Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.05242005 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005 (Dorothea Farris not present.) 11:00 AM- 1:00 PM Joint meeting with Town of Snowmass Village, Debbie Quinn (Lv CH Plaza at 10:40) 12:45-1PM SPECIAL MEETiNG Executive Session ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETiNG Plaza One Conference Room 1:30 PM Memos of Interest Future Agendas/Agenda Requests BOCC Open Discussion 2:30 3:00 Preparation for Meeting with USFS, Debbie Quinn Preparation for Meeting with Town of Basalt, Debbie Quinn CITIZEN BOARD INTERVIEW Mirte Mallory - P&Z 3:15 BREAK 3:30 V/4:00 One-Time Savings, Tom Oken, Debe Nelson SPECIAL MEETING Joint Meeting with P&Z Policy Discussion on Water Requirements and Retroactivity of the Land Use Code, Ellen Sassano, Cindy Houben 5:00 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED JUNE 08, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 24, 2005 (Joint meetinq with P&Z Commission) NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR MAY 24, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 4:0'1 PM. BOCC COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Kay- Clapper, Jack Hatfield, Mick Ireland and Michael Owsley BOCC COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Dorothea Farris was attending another meeting P&Z COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Michael Augello, Marcella Larsen, Jay Murphy and John Howard ALSO PRESENT: John Ely, County Attorney; Hilary Smith, County Manager; Cindy Houben, Director of Community Development; Lance Clarke, Assistant Director of Community Development DISCUSSION AND STAFF DIRECTION FOR CLARION ASSOCIATES ON LAND USE CODE REVISION TOPICS - STAFF PLANNER - ELLEN SASSANO Ellen Sassano proceeded with her presentation on the Land Use Code Revision topics as outlined in her and Cindy Houben's memorandum to the BOCC dated May 24, 2005. Said memorandum includes current County Land Use Code regulations, prior County practices and current County practices. Also included are Clarion Associates and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendations. Alternative options and pros and cons are also shown to facilitate discussion. ISSUE I - WHEN TO REQUIRE PROOF OF WATER RIGHTS AS PART OF SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MAY 24, 2005 ISSUE 2 - SHOULD ALL PROPERTIES SEEKING LAND USE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OUTSIDE OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS BE REQUIRED TO SHOW ADJUDICATED RIGHTS, A WELL PERMIT OR EXEMPT WELL STATUS AT SUBMISSION OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION RATHER THAN AT BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ISSUE 3 -APPLICATION OF REVISED LAND USE CODE PROVISIONS Currently, Subdivision Review is the only Land Use Review requiring proof of water rights. The policy's intent is clear however, it makes no reference to WHEN the proof must be submitted. Discussion began on Issue 1. To clarify terms for Chairperson Kay-Clapper, Ms. Sassano related the processes used by the County for Subdivision Review. She said that they were conceptual submission, which is the first stage; detailed submission is next and then there is final plat submission. And, she added, sometimes detailed and final plats are combined. The State statute that discusses water referenced in her memorandum references only to requiring proof of water at preliminary plan. In many jurisdictions, she continued, preliminary plan is preceded by what's called sketch plan, which is similar to our conceptual plan. Discussion ensued on which subdivision process should require proof of adjudicated water rights. The main question was whether it should be required at conceptual or at detailed or detailed/final plat. These discussions also included looking at the applicant providing proof at the earlier stage and yet not getting land use approval at the final stage. Some believed that the conceptual process allowed more flexibility and a certain amount of entering negotiations. Commissioner Owsley said that once you harden the line with the acquisition of water rights before the event there is no more room for negotiation. The development community has complained about the County's current practice of requiring adjudicated rights at conceptual when they would prefer it later in the subdivision process. Personal planner, Glenn Horn remarked that he believes the concept needs some tweaking. He believes more people will avoid the subdivision review and go to 35-acre land divisions instead. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MAY 24, 2005 Referring to the State statute stated above, Mr. Ely informed the boards that if they wanted to get around that rule then they could invent a process that calls itself something other than preliminary approval. He said that the larger question to him is whether the bulk of the development activity is in other properties and what would the board want to do about them. Because, he continued, there is no application or State statute on those types of properties and we don't do anything now because there is no treatment of those. Discussion developed on a new process name. Some suggestions were sketch plan, preliminary plan and conceptual/preliminary, for example. Ms. Sassano said that Ms. Houben had come up with a hybrid in the form of the following procedure. If you are concerned about complying with the straight language of the State statute you could say, at the moment, we don't have any mapping of which areas of the County specifically have potential water issues in terms of supply. But, she hopes to have that mapping in the near future. Without that mapping, Ms. Sassano continued, there could be language in the Code that read if, at conceptual submission, someone comes in with property that is known to have had historic water depletion issues then at conceptual under those circumstances perhaps we could require adjudicated rights. Chairperson Kay-Clapper warned the board and staff that she did not want water to become another 1041 issue as she thinks it could set the board up for takings issues. Commissioner Ireland said that he thinks Ms. Houben's suggestion is agreeable. He said that he thinks the following is the only way to do it. 2 Create the WRIS map concept so that we have some things that we know definitely and that you've got to have the water before you get any form of approval. Use that preliminary re-naming idea so that we are in compliance with the State statute. And, if someone has conceptual approval and they're not in the red zone, then it is taken with the understanding that we may approve this in water court and that any further approvals will be contingent upon wet water, etc. The P&Z Commission appeared to be in agreement in the belief that we need a true conceptual phase in order to have the ability to sit down with the applicant and developer and work through that phase and then move on to "preliminary" or whatever we will call it. Ms. Sassano said that what she is hearing the boards say, at least for subdivisions, is that almost everyone would like to have something akin to BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MAY 24, 2005 conceptual or sketch plan review where no water is required at that first stage so that the developer and the County can come up with an acceptable plan on where they are going, but with no requirement for decreed water rights at that time. Mr. Horn commented on other Counties that have sketch and preliminary phases rather than conceptual and detailed. He said that the sketch process, comparable to our conceptual, is a lot more "sketchy". One of the things that make our conceptual a bigger deal is because of the association with Growth Management. He said that there aren't going to be that many Growth Management projects in the future. But, he said, one of the problems of having that dialogue of what should be occurring on a property at conceptual is that a developer has so much invested in a Growth Management application that it reduces the dialogue because they're not allowed to change things. Mr. Horn said that something they did at the City level which he found interesting was to do the Growth Management end of it at detailed, at the second stage rather than conceptual. The scoring part occurs later on. Then the Growth Management part is a little more perfunctory. Ms. Houben still had concerns. She said that she doesn't think that we're at the point where we could have a map, but we could have language that says if, in fact, there's any reason that we have concerns at conceptual then we can require more documentation at that point. And, if we miss a few we could get them at detailed. Chairperson Kay-Clapper added that we could still do that but everybody else brings them in at detailed. Discussion began on Issue 2. Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked how the boards were going to apply this to land outside the subdivision process. Currently, she said, adjudicated water rights are done at building permit. Part of the discussion was on giving approval to a single family home and then the owners finding they haven't enough adequate water when they go to building permit. This becomes a problem for us as a community, added Ms. Houben, because it often causes the creation of Special Districts that cost the community at large a lot of money. Mr. Horn suggested that at building permit the applicant should show that they drilled the well, got the water and did a 24-hour pump test. Perhaps this could be codified as well, he added. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MAY 24, 2005 Mr. Ely said that in requiring that information for codification could be tough. In getting that information prior to building permit, he added, we will develop our own data base and from there, perhaps, go the next step. Regarding wet water, the consensus was to require a 24-hour pump test to be submitted at building permit and use the collected data to codify this process for lands within subdivision/PUDS and for those outside the subdivision process. In other words, every building permit application will have to have this pump test done. Chairperson Kay-Clapper had a question on page 2 of the memorandum under Section 3-70-100 A. of the current Code which states, adequate water provisions: land uses shall meet the requirements for adequate provisions to meet water needs as established by the County Environmental Health Department. She raised a question about issues brought up with Eddie Van Walraven of the Aspen Fire Department and with irrigation issues. She asked if Environmental Health incorporates those issues or just domestic uses. Ms. Houben said that's the whole part of us looking at how many gallons a minute are pumped out of a well. If a site plan has extensive landscaping, then staff knows they're going to have to require more than just domestic use. Chairperson Kay-Clapper wants to bring the other issues spoken of above into the Environmental Health requirements. Discussion began on Issue 3. Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked how we define an application complete. Lance Clarke responded by saying that there are specific submission standards in the Code and when those are met the application is complete. The next discussion ensued on vested rights. Commissioner Hatfield asked if the new Code should reflect on vested rights or request for building permits deemed complete. To him the new Code should not impact vested rights or applications that are in. Then the second part is the rules of general applicability which are health, safety and welfare that apply to the entire County. Ms. Houben said that from what she understands the board is not changing its policy. If someone has submitted a land use application that is complete or a building permit that is accepted, we are not trying to yank those out and make BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MAY 24, 2005 changes to them. She informed the board that she has quite a few questions from the public on this issue. After continued discussion, it was decided to table this issue of application for a future meeting to get better clarification. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Owsley moved to adjourn the special meeting at 5:07 PM. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Farris not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MAY 24, 2005 Respectfully submitted, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Patti Kay-Clappe~' Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners g\bocc\minutes~2005\min,spec.05242005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MAY 24, 2005