here. It is an extremely divisive situation to hear what all our neighbors, and friends and so on in the community challenge the technical aspects of the proposal. He thinks there are problems with the language and so on, but the emotional arguments and reactions are difficult to deal with. He would like to see a way to try and get around that by looking at the process, and looking at how we can try and address the concerns that are being expressed by the public, while still trying to achieve the goals that we want to try and achieve in the county. He said he would defer any additional comments until the portion of the meeting when the P&Z is asked to comment. Paul Resnick said his sense is there is no consensus developed at the P&Z level on the RC zone. He thinks there are six different views that probably could be melted into a proposal that could get a majority vote, but they have not had that opportunity up to this point nor have they had those discussions internally to see if there is in fact, an ability to develop that consensus. He said he thinks they have heard some very good comments from the public, but urged the board not to take this to the next step of a first reading tonight. He thinks the appropriate step would be to take it back to the P&Z and give the P&Z the time to work with staff and counsel to see if they can develop a recommendation to bring back to the BOCC. Mike Augello commented that he thought the P&Z study sessions were productive. He thinks it is important that there is a facilitator, an agenda and how we break these difficult issues into pieces that can be dealt with in certain timeframes. He expressed that he would like to see the P&Z continue with their study sessions and take small chunks of the issues and maybe have P&Z break into smaller groups to discuss these issues or to take smaller pieces of the issues for discussion in one study session. He thinks that if a consensus is to be reached by the P&Z so they can have a vote, there needs to be an orderly process. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,2002 Chairperson Ireland commented that the reason the meeting was postponed was because when he reviewed the staff memo that was proposed for circulation for that meeting, he felt that it did not incorporate things that he had heard from the P&Z or members of the public for consideration. At the last meeting of the proposed RC zone district, he made a list and the memorandum,proposed for the meeting last week, did not address this list. Therefore, he met with the attorney and staff so he could insure that alternatives proposed, were incorporated into the memorandum so people could discuss them and that is why the meeting was delayed. He said nobody has said that the P&Z will not have the opportunity to meet further on this process and the opportunity to make additional recommendations after tonight's meeting; that has never been said, never been implied or undertaken. He does not think there has to be a vote on first reading tonight, but he thinks we have to start sorting out where the decisions points are so the P&Z can consider them and make recommendations on them. Commissioner Hatfield requested an opinion from the county attorney if it is in fact correct that the BOCC can continue on with this type of forum and the P&Z can schedule their meetings. Or if it is a requirement of state law that amendments and a major over haul to a land use code, must first come as a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission? John Ely replied that if he thought the meetings were being conducted in an inappropriate or illegal fashion, he would have been obliged to speak up a lot sooner than this. It is his opinion that this forum; this process is completely acceptable and conforms to state law. He said Peter is right in that the amendments to a zoning scheme and zoning map must be reviewed and recommended and passed on by the Planning and Zoning Commission. And that recommendation must come before a public hearing is conducted in front of the BOCC for final adoption. He explained that what the board has the flexibility in doing, and what this process has evolved into, is to combine a first reading of the BOCC; the first time the BOCC entertains a proposed legislation, with the P&Z's entertainment of the same legislation. The BOCC cannot adopt this until the P&Z has made a recommendation one-way or the other. The BOCC would not be bound by that recommendation, but depending on how that recommendation goes, sets a series of steps that the BOCC has to comply with. He explained that this is not a public hearing. This is a first reading and a public meeting. Although it is not statutorily required, public comment is being taken to find out what the public thinks or what the affected property owners think. Additionally, this process saves money by keeping the two boards together, but the P&Z can break off and discuss this on their own at anytime and the BOCC can do the same thing as well. Commissioner Clapper commented that she understands why we tried to do both meetings at one time in order for efficiencies, etc., but she has heard enough from the P&Z about their concerns and she would rather see more P&Z time coming back to the board after they have had duly noted time to discuss the issues further and make a recommendation to the board. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,2002 Commissioner Roy said one of the things that she does like about having the P&Z sitting here in the same room, is we are all hearing the same comments and we are all basing our opinions on the same information. Also, she totally values the input the P&Z could have. She urged that what is in the best interest of our community is for us to find a way that the current stewards of the land are the developers and not someone who comes and buys this land. She believes if the P&Z and the BOCC could give the public a few of our thoughts it may find that we are not that far apart. She thinks the TDR's should be able to be used on the ranch land and she thinks the ranchers offered a good compromise with respect to building sites of 70 to 100 acres for a building size of 5,700 square feet. She also thinks it needs to be voluntary if there is a possibility of losing the conservation easement. Commissioner Farris said the goal is to create a draft and to address the issues and then give it to the P&Z for a recommendation. She thinks it is time for the five board members to meet to decide what we want to go forward with and then give it to the P&Z with a timeframe to review and get back with their recommendations. If we don't do that she thinks we will be losing some of the good things that people have asked the board to do. After finalizing the public comment portion of the meeting it was agreed that the proposed regulations should be continued pending a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Roy moved to continue this matter to a special meeting on February 21, 2001 to begin at 1:00 p.m. in the Plaza 1 meeting room. Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,2002 pectfully sub itNd,,J eanette Jones Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Patti Kay-Clap er, Chairperson Board of County Commissioners BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,2002