Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.ws.07072004MINUTES OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' WORK SESSION OF JULY 7, 2004 MINUTES OF WORK SESSION APPROVED BY BOCC Date: July 7, 2004 Meeting Start Time: 1:02pn~N_ ~'~//'-~ ~' Commissioners present: Jack Hatfield Dorothea Farris Michael Ireland Shellie Roy Patti Clapper Commissioners not present: Jack Hatfield Dorothea Farris Michael Ireland Shellie Roy Patti Clapper WORK SESSION ITEM: Land Use Code Revision-Diagnosis and Outline STAFF DIRECTION: Cindy Houben reviewed the land use code revision process with the Board, and explained that some of the caucus groups are requesting more information and that a staff presentation will be made to the Crystal Caucus at their next meeting. She stated that the Technical Advisory Committee met this morning. Chris Dirksen and Don Elliott, from Clarion and Associates, and Alan Richman were present. Chris Dirksen began with a presentation and overview of the project, reviewing the purposes and substantive revisions to be addressed in the new land use code. He reviewed the overall work plan and schedule, and emphasized that the next step after today's meeting is drafting. The team will return in September to present the first portion of a draft land use code. The plan is to present a final dra~ for planning and zoning by March of 2005. He presented an overview of the six major themes for the discussion today. On reorganization of the code, he stated that the team will be using various techniques to make the code user friendly, including a refined index, a table of contents with page numbers, illustrations, easy to read page layout, and tables. This was a high priority from everyone the team interviewed. For zone districts and permitted uses, Dirksen indicated that our districts are in fairly good shape and will not require a lot of rewriting. A few changes to be made include adding a federal/forest zone district, mandatory PUDs and affordable housing zones, integrating low impact residential zone district, preserving the industrial/commercial districts, revamping public zone districts, and adding an institutional zone district to deal with some unique uses like private schools, Rocky Mountain Institute, etc. He indicated that standards will be clarified and that some special review uses will be made permitted uses with specified standards. This will be for some of the fairly routine uses, not the larger more sensitive uses. The trend around the country is to delegate more responsibility to staff, and adding standards will assist in the ability to delegate. The use list will be modernized. On the theme of protecting rural character and the environment, Dirksen indicated that the county has done a really good job in this area and they don't want to hurt it. He advised that the County is known throughout the country for its environmental protection and transferable development rights. Several changes are recommended for the 1041 regulations, including changes concerning wildlife habitat, stream corridors, oil/gas drilling, and water quality. On oil and gas, he suggested the La Plata County regulations as a model. Feedback on the interviews indicated that people also want protection of the tara! character. The team recommends drafting and enacting rural character protection standards, like hillside protection, vegetation preservation and clearing standards, protection of visible natural features, and landscaping. Another step in the development approval process will be added, starting with the hazard review as we do now, but adding a step where staff and applicant determine the best location for the development envelope. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) suggested that staff do the site plan review, not the hearing officer. The TAC also suggested notil~ing neighbors of the process for an informal discussion of any issues, with staff making the decision, subject to appeal or review at the request of the Board. This is a major change in the way we do business. Dirksen also suggested an optional conservation subdivision process to preserve large tracts of open space. Elliott then reviewed how procedures will be streamlined from the current system. There will a chapter devoted 1 to process, called by name. He reiterated that one of the best streamlining tools is to delegate as much deci~on making as possible to staff, with rights to appeal. Process changes for takings determinations are also recommended, because right now the hearing officer is backed up three months on his determinations. GIglQS will be addressed, but there are no recommendations at this stage. TDR's were discussed, with receiving areas being the difficult issue to address. Most areas of the county want to be sending areas, but none want to be receiving areas. The team will work with staff to develop the numbers to better analyze the issues tbr creation and absorption. Dirksen suggested pre-mapping receiving areas, balancing supply and demand, use of TDR's tbr guest houses, use of TDR's tbr takings situations, and looking at home sizes, such as reducing the house size in the urban growth boundary as well, but want BOCC direction on which options to use. The last major theme is to improve certainty, where the key issues are clarifying standards and addressing vested rights, what rights are vested. Dirksen suggested the 2001 proposal as a starting point, because it defines a site specific development right. The team recommends transition rules so new rules and standards are not applied retroactively to existing approvals, with possible exceptions for life and safety issues. If they are retroactive, the fight and opposition is huge, because people come in and try to get them eliminated or watered down. The transitional rules will be the last issue to be addressed by the team. The team requested input on the transitional issue, house size issue, proof of water, and staff delegation. Dorothea Farris started the Board discussion. She mentioned that on the Scenic Byway, the setback desired is 200 feet from the road where possible. She wants zone districts clarified. On commercial, she said we have different types of industries, like home based, cottage industries, rural commercial. She indicated that places like Meredith want to restore their summer tourist business, adding lodges and a store, and that needs to be accommodated. She wants non-conforming uses to be addressed. She wants violations to cost more. She wants the team to think about our sign ordinance and the use of signs on buses. On vegetation, she doesn't want to be in a position of having to count trees. The berm issue needs to be addressed; the floodplain issues in Redstone and Basalt need to be considered. She doesn't like the idea of a lottery instead of GMQS. She wants historic structures to be preserved with the use of TDR's. Commissioner Hatfield stated that it will be a great benefit to improve our process. He feels strongly about preserving the rural character. On zone districts and consolidation, he is interested in R-35 as the only zone in the rural areas. He hopes AH can be combined into one district. He agrees with the need for a federal/forest zone district. He wants an understanding of what is the definition of "institutional." Commissioner Roy added that non-profits are doing businesses that other for-profit businesses are doing, and she does not want to see the "institutional" zone district used to accommodate that. He thinks environmental protection continues to be a huge issue. On 1041, he wants to see a way to reduce our legal challenges, and that we should try to get away from that. Chris Dirksen suggested that they can be incorporated into zoning and development standards, so they could exist in two places. On water, he wants to know what the 100-300 year engineer certification means. He thinks the current system is onerous. He asked for clarification on the call up provision, how would the board know what to call up. He prefers a formal appeal process. Alan Richman suggested a heads up from staff on what site plans are about to be approved so the BOCC could pull them off if they wanted to review. Commissioners Roy and Hatfield liked that suggestion. Lance Clarke suggested that the call up is not something we use, that the appeal process works really well. Cindy Houben said the procedure suggested by Richman did not add certainty and was more time consuming. Dirksen said there are a few issues on site plan approvals. First, do neighbors get notice? Board says yes. How are they heard? Board agreed it should be informal. Third, on the unhappy neighbor, what is the process? He indicated that if you let everyone appeal, the process will not be any more efficient because people here have the wherewithal to fund the appeal. If we switched to a consent agenda option, how many votes would be needed? Another option is that it only comes to the Board if three board members agree, referred to as the "call up". Commissioner Clapper indicated one option is a board appeal, or have a written request from neighbors for the board to call it up. Dirksen emphasized that the goal is to simplify the process. John Ely indicated that we 2 · .don't4~ave that many appeals, and the problem is the lack of standards, no one knows what goes on at the board appeal level. He felt the appeal process would work if the code spells out the standards and process tbr the appeal. Don Elliott added that the standard generally is did staffmake a mistake, and that if this is clarified; our process would be much simpler. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Hatfield stated he likes the current system. Commissioner Farris raised the issue of eliminating a hearing officer. Dirksen felt that if the hearing officer is eliminated, then there will likely be more appeals to the Board. However, there will be a reduction in staff time by eliminating the hearing officer. Hatfield agrees with empowering staff, but does not know to what degree. All the board agreed on clearer standards, and that if there are clearer standards, then greater delegation to staff is appropriate. Commissioner Ireland suggests that. appeals am the biggest problem we have, such as Andlinger. He thinks appeals are about how much money people have to spend to get what they want. He thinks an appeal should require the applicant/appellant to appear before the Board and convince a majority that the decision should be reopened befbre the Board hears any appeal. The first discussion then is whether or not to have a hearing, not a decision on the merits. The Board asked the team to pursue this idea. Commissioner Roy did not like the consent agenda idea. She also wanted to know if the appeal would be a complete reopening or only on a specific issue. John Ely indicated that it would be impossible to come up with standards that do not involve discretion. If an appeal reviews the discretion exercised, then everything will be looked at. He favors having the planners make the decisions, and that unless the planner makes a mistake, there should be no appeal. He thinks that if we adopt a system that allows the board to decide whether to entertain an appeal, the board would say yes to every request. Dirksen indicted there may be a need for the hearing officer on takings even if site plan decisions are delegated to staff. Michael Owsley requested better notices on site, that the current signs can't be seen or read most of the time. Commissioner Roy discussed the rural character, and wanted to know if there were design standards included. Dirksen indicated that there are a variety of issues that could be addressed. Roy wants rural design character addressed, especially roofs. Elliott suggested that they proceed with the current planned process, and if there are some design type standards, they will be highlighted during the draft discussion. The Board concurred. Commissioner Roy then addressed the commercial/industrial issue, indicating that there is a need, for example, for base operation location for snowplowing. She wants non-conforming issues addressed, and Elliott indicated some of these issues can be handled by standards, rather than special review. She does not want retroactivity. Commissioner Clapper left the meeting. The Board agreed that staffshould bring forward oil and gas regulations now. On transitional rules, Dirksen asked if they should apply to existing lots in existing approved subdivisions. Commissioner Ireland's concern was that he has been through two code rewrites, and that we need to anticipate the social impacts. He related his concerns to the census data and the decline in the 25~40 year old population, the changing economy and retail situation (high end items), the enormous demand and upswing in real estate here, which will continue to apply upward pressure on prices, the survey results on growth rates, and the survey results on land use tools. His point is that the community supports the tools we use, and the tools that are being proposed in the rewrite. He feels we need to do something to revitalize. Dirksen indicated that we are already doing a good job, especially by addressing housing. Elliott believes house size is the key, making it easier to build houses for people to live in vs. houses that are treasures to pass on to the next generation. Cindy Houben noted that rural remote sites are becoming more valuable for development of the 1000 sq.ft, house than for selling the TDR. Commissioner Ireland indicated that we can't build our way out of our problem because the 3 demand is continuing to increase. He thinks restrictions have to be imposed, house size is not going to matt:r: He agreed with the consultants that the residential market is so strong that it will wipe out all other uses. He advocates impact fees to preserve or develop the restricted housing needed to keep the community vital. Ely agrees that house size does need to be addressed, and that it relates to who lives here vs. empty second homes. He suggests looking at resident-occupied zone districts. Houben suggested an option to allow the purchase of additional square feet by requiring a buy down or purchase of an existing home to dedicate to affordable housing. Commissioner Roy suggested allowing additional units on existing lots. Commissioner Clapper returned. On the water quantity issue, Dirksen explained that now we require proven adjudicated water rights before filing for subdivision. Dirksen indicated he heard a number of complaints about this in the development community. An alternative is a letter from a water engineer or attorney at the early stage of the process, then adjudicated rights shown at final. The question is timing, when should proven, wet water be required? Ely indicated that the concern is about water, and that conceptual approval can be changed, so requiring it later is meaningless. It takes as much as five years to get the water adjudication. He suggested that we may want to apply the standard to other areas, requiring proof of wet water for all development. Commissioner Clapper wants to stay with the requirement we have now. Dirksen said most people in the state require proof of wet water later in the process. He recommends that if we want to stay with the policy we have now, we should extend it to 35 acre parcels. Hatfield prefers proof after conceptual approval, but he also approves applying it across the board. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Ireland is reluctant to use water as a growth management tool. The Fry-Ark group wants more water and wants to enlarge Ruedi. He has misgivings about either approach. Commissioner Hatfield wants proof of water across the board, but at final, not conceptual. Discussion ensued about requiring an adjudication and wet water. Commissioner Farris summarized that staff should look at adding 35's (the legality) to the proof of water requirement, summarize pro's and con's, and set a work session to resolve the issue of when in the process wet water needs to be proved. On house size, Commissioner Ireland supports the 5750 house size in the urban growth boundary. He would consider eliminating or expanding FAR for Starwood and Red Mountain. Commissioner Clapper wants to keep the TDR's as they are, that each gets 5750 feet of development. She would like minimum house size if FAR is increased. Hatfield wants to restrict house size, have a TDR get 2500 square feet. Board direction was to limit house size by right in the UGB to 5750 and require TDR's to exceed that limit. TDR discussion will occur later. On retroactivity, discussion ensued about what types of regulations should be retroactive. Dirksen indicated that the decision needs to be made soon. Houben indicated there may be other alternatives, like sunset provisions for non-compliance. Some need to be applied, and the Board needs to provide direction for the consultants. This will be resolved at a later work session. Adjourned at 4:40pm. Hilary Fl~h~r Smith,(Coufi¢ Manage Debbm Qarnn, Assistant County Manager Respectfully submitted: ~ Silvia Davis, Clerk and Recorder 4