Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.03102004PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room WEDNESDAY~ MARCH 10~ 2004 2:00 PM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of 2/25 Regular Meeting 2. Resolution Appointing Members to Citizen Boards, Karen Sahr 3. Resolution Opposing Drilling on the P, oan Plateau, Debbie Quinn CONSENT ACTIONS- bt Readings~ Set for Public Hearing on March 24: 4. Ordinance Setting Community Development Fees, Cindy Houben 5. Ordinance Amending Contractor Licensing Ordinance, Tony Fusaro 6. Ordinance Authorizing Reassignment of JFC Automotive Rental Group, L.L.C. dba Dollar Rent-A- Car, Inc. Assignment, Assumption and Consent Agreement to DTO Operations, Inc., Jim Elwood 7. Ordinance Authorizing Reassigument of Westrae, Inc. dba Thri~y Rent-A-Car Assigmnent, Assumption and Consent Agreement to DTG Operations, Inc., Jim Elwood 8. Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of a Parcel of Land to Colorado Dept. of Transportation, 3ohn Ely, Bud Eylar 9. Resolution Approving Grant to AsperffPitkin Housing Authority, Tom Oken CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING - 2"a Readings 10. Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding with Colorado Dept. of Health to Provide Five 100-Bed Mobile Hospitals in the Central Mountain Emergency Trauma Advisory Council Area, Ellen Anderson 11. Ordinance Authorizing Option on a Trail and Conservation Easement on the Parker Property, D. Will ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS: 12. Revised Resolution Opposing Fee Demonstration Program, Debbie Quinn LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Aspen Pitkin Animal Shelter and Boarding Kennel Growth Management/Subdivision Exemption, Special Review, Scenic Overlay Review, 1041 Hazard Review, Rezoning, Code Amendment, Minor Plat Amendment (PN 2/7/04) (to be continued to 4/14/04 at request of Applicant), E. Louthis 2. Collins Subdivision Detailed Submission Final Plat, 1st Reading (PN 8/9/03) (continued from 2/11/04) (to be continued to 4/14/04 at request of Applicant), L. Clarke LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Flying Dog Ranch Rezoning, Code Amendment, OM Exemption, 1041 Hazard Review & conceptual Submission, t st Reading (PN 2/7/04) (continued from 2/25/04 at request of Applicant), S. Wolff 4. Code Amendmem - Driveway Encroachment into Avalanche HaTardAreas, istReading (PN 2/28/04), E. Louthis 5. Code Amendment - Multiple Detached Elements, 1st Reading, (PN 2/28/04), L. Clarke LAND USE ACTIONS 6. Little Cloud Access Permit Takings Appeal, L. Clarke BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION Note: The BOCC convened into an executive session during the Flying Dog Ranch Discussion APPROVED MARCH 24, 2004 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER-~ REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET for March 10, 2004. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Farris called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Dorothea Farris, Shellie Roy, Mick Ireland, Patti Clapper and Jack Hatfield ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None. PROCLAMATIONS: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commission members gave an update on local issues and current events. Chairperson Farris announced that Robert Congdon, owner of the Alabaster Mine has notified the Forest Service, the neighbors and contacted the Commissioner's office this morning to let them know that he will be blasting tomorrow afternoon between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. She noted that the Forest Service will be down at Avalanche Creek Road near the mine at about 12:30 p.m. to monitor the blasting. Secondly she said that House Bill 1273, which is the renewable bill, passed the House and is close to passage in the Senate but has been held up for about a week while they get enough votes to pass it. She asked staff to send some quick e-mails to people supporting this bill. She said this is a request from Holy Cross Electric who supports it and needs the help. Commissioner Hatfield reiterated his previous comments with respect to a controversy concerning the Base Village development. He said an election will be held on March 16th and has, as a County Commissioner, been accused of having a conflict of interest, etc. as if he gave up his citizenship when he was elected to the Board. He said he wants to mention that in no way has that issue detracted from his work as a Commissioner. He explained that issue was previously run by John Ely, County Attoi'ney, and John has publicly stated that he does not have a conflict. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS t REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Commissioner Roy announced that next weekend is historical week and would urge everyone to enjoy the many activities that are being offered. Commissioner Ireland announced that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pitkin County in an important case regarding mining claims in Pitkin County's back county where people have been filing claims against Pitkin County based on defects in 1907 and 1908; turn of the century tax sales on the grounds that Pitkin County didn't properly publish the notice of the tax sales. He explained that there wasn't always a newspaper always available to publish those notices. Secondly he announced that Mark Udall has announced his candidacy for the United States Senate. Thirdly he said that a community survey has been sent out to about 1200 part time homeowners, registered locals, and businesses. He urged everyone that if they get one of those surveys to please fill it out because the Board is very interested in the kind of service needs that they are seeing, especially from local residents that the board usually doesn't hear from. Charles Hopkins, President of Aspen Wilderness Workshop said he would like to mention that the case Commissioner Ireland referred to was a cooperative thing with the County Wilderness Workshop and very gratefully funded from the ladies at the Thrift Shop to fight that issue about the mining claims. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 257 2004 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JEANETTE JONES, CLERK TO THF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS - HAWK GREENWAY AND JESSEE BOYCE TO OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD AND BETH FERGUS TO LIBRARY BOARD - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: KAREN SAHR~ ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY DRILLING FOR GAS FROM THE ROAN PLATEAU~ AND SUPPORTING GARFIELD COUNTY'S POSITION OPPOSING SUCH DRILLING - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER Commissioner Clapper requested that the Resolution related to the Roan Plateau be pulled from the consent agenda for some clarifications. Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Consent Agenda as amended. Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY DRILLING FOR GAS FROM THE ROAN PLATEAU, AND SUPPORTING GARFIELD COUNTY'S POSITION OPPOSING SUCH DRILLIN(~ - CONTINUED TO A FUTURE WORK SESSION - STAFF PERSON: DEBBIF QUINN~ ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Commissioner Clapper said she agrees that the Board should support Garfield County, but she said she would like to make the language stronger and encourage Garfield County to seriously look at some land use regulations. Additionally, she said in the resolution there is some inconsistency in terms. She noted that in some places it just refers to drilling for gas, some places we use drilling for oil and gas and some places natural gas, sometimes we put development, sometimes we put leasing so she would just like the terms to be more consistent. Also, she wants to emphasize the drilling on the plateau is the issue. It was the consensus of Commission members that Commission Clapper should work with staff to address her issues and bring it back on a future consent agenda. Commissioner Hatfield suggested that additional language be added, which speaks to national significance due to the potential of part of this property being dedicated as a wilderness area. CONSENT ACTIONS - FIRST READINGS - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 24: FIRST READING - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND REPEALING AND REPLACING ORDINANCF 007-2003 - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON MARCH 24, 2004- STAFF PERSON: CINDY HOUBEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FIRST READING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.36 - {CONTRACTOR LICENSING) OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON MARCH 247 2004 - STAFF PERSON: TONY FUSARO~ CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRST READING - ORDINANCE APPROVING OFF-AIRPORT RENTAL CAR ASSIGNMENT~ ASSUMPTION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH DTG OPERATIONS~ INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF OFF-AIRPORT RENT-A-CAR OPERATIONS AT THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT- MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 247 2004- STAFF PERSON: JIM ELWOOD~ AIRPORT DIRECTOR FIRST READING - ORDINANCE APPROVING ON-AIRPORT RENTAL CAR ASSIGNMENT~ ASSUMPTION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT DTG OPERATIONS, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF ON-AIRPORT RENT-A-CAR CONCESSION SPACF AT THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT - STAFF PERSON: MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 24~ 2004 - STAFF PERSON: JIM ELWOOD~ AIRPORT DIRECTOR FIRST READING - ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEl OF LAND TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION~ STATE OF COLORADO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 24~ 2004 - STAFF PERSONS: JOHN ELY~ COUNTY ATTORNEY AND BUD EYLAR~ COUNTY ENGINEER FIRST READING - RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENT.~I AGREEMENT WITH AND A GRANT FOR THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSlNC AUTHORITY (WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK SEWER PLAN CONSTRUCTION) - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READINC AND PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 24~ 2004 Commissioner Hatfield requested that the Resolution approving a grant to the housing authority be pulled for discussion purposes. Commissioner Roy requested that the Ordinance amending contractor licensing be pulled from the consent agenda. Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Consent Actions Agenda as amended setting the items for second reading and public hearing on March 24, 2004. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.36 - {CONTRACTC,~. LICENSING) OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON MARCH 247 2004- STAFF PERSON: TONY FUSARO~ CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL After a discussion with Tony Fusaro with respect to some clarifications in the ordinance, Commissioner Ireland moved approval of first reading of the Ordinance and set for second reading and public hearing on March 24, 2004. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING - RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAl AGREEMENT WITH AND A GRANT FOR THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSIN~ AUTHORITY (WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK SEWER PLA,~' CONSTRUCTION ) - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READINg' AND PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 24, 2004 - STAFF PERSON: TOM OKEN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Commissioner Haffield questioned if language could be added in Recital No. 5 that is more definitive with respect to the language that states APCHA expects, but is not committed to offer a grant for the same amount to Pitkin County in 2005 for the county's Stillwater housing project? Tom Oken addressed the issue by saying that the housing board cannot commit to giving a grant next year in exchange for the grant this year because they would be binding a future board's action and that would constitute death. So that's what has to BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 be avoided and because of that staff just outlined the expectation of how the county would be paid back next year. Commissioner Clapper asked if anyone approached the City to see if they would cover the $300,000. She said she thinks we need to move forward on this, but she has this risk concern as far as taking money out of the Stillwater fund because we don't have a lot of revenue coming into that fund. Mr. Oken responded that staff did not ask them because they are covering the loan during the year that might be necessary. Additionally, the housing authority contacted the county staff because the project is in the county. Commissioner Ireland said he is concerned also, but he thinks we need to go forward because he thinks we have sufficient political control of the housing authority to get re- granted. Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Resolution approving the grant. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes and one nay vote by Commissioner Clapper with a statement that she is concerned about the Stillwater proJect. Chairperson Farris opened the public hearings on the remainder of the agenda. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS - SECOND READINGR RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO PROVIDE FIVE ONE-HUNDRED BED MOBILE HOSPITALS (SURGE CACHES) IN THE CENTRAL MOUNTAIN EMERGENCY TRAUMA ADVISORY COUNCIL AREA - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF PERSON: ELLEN ANDERSON, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR Commissioner Clapper requested discussion time on this matter. She asked if there had been any discussion on choosing a site somewhere closer to the Highway 82 connection, which would allow better access to the area. Ellen Anderson responded that ideally it would be located at Aspen Valley Hospital but they are totally out of reom. She explained that at a public safety council meeting, they discussed it and seemed the logical place would be the Old Snowmass Fire Station because they have room. However, it is available to the other counties in the mid-valley region. Commissioner Clapper expressed a concern that the hospital is storing their supplies in Carbondale. She said she thinks it is critical that the hospital has it supplies on their site and she hopes everyone keeps this in mind when the hospital moves forward with any kind of expansion. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Commissioner Clapper moved approval of the Resolution. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. SECOND READING - ORDINANCE APPROVING JOINT ACQUISITION THF PARKER TRAIL AND PARKING EASEMENT AND JOINT INTEREST IN PARKER CONSERVATION EASEMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DAI F WILL, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS DIRECTOR Commissioner Haffield requested discussion time on this matter. He said he would like to clarify that the $15,000 is essentially for the easement and the $10.00 is for the parking spaces. Dale Will said the $15,000 would be for a joint interest in a conservation easement and for the trail easement option. The final payment on the trail easement option would be this nominal amount. Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Ordinance. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS: RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT NO RECREATIONAL FEE BE IMPOSED FEDERAL LANDS UNDER THE RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A WORK SESSION - STAFF PERSON: DEBBIE QUINN~ ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER Chairperson Farris explained that a resolution on this matter was approved at the last meeting, and Commissioner Clapper has requested that the Board reconsider this resolution. Commissioner Ireland suggested that the Board set a work session to discuss this matter when all members of the public could be present and have a chance to comment on the issues. Commissioner Hatfleld said when he looks at the resolution, he is not sure if this is consistent with where the tone and the content of the last hearing went because this resolution, in effect, is a prying open of the door to all, under certain conditions, a fee demo. He thinks at the last meeting this Board said that it did not support the fee demo. So he is not in support of re-opening this discussion. Commissioner Harper said she read the minutes and she thinks Commissioner Clapper has done an excellent job in the two very minor suggestions that she put in the resolution of better reflecting the minutes. She said the minutes did articulate very rightly, objections to fee demo. On the other hand, she said there were several people, not only from the Forest Service and the BLM, but people who had been working BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 actively in their own fome who were in attendance. She said she thinks she is giving us something really good as a starting place to continue working with our own Forest Service. Commissioner Farris said she agrees with Commissioner Hatfield. She said the program gives the opportunity for the federal government to say we do not have to be responsible for those lands for which we are responsible. And she has a problem with that and she hesitates to open the door and thinks that's what our past resolution says. Commissioner Clapper said she had the opportunity, two weeks ago, to meet in Washington DC with Jim Upchurch formerly the White River National Forest Ranger for the Aspen District. She said the ripple effect had already occurred that Pitkin County was looking at opposing all fee demos and it had already hit Washington. She said she and Jim talked about it and her concern, and the Forest Service's concern is what is going to happen in the interim when we are not going to get any money from the federal government, and we are not getting any money from fee demo that we will have an enormous degradation of our public lands and it's going to take us years to catch up on that. She thinks areas like the Maroon Bells are looked at more like a national park where it is very controlled, it has an enormous amount of services that need to be maintained and that coupled with a huge tourism there, she is concerned about providing that service and maintaining that great bus system that we have up there. She said she does not know that this board was really totally aware of the impacts of removing the fee demo program without some other form of funding in place. She said all she is asking that the fee demonstration program be allowed to continue, temporarily, at those special sites where the program has been working and the communities in those areas support it. Secondly, she said it is her understanding that the Forest Service has a document, which is titled the "blueprint" and this document lays out the criteria and guidelines of how and where fee demo will be in place, how it will be run, where the money is going to go, etc., and she thinks the Forest Service would like Pitkin County to review that and comment to try and make it work if this program is to be continued. She explained that is why she is suggesting that on a temporary basis, to allow the program to continue until we have a chance to review additional information. Chairperson Farris asked if there was anyone on the board who wished to make a motion to reconsider. Commissioner Ireland said he does not want to operate by a motion to reconsider because that would be an acrimonious process that under-mines this board. And it puts him in a position of having to reconsider a motion that he does not want to reconsider, but he might consider amending. He said he does not want to go through a procedure that way and he won't go through a procedure that way. He reiterated his previous comments that he thinks the matter should be scheduled for a work session pending people being able to review the information that Commissioner Clapper has provided the board today. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING MARCH '10, 2004 Commissioner Clapper said she would appreciate a work session. She requested representatives from the Forest Service to provide a copy of the blueprint document for the board to review. Chairperson Farris opened the meeting up to comments from the public. Malcolm McMichael commented that he thinks the resolution that was drafted is frank, straightforward and clear to end a bad program. He said he thinks fee demonstration is part of a privatization. He said he wanted to remind the board that there is local opposition to the program and that there are administrative things that need to be figured out. Charles Hopkins, representing the Wildness Workshop explained that at the last meeting all the people in the audience, with the exclusion of the Forest Service and the BLM, were opposed to the program. He said there was an agreement with the Forest Service regarding the road to the Maroon Bells long before the fee demo program and encouraged the board to look at that agreement prior to a work session. He read into the record a letter from Annette Keller addressing her comments. A copy of this letter is attached to the end of the BOCC packet for this meeting, under additional comments. Bill Westbrook, White River National Forest Service District Ranger, said he agrees and thinks it's necessary to have a working session to discuss all the issues and the topics that were brought up today and how they view and feel about the recreation fee demo. He said he thinks the fee authority is very much needed for the Forest Service and for land managers. It's a very valuable tool to them but is a tool that shouldn't be used very often, but when they have a need for it that tool (that authority) to charge fees. He also thinks it should occur with a lot of public input to it. He explained that they use that tool for other programs e.g. tree cutting, educational projects, etc. Also, they do have privatization for concessionaires running the campgrounds. Additionally, the fees that are charged for campground use are kept here locally to manage and maintain those campgrounds. Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director of the Aspen Wilderness Workshop, said if the resolution is amended it would not be sending the message that needs to be heard loud and clear that this is not an appropriate to way to manage the public trust. Kim Raymond said what strikes her about the fee demo program is that it is a really bad program. She said many organizations have totally misappropriated funds, it has been abused and it needs to die and something else needs to come in its place and she thinks we need to say this is over, come up with something better. It was the consensus of the majority of commission members that the matter should be scheduled for a work session to review Commissioner Clapper's material, gather public input, the Forest Service's blueprint and alternatives. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Commissioner Hatfield said this issue for him, is clear cut and not a gray area. He said the resolution has already been sent and this is an open the door for no good reason. LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASPEN PITKIN ANIMAL SHELTER AND BOARDING KENNEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT/SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION. SPECIAL REVIEW, SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW, 1041 HAZARD REVlEW~ REZONING~ CODE AMENDMENT, MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO APRIL 147 2004 - STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS COLLINS SUBDIVISION DETAILED SUBMISSION FINAL PLAT - FIRST READIN(" MOTION TO CONTINUE TO APRIL 14, 2004 - STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR Chairperson Farris opened the public hearing on these items for public comment. There being no comment, she brought the matters back to the Board for action. Commissioner Clapper moved to continue these two items to April 14, 2004. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Ireland left the meeting temporarily. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO GEORGE STRANAHAN FOR THr FLYING DOG RANCH 1041 HAZARD REVIEW~ CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVlEW~ GMQS EXEMPTION AND CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT, AND DESIGNATING THE HISTORIC RESOURCES TO THE PITKIN COUNTY HISTORIC, INVENTORY~ AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEClSIOH WITH REGARD TO CERTIFICATION OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTR - MOTION TO TABLE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST BY GEORGE STRANAHAN TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE FLYING DOG RANCH FROM RS-20/PUD TO TRANSITION/ti RURAL/REMOTE - MOTION TO TABLE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-110-051 (a) OF THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON ANY PARCEL WHICH WAS LEGALLY CREATED BEFORr' JUNE 12, 1978, SECTION 3-80-060, HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGIC/tl RESOURCE AREAS AND 9-110-043~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES - MOTION TO TABLE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this item as summarized in her memorandum to the Board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. · BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Ms. Wolff said that staff's recommendation at this point, would be to continue this application, pending the applicant coming forward with an application with respect to development of the east mesa portion of the property. Jim Curtis, representing George Stranahan, said both the County Commissioners and George share the same objectives. He said George would also like to deal with the whole property as part of his estate planning so they support the tabling of this portion of the application and doing it in a comprehensive fashion. He thinks this is the only logical way to go to bring this to conclusion so it works for everyone. He proceeded to review the site plans of the property including the proposed conservation easements with commission members. Mr. Curtis said that the reason they would like to proceed with getting TDR's from the Lenado Mining Claims is that they feel there is a lot of public benefit in this plan and given two to three years, he could get approvals on the east mesa, on the south parcel and west mesa because they all have zoning rights associated with those properties and there are procedures in place that would allow him, given enough time, to seek approvals. He said the additional arguments he would make on the Lenado Mining Claims is first of all, in his reading of the code, he thinks it is a completely discretionary decision before the County Commissioners because it's an appeal and he would argue that they the Board has the ability to judge that appeal in the context of does it service the public service in total? Secondly, he said the TDR's on George's property would basically be an internal transfer; they would not be going out into the TDR market. He explained that the internal transfer, in concept, is very similar to what happened with Bob Child's family; they took TDR's from the high lands and put them down and legalized some of the home sites for the family. He said the second point, on the TDR's, is it puts to the bed the issue of the potentially shaky legal conservation easement that was created in 1978. He noted that George would never contest the conservation easement, but what happens with George's heirs or estate thereafter, who might know and this would be an opportunity to put that issue to rest. With respect to whether or not this would be setting a precedent, he said he researched, as best he could working with the GIS information, and as best he can determine, the Lenado Mining Claims represent a one of a kind situation where they are basically the only mining claims within and zoned rural and remote with three existing conservation easements still owned by a private party. So in terms of a precedent, he doesn't envision herds of people coming behind them. He said in a very small way, and he knows this should not play in the public policy, he thinks this is an opportunity simply to acknowledge the good deed that George did, in 1978, by being one of the first people in the state to do a conservation easement. He summarized by saying in the context of the overall plan he thinks it serves the public to convey the three TDR's because 223 acres of mining claims will be nailed down without any debate, an additional. 90 acres of the Flying Dog Ranch on the south parcel, and an additional 50 acres on the west mesa. He said that George has a cabin right on a parcel of mining claims and they BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING MARCH '10, 2004 propose to keep those claims and that one cabin right and they have been consistent in that representation for two years. Chairperson Farris said she would like to ask for an executive session to allow her to ask a question of the county attorney. Commissioner Roy moved to go into executive session under CRS 42-6-02 4(b)., at 4:55 p.m. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Farris reconvened the regular meeting at 5:15 p.m. Commissioner Clapper moved to continue this matter pending the applicant bringing the entire site, as planned, including the east mesa application with specific language concerning the use of TDR's (the internal transfer). Commissioner Haffield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE ENACTING SECTIONS 3-80-010(B)~ APPLICABILITY~ 3-80-050(A), AVALANCHF AREAS, 3-80-050(C), POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES, AND 7-10-050(D), HEARING OFFICER - MOTION TO DENY - STAFF PERSON: EZRA LOUTH!-~ Note: The following resolution was prepared associated with the above action at this meeting: RESOLUTION DENYING THE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING OF SECTIONS 3- 80-010(B), APPLICABILITY, 3-80-050{A), AVALANCHE AREAS, 3-80-050(C), POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES, AND 7-10-050(D), HEARING OFFICE~ Ezra Louthis gave a presentation on this matter as summarized in his memorandum to the Board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Herb Klein said the proposed legislation is intended to apply very rarely. They think most situations are either going to be where the entire property is in an avalanche zone, in which case a takings hearing would ensue, and most outcomes of takings hearings, especially for vacant land, is that the end result would be approving a road through a red zone or there would be another alternative roadway that would not have huge impacts. It might be ideally what the landowner would want, but it probably would not go through a calving area, radically steep slopes, etc. He said this legislation is going to be a situation where the other option exists So there won't be a taking situation. But the other option is so destructive and impactive that when you get to balance and weigh that option against simply allowing the road to go through the avalanche zone that the board could decide, taking all that into consideration in a very discretionary way that in that particular case, it is better to go through the avalanche zone and that is all this is designed to do. He said Marcella Larsen's concern is that she wanted to have specific standards in the code; she wasn't comfortable with the discretion and didn't want Jt to be BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 done case by case. He said they think this should be done case by case because every property is going to be different and this will at least allow the option, which isn't contained the code right now, to allow a road through the red zone rather than a road which would result in severe environmental and visual impacts. A copy of his written comments addressing this proposed code amendment is contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Art Mears, an avalanche control engineer, stated that he introduced the red and blue zones in the 70's he intended for these zones to be applied to residential, business or commercial structures that would permanently or at least transiently be occupied during the winter. He said he never assumed, at the time that the concept of red and blue zones would ever be applied to driveways or roads and he has consistently recommended over the years that they not be applied to roads. He proceeded with his comments on the proposed code amendment as contained in his letter to Mr. Klein dated January 28, 2004. A copy of this letter is contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Commissioner Clapper said she has some concerns and she certainly doesn't want to put public safety at risk, but she thinks it is something that the Board should have the opportunity to evaluate (what the risk factors ars) with some of these driveways. She moved to approve the code amendment as presented. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion with a comment that the way the legislation is crafted it doesn't open up the door that everyone picks the avalanche route for whatever reason. Commissioner Hatfield expressed a concern that the language is too discretionary and therefore, he is not supportive of this amendment. Glenn Horn commented that the recommended proposal says that there would be mitigation if a road were to cross a blue or red zone. And the mitigation would be one of which, makes the most sense to the Board, as the discretionary decision maker. A member of the public, who is a landscape architect, commented that he would urge the Board to adopt this legislation due to the fact that it would give the Board an opportunity to approve a road that would be so significantly better than the visual and environmental impacts that another vested road alignment might create, and that would really be a benefit to the entire community. And if the alignment through the red zone is approved he said the quality of the site design, and the quality of the mitigation to allow that to go through would be addressed by the Board in these very rare cases. Art Meats said the form of this amendment is more restrictive than he would recommend himself because there would be cases where a red zone would be an infrequent enough avalanche that he wouldn't think mitigation would be justified at all. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Commissioner Farris referred to the applicability section and suggested the words "may" be changed to "shall". Additionally, she suggested that impacts to "wildlife habitat" be considered. Commissioner Clapper amended her motion to include Chairperson Farris' suggestions. Commissioner Roy accepted these suggestions. Commissioner Ireland suggested that the word "may" remain in the language due to the fact that he does not think the Board wants to be accused of making an ineffective decision on the grounds that it didn't consider something on the list. He said Art Mears is the best in determining avalanche return periods and so on, but he is not an expert in the value of a human life and the red and blue zone should not be a judgment on the value of human life. He said when you get into Iow scale probabilities accidents are more unpredictable and you really don't know what those probabilities are. Additionally, he said he has a concern when a person doesn't really have notice of the risk that he or she is taking. And you can't expect that person to make that judgment of whether an avalanche is going to hit them because they place a trust in the Board to make that judgment for them. Secondly, he said he does not want to go back to considering these types of applications on a case by case basis. Thirdly, he said this is a major departure from a fundamental premise that this Board has affirmed and that is that public safety is an absolute value that is not brokered in return for other benefits. Lastly he said he thinks there should be some standards and we should say these are the conditions under which we will consider and have some framework of reference that allows the Board to make the decision on the values. Art Mears suggested that a public notice be posted giving notification that the road is going through an avalanche area. Mr. Klein commented that most of Commissioner Ireland's concerns are safety related and they are proposing that there be mitigation. Chairperson Farris brought the matter back to the Board. Commissioner Clapper removed the word "shall" from her motion. Commissioner Roy accepted this to her second. John Ely, County Attorney, expressed a concern with respect to the language in the proposed amendment giving the Board the discretion to approve something without specific standards being considered. He said a better drafting of language will leave the reader of that language (a neighbor or an owner of a property like this) with a better understanding of what they can expect before they file an allocation to do something. A discussion ensued with respect to whether or not this matter should be tabled at this juncture. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Mr. Klein explained that the project that stimulated this effort is on a fairly short time fuse. it has a building permit that has certain requirements and they are going to be starting in the spring. He said they have time, if that language could actually be developed, and come back to the Board in the next 30 days or so. Mr. Klein was advised that any change in the language would have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and therefore, the 30 day time frame could not be met. Chairperson Farris called the question. The motion failed with three nay votes by Commissioners Farris, Hatfield and Ireland and two yea votes by Commissioners Clapper and Roy. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE II OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE~ THE LAND USE CODE~ BY REPEALING ANI3 REENACTING SECTIONS 3'40-90~ AFR-10 ZONE DISTRICT; 3-40-110~ RS-20 ANI3 RS-30 ZONE DISTRICTS; 3-40-120, RS-160 ZONE DISTRICT BY ADDING ^ SPECIAL REVIEW USE~ ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITH BATHING FACILITIES - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON MARCH 24~ 2004 STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE~ ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR Lance Clarke gave a presentation on this item as summarized in his memorandum to the Board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Commissioner Clapper moved approval of first reading of the Ordinance and set for second reading on March 24, 2004, with an amendment that the structure that is going to receive primary height will be approved through special review. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Commissioner Haffield questioned if this deed restriction is enforceable? John Ely responded that this version should be enfomeable as long as we stick to the profile and don't amend the language it should provide the County what it wants. Commissioner Ireland said he could vote for this amendment if there is language included in the ordinance that the separate units created, will be separately assessable for an impact fee if such impact fee is assessed. Chairperson Farris called the question. Motion passed with four yea votes with one nay vote by Commissioner Ireland. DETERMINATION OF NO TAKINGS OF THE LITTLE CLOUD SU_RD!VISION AS A RESULT OF THE GRANTING OF AN APPEAL BY TERRY TAYLOR OF TH,= ISSUANCE OF AN ACCESS PERMIT - MOTION THAT NO TAKINGS HAR OCCURRED - STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE~ ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 /~/' Lance Clarke gave a presentation on this item as summarized in his memorandum to the Board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Commissioner Roy moved to find that a takings has not occurred because of the following: · The Applicant has no reasonable investment-backed expectation to develop the property. · The Applicant has not been denied all reasonable use and economic return in connection with the denial of the development application; and · The Applicant does not have the right to the most profitable use of his property, which would require development in a hazard area. · And we have already outlined how the Applicant can apply for the driveway application with the mitigation that will be necessary. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Ted Gardenswartz, representing John Tucker owner of Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Little Cloud, said what he would like to address are some of the solution mitigation issues. He said the Resolution granted the appeal and he thinks the reason for the denial and the revocation of permit was that there was a need for proceeding with new or additional mitigation. Absent the ability to build the access driveway he said their position would be that they are deprived of all economically viable uses of Lots 2, 3 and 4. He said he is also extremely cognizant of the Board's position that there is another way to get in there. He said what he would really like to present here is the solution, but he thinks the issue is mitigation. He said they have a new application coming and the new application is strikingly identical to a letter they sent over on February 10, 2004, which goes through the mitigation issues, as they perceive them, and he would like to address those mitigation issues. He proceeded to review his referenced letter outlining mitigation measures. Commissioner Ireland clarified that the only issue before the Board today is whether or not this is a takings. He said in looking at the record, one could easily conclude that the Board has thoroughly assessed the issues that were in play. However, at this point in time, the Board cannot say if you come forward with an application we will grant you an approval. Mr. Gardenswartz asked if they could at least hold in abeyance the takings hearing without them foregoing their procedural rights. Curt Sanders, representing Tom Lewis, said he submitted the letter, which Ted referenced. He said the letter came from a meeting that Ted, Tom Lewis, Lance Clarke and Bud Eylar all attended. He said at this point he does not think they have been given enough direction from the Board to what it would take to get something before it BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 it that they would approve. All they know is what they submitted before won't be approved. John Ely said that the request really is in a nature of a further elaboration or a revision or revisiting the earlier resolution granting an appeal. He explained that in a takings scenario and the fact that there are other development scenarios or avenues present for a property owner such that he has not been denied all reasonable use of the property, ends the taking inquiry. Mr. Sanders said he doesn't disagree with that he just thought it might be a good use of their time to spend 19 minutes discussing what they are proposing in their letter. Commissioner Hatfield explained to Mr. Sanders that he believes this letter is contained in Resolution No. 19-2004. He said what staff will end up doing is working through some of these issues. He said the issues of both rock fall and avalanche mitigation are contained in the Board's motion, which says "to be designed to provide appropriate rock fall and avalanche hazard mitigation." Then when you (as the applicant) apply for the driveway permit, staff will create that criteria and then you will have your driveway permit, if staff approves it. Chairperson Farris called the question. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 Cl~ to the Board of Gounty Commissione s Dorothea Farris, Chairperson Board of County Commissioners g\min utes~.004\bocc.reg.03102004.doc BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS t1' REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2604