Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.07202005WEDNESDAY~ JULY 207 2005 Noon-3 PM SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH P&Z, Ellen Sassano Location: Plaza 1 Conference Room APPROVED AUGUST 10, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (Board of County Commissioners and Planninq and Zoninq Commission) JULY 20, 2005 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR JULY 20, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at '12:03 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 a NACO meeting in Hawaii PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Paul Rudnick, Peter Thomas, Joseph Krabacher, Michael Augello, Mirte Mallory, Marcella Larsen and Steve Whipple ALSO PRESENT: John Ely, County Attorney, Cindy Houben, Director of Community Development; Lance Clarke, Assistant Director of Community Development; Ellen Sassano, Pitkin County Long Range Planner DISCUSSION AND STAFF DIRECTION FOR CLARION ASSOCIATES ON LAND USE CODE REWRITE MODULE 3 REGARDING GMQS, TDRs, HOUSE SIZE AND CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT - Don Elliott, Clarion Associates; Alan Richman, private planner collaborating with Clarion Associates Additional Power Point presentation exhibit handed out at meeting entitled Four Tool Discussion dated July, 2005. Said exhibit can be found in the Board of County Commissioners' meeting packet dated July 20, 2005. Don Elliott made his power point presentation using the Four Tool Discussion Power Point presentation. This was followed by both boards discussing the main BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING JULY 20, 2005 topics for today's meeting and informing Clarion of any issues or problems that may require further study or clarification. After getting direction from the boards, Clarion will talk with staff and try to figure out the best response to the questions raised. Those items will then be highlighted in the next draft presentation and can be reviewed at that time. I - GMQS REVISIONS: Commissioner Hatfield raised a question on the exemption for affordable housing. He prompted a short discussion on why affordable housing shouldn't compete for growth. Private planner Glenn Horn asked what the thought was on exemptions for historic structures and replacement commercial tourist units (demolition/reconstruction). Cindy Houben said they are still working on the historic section and she thinks that TDRs will play a role. They just started working on the rest this past week but she said it would be in the final draft. Mr. Horn said that he did not find this in the replacement section of the Code under Commercial or Exemptions. Alan Richman said that the commercial square footage, demolition/reconstruction needs to be in there. Clarion will address this issue. Clarion will look into the intensification of use as prompted by Commissioner Ireland. 2 - HOUSE SIZE CONTROL REVISIONS: Commissioner Whipple raised the question of sub-grade space and garages and whether they should be included in the maximum house size extended from the rural area to the Aspen UGB. He stated that he disagrees with the 5750. He thinks we unintentionally suggest that people build to that full capacity. He suggested that people be encouraged to build smaller and then sell their square footage if they want to in a TDR. Discussion ensued on this issue and whether or not there should be different rules for inside or outside the UGB. Commissioner Mallory addressed scale. She said that there are multiple options of increasing to build up to FAR. She said that if it's the policy of the County to BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING JULY 20, 2005 regulate scale and preserve rural character, isn't it in our benefit to make those numbers lower if people already have every opportunity to increase that. Clarion will work on a mechanism to address these ideas of building smaller and getting TDR use out of the amount not used. The boards addressed the house size cap of 15,000 the way Clarion just explained it. Chairperson Kay-Clapper said that the BOCC had to find out how P&Z feels about a 15,000 square foot cap total overall for County OR the possibility of a greater than 15,000 in certain areas that are appropriate such as Starwood. Commissioner Rudnick addressed the concept discussed earlier on whether there should be a TDR type of incentive for someone who builds less. He is comfortable with the 15,000 square foot cap with one exception. He thinks that the homeowner should have the ability to divide that into at least two buildings, maybe three as long as they are appropriately sited. Clarion will look into Commissioner Rudnick's suggestion in the context of how it works with the scheme of incentives. Commissioner Whipple said you can dictate any size you want. But, what you're doing is including agricultural square footage. It's not just strictly square foot for the house itself. In the rural areas or larger properties you're turning it into any of the out buildings or accessory structures. Clarion will look into Commissioner Whipple's query regarding accessory buildings along with the ability to break them up to distribute them a little better. Commissioner Mallory supports the 15,000 but thinks agricultural buildings should be included in that 15,000 because of the impacts. Commissioner Krabacher supports 15,000 across the board. He said that one thing that they haven't talked about is that there is no FAR in the AFR-10 and RS-20, for example. Maybe there should be, he added. Mr. Elliott said that what he is hearing is that these are big issues. They will stay in the draft and Clarion will work through them with staff and if they can't they may note them, even in the footnotes, in the complete draft. The boards took a 5-minute break at 2:00 PM. 3 - TDR REVISIONS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING JULY 20, 2005 Now that the boards have returned, Mr. Elliott said that the topics to be discussed would be the new ideas of 200+ acres or more addition to the sending areas and the restriction on not creating development right in the rural area through a TDR. Commissioner Rudnick said that it's illogical to allow a 5,750 square foot development right for one (1) TDR. He would like it more like 2500 or something. Clarion will look into allowing less square footage per TDR as requested by Commissioner Rudnick. Commissioner Augello said he has always been a proponent of two (2) TDRs per development right. It doesn't make sense to get a development right of 5,750 for the same TDR that you buy for 2500 additional square footage. Commissioner Krabacher made the following comments. On new sending sites, he questions why 200+ acres. What about 180-acres or a number that's a multiple of 35s. If dropped down, he said, maybe some others could get into the program. When the TDR program was set up initially, people thought they could use them to create new lots and now you're taking them away. There may be some resistance to that, historically. He would like Clarion to look into using a TDR to get sub-grade and garage exemptions back into the UGB. Clarion will put Commissioner Krabacher's concerns on their list. Commissioner Whipple would like more consistency. He wants 2500 per TDR. That's your development right and that's what you're getting with it. You would still need two (2) to get to 5,000. He also would like to stay with 5,750.00 which is what someone is allowed to build in the County if they don't have a metes and bounds parcel. That would have a development right and they have the ability to build a house at 5,750. If they're going for a new development right based on TDRs, it goes in increments of 2500. Clarion will go back to the 2500 square foot analysis as requested by Commissioner Whipple. Mr. Elliott of Clarion informed the board that for the people out there who have actually sold TDRs because they believed the County as to what they could do with them or bought them because they trusted the County as to what they could do with them - - we need to hold those people harmless. But, he added, that means administratively. There will be old ones and new ones. He wants that principal to get out to the public. A question regarding the bonus TDR program in the July 7th memo from Clarion was asked by an unknown person in the audience. This strikes him particularly well, the audience member said. Some are the essence of a view plane, some have pristine environmental considerations and maybe some are a connecting BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING JULY 20, 2005 link of open spaces. He said that we should recognize that they aren't just the average but are way, way above the average. He would like to see what the board thinks about pursuing that more. Chairperson Kay-Clapper said that maybe it's a matter of giving them more TDRs rather than TDRs that are worth more. Mr. Elliott responded to this query by saying that it is up there but we need to clarify the idea. He said that it is in there as the idea that it's not saying that we would give bonus for the current RR, TR-1, and TR-2, that's the system. In this new category, 200+, he thinks it is a good idea although it has not yet been calibrated. You get TDRs based on underlying zoning. For example, if you have a really developable parcel that's closer to town you could develop it and as a matter of fact it's zoned ten. If so, you would get more TDRs for that. Our incentive to you is more to try to get you to not develop that. Then you ask the question, he continued, is it in Ag use now? If that 200+ acre parcel is an Ag use you could get more. But, it's not an idea of spreading bonuses on all the potential sending sites. Instead, it's the idea of putting it in these highly visible properties. It is the proposal, Mr. Elliott concluded, but Clarion hasn't yet calibrated how generous it could be. 4 - CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT: Glenn Horn asked about parcels separated by Forest Service land. Clarion will be looking into this issue. Commissioner Krabacher questioned the conservation option versus the Low Impact Residential Zone District. Clarion will be looking into this issue as well. Commissioner Whipple asked Clarion to check into a concern he has regarding TDRs that have already been sold. He said that someone still has the ownership of that piece of land and perhaps it is being historically maintained such as pasture land. He would like a description of what requirements are needed for the long term maintenance of the land with regard to weeds, water rights, etc. The development right has been given away, but how is that land now being maintained. Clarion will work on this line of thought. Ms. Houben announced that the next step in this review process is back to the editing table and cleanup. When that is completed, Clarion will deliver the edited, revised version on all three (3) modules. Staff will review it and get it back to Clarion and then in early October drafts will be re-distributed. The first public BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING JULY 20, 2005 hearing is planned for sometime around November 13th through the November 17th. She would like the BOCC and P&Z to meet in mid-November for two (2) to three (3) days, several hours each day to go through the provisions and hear public feedback. She is hoping for adoption sometime in December. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hatfield made a motion to adjourn the joint meeting at 3:00 PM. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Farris not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING JULY 20, 2005 Respectfully submitted, Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners g\bocc\minutes~2005\mJn.spec,07202005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAl, ,IOINT MEETING JULY 20, 2005