Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.09082004PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room WEDNESDAY~ SEPTEMBER 8~ 2004 (Patti Clapper Not Present) 2:00 PM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of August 17 and 24 Work Session and August 25 Regular Meeting 2. 1 st Reading and Set for Public Hearing 9/22, Ordinance Adopting FEMA Floodplain Maps, B. Eylar 3. Resolution Approving Emergency & Trauma Advisory Council Appointment Changes, E. Anderson 4. Roadless Rule Resolution, Debbie Quinn LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Mountain Queen Special Review, CDU, Scenic Overlay Review & Lot Line Adjustment (PN 7/10/04) (cont'd from 8/11/04), S. Wolff 2. Craig Ranch Rezoning, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 1st Reading (PN 8/7/04) (PN 8/28/04 10-day), S. Wolff 3. AH Mitigation Code Amendment, continued 2nd Reading (PN 8/14/04), S. Wolff 4. Alpine Groves Condominium Rezoning, Subdivision Exemption, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 1041 Hazard Review 1st Reading (PN 8/7/04) (PN 8/28/04 10-day), E. Louthis 5. Diamond J Special Review (PN 7/24/04) (continued from 8/25/04), E. Lonthis BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN APPROVED SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 87 2004 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET for September 8, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Farris called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:00 PM COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Dorothea Farris, Mick Ireland, Jack Hatfield and Shellie Roy COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Patti Clapper attending to County business in Washington D.C. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA: PUBLIC COMMENT: Toni Kronberg appeared before the Board to discuss work being performed on the Burlingame property. PROCLAMATIONS: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioners gave updates on local issues. Commissioner Ireland urged everyone to register to vote and cast his or her ballot on Election Day on November 2nd. CONSENT ACTIONS: RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADAM FRISCH TO THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: KAREN SAHR~ ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 17 SPECIAL MEETING~ AUGUST 24 WORK SESSION~ AND AUGUST 25 REGULAR MEETING - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JEANETTE JONES~ CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSlONER~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ADOPTING NEW FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS, NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3-80-40 FLOODPLAIN HAZARD AREAS - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON, 2004 - STAFF PERSON: BUD EYLAR, COUNTY ENGINEER RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING CHANGES IN APPOINTMENTS OF PITKIN COUNTY VOTING MEMBERS TO THE CENTRAL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL EMERGENCY AND TRAUMA ADVISORY COUNCIL - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: ELLEN ANDERSON, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO SUPPORTING THE EXISTING FOREST SERVICE ROADLESS RULE AND OPPOSING THE PROPOSED RULE FOR STATE PETITIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Consent Actions Agenda. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM AUGUST 11, 2004 ON RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING THE MOUNTAIN QUEEN, INC. SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION AND THE MOUNTAIN QUEEN INCNVILLE SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF - APPLICANT: MOUNTAIN QUEEN INC. AND LOUS OTTE WILLENVILLE FAMILY TRUST- APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE GLENN HORN SUMMARY OF REQUEST: · to add residential floor area within a barn to include a caretaker dwelling unit, a recreation room, bedroom bathing facility and mechanical space that does not meet the new or old definition of "barn"; · Scenic Overlay Review; · Special Review and GMQS Exemption for TDR Receiver Site and Caretaker Dwelling Unit; · Special Review for Accessory Structure with Bathing Facilities BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this item as summarized in her memorandum contained in the B©CC packet for this meeting. Ms. Wolff explained the following changes to the Resolution: · Condition No. 3 B. - remove the words "old barn" · Language, which states, "A detailed habitat enhancement plan will be provided with the building permit, which shall be consistent with the conceptual plan, which has already been submitted. · The applicant shall provide documentation of the square footage of the old barn located within the exchange parcel to the Community Development Department for a determination on whether the total barn square footage on the property is exempt or if a portion will count as floor area. Glenn Horn stated that the conditions, as amended are satisfactory to the applicant. Chairperson Farris opened the hearing to public comment. Dinane Stauufer, a resident across the river from the property, expressed a concern with respect to there being a caretaker unit in the garage and the separate caretaker building. David Finholm, architect for the project, clarified that the caretaker unit in the garage will be eliminated. There being no further comment, Chairman Farris entertained a motion from the Board. Commissioner Roy moved approval of the Resolution as amended. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Clapper not present. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE CRAIG RANCH PARCELS 4-8 SPECIAL REVIEW, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND GMQS EXEMPTION - MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED AND CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF - APPLICANT: UTE CITY LIMITED, CAROL GALLUN CRAIG FAMILY TRUST AND CAROL CRAIG - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: SONNY VANN AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO DENYING THE CRAIG RANCH PARCELS 2 AND 3 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF - APPLICANT: UTE CITY LIMITED, CAROL GALLUN CRAIG FAMILY TRUST AND CAROL CRAIG - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: SONNY VANN AND FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO REZONING A PORTION OF THE CRAIG RANCH FROM RS-20/PUD TO RURAL/REMOTE - MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON OCTOBER 22, 2004 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF - APPLICANT: UTE CITY LIMITED, CAROL GALLUN CRAIG FAMILY TRUST AND CAROL CRAIG - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: SONNY VANN Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this matter as summarized in her memorandum to the Board. She noted that the applicant proposes to develop six new signal family residences and four caretaker dwelling units on eight separate 35+ acres. · Parcels 1-3 are located on the east side of Woody Creek Road. Parcel 1 contains portions of the Vagneur Mountain hillside, and is proposed to be rezoned to Rural/Remote in order to obtain TDR's to utilize for the on-site development. The development on Parcels 2 and 3 will be limited to a maximum of 5,750 square feet of floor area. · Parcels 4-6 are located on the west side of the road on the valley floor. Parcel 4 contains the existing Craig residence and other structures. Residential development on these parcels will be limited to a maximum of 7,500 square feet of floor area. · Parcels 7 and 8 are located on the west mesa adjacent to White Star Ranch and Star Mesa. Residential development on these parcels will be limited to a maximum of 7,500 square feet of floor area. Ms Wolff said the following approvals are requested and required: · Rezoning of 306 acres of the ranch to Rural/Remote; · 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish building envelopes; · GMQS Exemption and Special Review for one additional single family dwelling unit on a parcel that contains an historic structure; · GMQS Exemption and Special Review to establish Parcels 2-8 as TDR receiver sites (for initial development rights and/or additional floor area; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 · GMQS Exemption and Special Review for caretaker dwelling units on Parcels 5-8. Sonny Vann gave a presentation on this application as outlined in the application contained in the B©CC packet for this meeting. One of the key notes that Mr. Vann spoke to was an issue with respect to the fact that the Woody Creek Road bifurcate the ranch itself. He said when they were doing the title research, on the ranch, they could find no exception to title for the county's ownership of the road although it is their belief and the county engineer's belief that the county acquired title of the road somewhere back in the turn of the century or the early 1900's as the Woody Creek Tow Road. However, no one can produce that deed or that document so they have no exception to title. To the extent that the County owns the road, it bifurcate the property, it pre- dates the adoption of growth management and it creates a separate development right on what would be the west mesa. He explained that they did not assert that as part of this application because the title policy does not support it. However, in ongoing discussions with the Planning Office and the County Engineer, their recommendation is that the applicant grant a 60 foot right-of-way along the road. He said they would be willing to dedicate a 60 foot right-of-way on their plat, to the County, for right-of-way purposes and the County would acknowledge that it does in fact bifurcate the property and there is a development right, however, they did not include this development right in their application but they could still accomplish their objective. Additionally, he said assuming that the County would grant a development right for Parcel 2, then they would propose to use four of the eight TDR's to obtain the additional square footage on those lots, which would equal about 10,000 square feet (2500/TDR), which they would only use 1750 square feet on each of the lots. He said staff has taken the position that they would have to use a separate TDR for each parcel of which they increase the FAR regardless of whether or not they cap the FAR. He said they discussed this issue with the P&Z and there is a provision in the code that talks about fractional TDR's, and it was designed to preclude the ability to sever fractional TDR's from property. In fact, he said the 300 acres, which they are sterilizing generates a fractional TDR for which they are not requesting any credit. Rather, they are simply asking that they be allowed to aggregate their TDR's for purposes of FAR on their property. He said the argument was persuasive at P&Z and they recommended or encouraged the Board to agree with that interpretation subject to two requirements: · The TDR's could only be used for floor area; · The TDR's could only be used on the property. Mr. Vann said this is not essential, but it is something that he thinks is a fair request and urged the Board to give it some serious consideration. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 He said another issue that came up, is by going through the 35 exemption process, they basically absolved themselves from affordable housing mitigation (it comes into play when you subdivide). With discussing the matter, with the family, in an attempt to keep from seeming to trying to avoid that requirement, the family has proposed that if any of the structures, on the property that would have required affordable housing mitigation, had it gone through subdivision, will be required to provide housing if the structures exceed 5750 square feet. He said with respect to the two structures on the east mesa, no affordable housing mitigation would be required because they capped the total square footage at 5750 square feet. For the remaining structures, which could be built up to 7500 square feet, if a family member does not build their home on the property, but rather, decides to sell if for development purposes to recoup the cash, and a buyer wanted to maximize the floor area that is permitted, under this approval, then the buyer would be required to provide affordable housing mitigation in a form of cash in lieu based on the regulations in effect at the time of building permit. In addition, that requirement would be memorialized in the development agreement. Mr. Vann proceeded to give an overview of the benefits of their proposal as outlined in the application. He said they agree with all the conditions outlined by staff and the only two issues left outstanding are the ones he just mentioned. Chairperson Farris said she would like to see the Salvation Ditch preserved. Additionally, she said she does not want all the roads expanded to 40-foot wide standards unless necessary for health/safety reasons. Mr. Vann responded that the ditch will be protected and secondly, the applicant does not intend to build roads any more than the minimum county standards, which is a 16-foot road driveway for a 5750 square foot house. Commissioner Hatfield commented that he appreciates the offer of the applicant to work with the County and deal with the issue of the road, the right-of-way, etc. and dealing with the additional development right as long as it works for the whole plan and all the necessary code. He said the applicant is being generous concerning the housing mitigation and he would hope that the housing mitigation language could include whatever housing mitigation or impact fees are relevant at the time of building permit. With respect to the TDR's, he said he is very concerned about the Board messing with TDR's in what we do and the precedent set. He said until we have a comprehensive look at TDR's he thinks we may be diminishing what we initially intended. He said the last issue for him is vesting and he is inclined to go with the 15 years vesting because he believes the plan has a whole lot of integrity and sensitivity. Commissioner Roy questioned which conditions would be part of a development agreement and/or conditions of approval. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Sonny Vann suggested that if the Board says the applicant owns the road then it should say if you own it, it bifurcate the property and he thinks this should be represented in a condition. Additionally, if the Board is supportive of the use on site for FAR (only on site) without requiring the whole TDR to be wasted for a portion of the FAR, then there should be a condition that says it could only be used on site and then they would pick that up as part of the development agreement. Chairperson Farris said she thinks that with respect to the determination of the TDR's, she thinks that determination will be made when the Board discusses TDR's in full so she thinks this should be held in abeyance until that discussion comes up. She does not have a problem if they are generated and used on site and if the size is restricted to less than what is allowed and only used for FAR. With respect to the vesting, she said her only comment would be that if the Board grants the applicant vesting, the applicant needs to guarantee that they are not going to change their plans. Commissioner Ireland said he wants the fractional use of the TDR's to be done all at one time. Additionally, he said he does not think that the Board can legally vest against rules of general applicability. He said he would like, as part of this application, to have the applicant deed that strip of road to the county and additionally, that all the issues be brought forward in conditions of approval so everything is clear. Sonny Vann said the vesting language they have used in other applications come from State Statute. He said the rub comes from the rule of general applicability. He further said he would strongly encourage the Board, as part of the code rewrite, to address this issue and clarify the language. Chairperson Farris opened the hearing to public comment. Paul Taddune asked for some clarifications on property exceptions 1 and 2. Sonny Vann said exception 2 is a separate parcel not owned by the applicant and exception no. 1 is a separate one-acre parcel that is owned by Carol Craig, individually. Commissioner Roy moved to grant approval of the Resolution granting approval of the Craig Ranch Parcels 4 through 8 Special Review, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Subdivision and GMQS exemption - Direct staff to add a condition, where appropriate that TDR's may be split between lots to accomplish the 7500 square feet. The split TDR's can only be used for FAR and must remain on the property and not sold off the property. After a discussion Commissioner Roy amended her motion to continue this Resolution pending staff working on the TDR issue. Additionally that the housing mitigation language will include housing mitigation or an impact BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 fee, add a recital related to the development rights and that the vesting issue be written to the satisfaction of the county attorney. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Clapper was not present. Commissioner Roy moved approval of the Resolution Denying the Craig Ranch Parcels 2 and 3 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review and GMQS Exemption. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Clapper was not present. Commissioner Roy moved to approve the Ordinance rezoning the Craig property on first reading and set for second reading on October 13, 2004. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Clapper was not present. CONTINUED SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE - THE LAND USE CODE, SUB-SECTION 3-130020, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT EXACTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE PENDING A WORK SESSION -STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this item as summarized in her memorandum contained in the B©CC packet for this meeting. Ms. Wolff referred to letters from Herb Klein, Glenn Horn and Tom Smith with respect to concerns they have with the proposed language. Copies of these letters are contained in the B©CC packet for this meeting. Tom Smith proceeded to review his comments associated with the proposed legislation. He said it is his opinion that the proposed ordinance is contrary to the vested rights statue and that is why it should not be adopted. After a short discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be continued to a work session to discuss the concerns raised in Mr. Smith's and the other referenced letters. Commissioner Farris moved to continue this matter to the September 22nd meeting. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Clapper was not present. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING THE ALPINE GROVE CONDOS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR URBAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, GMQS EXEMPTION, PUD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 APPROVAL, SPECIAL REVIEW AND 1041 HAZARD REVIEW- MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004- STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS AND FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING A REZONING FROM BUSINESS (B-2) TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (AH2/PUD) FOR A PORTION OF THE ALPINE GROVE CONDOMINIUMS PROPERTY - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS - APPLICANT: ASPEN LAND FUND SUMMARY OF REQUESTS: Subdivision Exemption for Urban Affordable Housing Infill to divide off Tract 1 and 2 of the Alpine Grove Condominiums for the development of 17 category affordable housing units' Rezoning from B-2 to AH2/PUD (Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development); Special Review; 1041 Environmental Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission; GMQS Exemption to allow for the construction of dwelling units to be constructed in the AH2/PUD zone district. Ezra Louthis gave a presentation on this item as summarized in his memorandum. Sonny Vann, representing the Aspen Land Fund, gave a presentation on their application as summarized in their application contained in the B©CC packet for this meeting. Chairperson Farris referred to a letter to the Board suggesting that the open space parcel remain as open space rather than turning it into to a playground. A discussion ensued with respect to the parking, and whether or not there would be adequate parking to serve all the residents. The developer said there are 54 parking spaces for the previous development. He said when they sold the condominiums to people, they told them they would be able to use one space even though it is in the County right-of-way (32 spaces) and then the additional 22 spaces would be for guests. Sonny Vann said their request is to construct 17 units with two spaces per unit and four guest spaces. In addition, the planning office's recommendation is for BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 them to take these four spaces out of the proposal. However, he would argue that as a PUD, he should be able to vary the parking requirement if they are willing to provide it. Commissioner Ireland commented that he would like to see the playground left in the proposal rather than leaving it open space. Chairperson Farris opened the hearing to public comment. Rick Neiley, representing four of the surrounding condominium associations including Pitkin Park Place, Pitkin Park Place II, Sage Brush and Alpine Grove said all of his clients have concerns about the impacts to parking as a result of this development. He said he thinks it is important to recognize that there wasn't any County approval in connection with this condominimization that created any County obligation to allow that parking to continue there. He said he thinks when the Board is examining these things, from a planning development, and a special review perspective, it should be looking at the property as a whole and not just the additional development component because that legislation allows it to create nonconformities with respect to the existing development. He said this property, without the affordable housing component, is already nonconforming as to density. The two and half acres that comprise this lot are large enough, under the current B-2 zone district regulations to justify the 32 units that exist on this property. Therefore, he thinks the Board has a legislation issue that has to be addressed by the applicant before the application can go forward, and that is how you get around the code's prohibition of allowing a PUD, which in this instance, creates nonconformity as to density. With respect to the special review, the Board needs to analyze the impacts, not just of the new development, but of the existing development on the neighborhood and whether or not it is compatible, and specifically the impact on parking. He further said he thinks the applicant needs to address the impacts of the overall development on this property not just the development that relates to the affordable housing component. He summarized that if in fact, this approval is to go forward, there should be an accommodation for at least the required number of parking spaces that the zone district requires for this property even if they have to be located partially on this property in order to get this done. Therefore, they would request that this application be tabled pending the applicant having an opportunity to address the overall impacts of the development, as a whole, on the community. There were several residents who voiced concern about there not being enough parking to accommodate all the residents. Several letters, from residents of the area, are contained in the B©CC packet for this meeting. Greg Hill, the developer for the project stated that when they went through their sales efforts, on these condominiums, they fully disclosed in the contract that all these spaces were in the county right-of-way and that there was no assurance that they would stay, even though they had been that way. Secondly, they also BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 disclosed that they reserved the right to develop on these two pieces at some future point in time. He said when he met with the homeowners what was important to them was height of building, view plains and set backs. Therefore, he worked very hard with them to make sure that how the plan, as laid out, would not affect them too much. Commissioner Ireland commented that he thinks the County should think about an easement situation so that there is adequate parking along the roadway. As far as the application, he would approve it as presented. Commissioner Hatfield commented that he thinks this proposal is a huge improvement of what could have occurred on the site, and the fact that there is dedicated parking on site for this project, he is supportive of it as a stand-alone project separate of the need to look at the bigger issue of parking. Commissioner Roy commented that she thinks two thirds of this project is a good project and it meets some very strong neighbor needs. However, she has concerns with respect to the traffic along Mediterranean Avenue. In addition, she expressed a concern that there is a decline in the number of commercial spaces. She said she thinks this lot should be developed as a commercial lot and it there is residential use it should be accessory. Chairperson Farris said she would support Commissioner Ireland with regard to parking on the county right-of-way. She said she would encourage everyone in Alpine Condominiums to talk to Mr. McBride and try to find where there might be a spot where parking can be created. Additionally, she thinks Alpine Grove should approach the County to see if we can come to some resolution with regard to more substantial parking on that road or on that site. There being no further comment she entertained a motion a motion from the Board on this application. Sonny Vann referred to Condition No. 3 with a comment that he would not like the language construed to preclude condominimization. With respect to Condition No. 9, this matter was discussed at P&Z and they agreed to eliminate the requirement that the property be xero-scaped. With respect to the excess parking spaces, he would like to be able to provide the additional four parking spaces for guests. Linda Meyer commented that there is a lot of noise generated from hers and other business that residents might have problems with. Commissioner Ireland moved approval of the application as amended as per Sonny's suggestions/amendments with direction to staff to work on a solution for an easement for the 54 parking spaces. Commissioner Farris BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes and one nay vote by Commissioner Roy. Commissioner Clapper was not present. PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING THE DIAMOND J RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW FOR GUEST RANCH/RESORT CABIN MODIFICATIONS AND EXPANSIONS - MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED - STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS - APPLICANT THE CONNELL COMPANIES - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: TOM STEWART SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests Special Review approval to make small additions to four existing cabins, and construct two additional cabins on the site. The additions to the existing four cabins will be a 165 square foot addition amounting to one bedroom per cabin (the application request the proposed addition to five cabins, but upon further review, the Applicants had decided to remove one of the cabins due to structural deteriorating). The two proposed new cabins will be three bedrooms and two bathrooms each, with one of the cabins reserved for the ranch manager. The proposed ranch manager cabin would be located in close proximity to the existing lodge just to the north and west and would be approximately 1,600 square feet. The other cabin would be for visitor use, and would be approximately 1,300 square feet. Ezra Louthis gave a presentation on this item as summarized in his memorandum contained in the B©CC packet for this meeting. Tom Stewart gave an overview of the project as outlined in staff's memorandum. He said he thought this would be a viable project, but in looking at the application and the resolution that has been put together, he finds that he is confronted with a lot of issues that affect the whole ranch, not just what he is asking to do, and he finds this disturbing and he has great concerns with many portions of the resolution. He proceeded to review his concerns number by number. The following are the conditions discussed and the action taken? · Conditions No's 1-4: Remain as written · Condition No. 6: "The new cabins shall only be utilized either as quarters for the ranch manager or as guest cabins". · Condition No. 7: Language to remain as written. · Condition No. 8: Language amended to read "to maintain the historic barn in its current state". · Condition No. 10: Language to remain as written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 · Condition No. 11: Language to remain as written · Condition No. 12: Language to remain as written · Condition No. 13: Language to remain as written · Condition No. 14: Add language that states "Existing fencing that does not comply with wildlife standards shall be brought into compliance at the time of the first certificate of occupancy for one of the new building permits. · Condition No. 15. Language to remain as written · Condition No. 16. Language to remain as written. · Condition No. 17. Language to remain as written. · Condition No. 18. Language amended to read "The statutory vested right granted herein shall expire on September 8, 2010". Chairperson Farris opened the hearing to public comment. A resident of Thomasville and a member of the fire district commented that their equipment would have no difficulty at all reaching the structures. With respect to the water supply, there are three ponds on the property, which will supply an adequate water supply to put out a fire. He said there is no question, of the fire district, of anything as far as access and water supply for this project. Commissioner Ireland questioned Mr. Stewart if someone other than himself is using a road, which goes through his property? Mr. Stewart responded that the people who own the house have an easement. Commissioner Ireland said that the easement that is plotted is different from where the road actually is, which is common. He suggested that this matter be straightened out prior to the people wanting to go on the easement instead of exactly where the road is. Rolene Roland asked if the sewer system was going to be updated to accommodate the cabins. Lance Clarke explained that the wastewater disposal system, for the entire ranch, is going to have to be upgraded and the applicant is starting to work with an engineer and the state to find out what those requirements will be. He said he would not be able to expand the cabins until something is worked out with the state. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Rolene Roland said for the record, she would like to state that she is against the second building that he wants to do. A copy of her written comments associated with her statement is contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Mr. Stewart submitted several letters of support for his project, which were sent directly to the caucus. Copies of these letters are attached to the end of the BOCC packet, for this meeting, under additional exhibits. A resident of the Thomasville area voiced her support of the project including the addition of an additional cabin. Commissioner Ireland suggested amending the language, in the existing recital, to state "approval" rather than "denial". It was agreed that the ranch manager will live in one of the designated cabins. It was further agreed that one cabin will be limited to1,300 square feet and one cabin will be 1,600 square feet. Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Resolution as amended. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Clapper was not present. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hatfield moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 PM. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Clapper was not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 ~lly submitl ette Jones rk to the Board')f County Commissioners Dorothea Farris, Chairperson Board of County Commissioners g\bocc\minutes\2004\09082004 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004