Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.02232005 PITI{IN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room WEDNESDAY~ FEBRUARY 23~ 2005 2:00 PM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of 2/8 Work Session and 2/9 Regular Meeting 2. Resolution Approving Basalt Library Board Appointments, Karen Sahr 3. Resolution Supporting Burlingame Affordable Housing, Hilary Smith, Cindy Houben 4. Resolution Approving Community Services Block Grant Five-Year Contract, Susan Berdahl 5. Resolution Repealing Resolution 94-140 to Recognize Trail Development Guidelines by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Dale Will 6.Lynx Resolution CONSENT ACTIONS- ist Reading~ Set for Public Hearing on March 9: 7. Ordinance Approving Sale of County Property to Wagar, et al., Debbie Quinn 8. Ordinance Approving Acquisition of Cozy Point South for Open Space, Dale Will 9. Ordinance Approving Acquisition of the Goldsmith Property on Avalanche Creek for Open Space, Dale Will CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2"d Readin~,q 10. Resolution Approving Supplemental Appropriation to the 2004 Budget, Linda Kasden, Tom Jagow, Hilary Smith LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Code Amendment - Fully Developed Land Subdivisions as TDR Receiver Sites, 1st Reading (PN 1/23/05), E. Louthis 2. Rezoning - Rural Remote, lst Reading, Public Hearing (PN 12/25/05) (cont'd from 1/26/05) (cont'd to 3/9/05), C. Houben 3.Payson Special Review to exceed 15,000 sq. feet (PN 12/25/06) (cont'd from 2/9/05), E. Louthis 4. Lambda Ltd., & Little Woody Creek LLC Subdivision Conceptual Submission and 1041 Hazard Review, 1st Reading (PN 1/23/05) (cont'd to 3/9/05), E. Louthis LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.Mountain Queen Special Review (PN 1/23/05), S. Wolff 6. Code Amendment - Caretaker Dwelling Units in Urban Growth Boundaries, 1st Reading (PN 1/23/05), E. Louthis 7. Woody Creek Subdivision/PUD, Rezoning, Road Vacation of Portion of Upper River Road, and Code Amendment, 1st Reading (PN 12/25/04) (cont'd from 1/26/05), E. Louthis 8. Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment (PN 1/23/05) (cont'd from 1/12/05), E. Louthis 9. Code Amendment Creating Transitional Residential- 1 (TR- 1) and Rezoning Transitional- 1 (TR- 1) Zone District, 1st Reading, Public Hearing (PN 12/25/04) (cont'd from 1/26/05), C. Houben LAND USE ACTIONS 10. Siemel Appeal (cont'd from 1/26/05 at request of Applicant), J. Schaffner 11. Timroth Takings Determination, S. Wolff BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ,te: There was an executive session convened at 8:50 p.m. ADJOURN APPROVED MARCH 09, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Clapper called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:00 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Clapper, Dorothea Farris, Mick Ireland, Jack Hatfield and Michael Owsley COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA: Debbie Quinn, Assistant County Manager informed the board that Sloan Schumacher was here and wanted to add a resolution to the board's consent agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sloan Schumacher, Director of the Wilderness Workshop explains why he would like the board to pass a resolution supporting the inclusion of lynx habitat protections in the revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and oppose Deputy Undersecretary Tenny's orders to eliminate those protections. The board was in agreement to support this request and added the resolution to their Consent Actions agenda. Richard Gordon addressed the board with his public comment. He stated that he had recently filed a personnel complaint with the County regarding his treatment by a County employee. He would like to find out when the hearing took place and how does he find out about the proceedings. He said that he did receive a letter with the board's decision, but he didn't see any public notice regarding the meeting itself. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 John Ely, County Attorney, responded to Mr. Gordon by saying that there is no public hearing. There is no right to a personnel hearing for somebody who is not an employee of the County. The grievance procedure is for the benefit of the employee only and nobody else. He said that the sum and substance of Mr. Gordon's complaint was not personnel in nature, but was against a policy that was directed - - Mr. Gordon totally disagreed with Mr. Ely's response and believes he still has not had a proper grievance procedure regarding his complaint against a County employee. And, he still wants to be heard. Commissioner Farris wanted the board to be able to look at the letters involved so that they could then make a decision if one is to be made. Ms. Quinn added that it would only be fair to give the employees in question the opportunity to attend a meeting with the board at the same time, if they so choose. Chairperson Kay-Clapper gave direction to staff to have Mr. Gibson's letter and the board decision letter copied to all Commissioners so that they can review them. Mr. Gordon will be given a call as to the board's decision. Emzy Veazey, III addressed the board regarding resolutions from the Board of County Commissioners. He said that he thinks the board needs to be more selective in their final resolutions and that they should pass only those that have a much better chance of getting the results that they want. Chairperson Kay-Clapper informed Mr. Veazey that the board recently had a discussion on this very issue regarding the benefits of resolutions versus letters for some of their decisions. Toni Kroneberg asked that the resolution supporting Burlingame Affordable Housing be pulled from the Consent Actions for discussion. Chairperson Kay-Clapper responded by saying that the Burlingame Affordable Housing resolution was going to be pulled for board discussion as well. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: Commissioner Owsley wanted to note Hunter Thompson's passing by reading something that he wrote recently and that actually inspired Mr. Owsley during the recent election. "Politics is the art of controlling your environment. That is one of the key things I learned in these years and I've learned it the hard way. Anybody who thinks it doesn't matter who's President has never been drafted and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, stupid war on the other side of the world. Or, been beaten and gassed by police for trespassing on public property. Or, been BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 hounded by the IRS for purely political reasons. Or, locked up in the Cook County jail with a broken nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower. That is when it matters who's your President, or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had voted." Commissioner Ireland announced that the AHS girls lost in yesterday's state basketball tournament. He said one of them even played wearing a neck brace, something he would never recommend. He did congratulate them and their coach for getting them that far. He also joined in Commissioner Owsley's expressions of regret at Hunter Thompson's passing. Chairperson Kay-Clapper also wanted to congratulate the AHS skiing champions who were Paul Britvar, a junior who won a State Slalom title and Jenny Hearn, a sophomore winning the GS and the Slalom. She is the first AHS girl alpine-racer to sweep both races since the 1980s. And, she congratulated the cross-country team as well. Katie Bird finished 19th. CONSENT ACTIONS: MINUTES OF BOCC WORK SESSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 08, 2005 AND MINUTES OF BOCC REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 09, 2005 - STAFF PERSON: JEANETTE JONES, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - MOTION TO APPROVE READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' REAPPOINTING VALERIE WELCH, APPOINTING JOSEPH MARTINEZ AND RATIFYING THE EAGLE COUNTY APPOINTMENT OF MEDELEINE SIMONET TO THE BASALT REGIONAL LIBRARY BOARDOF TRUSTEES - MOTION TO APPROVE Commissioner Hatfield asked that instead of things just popping up for approval at regular meetings, such as these library board appointments, he would like them brought to a work session so that the board has a chance to review them, briefly. If the public calls to question him on an item such as this, he would like to have already reviewed it. Chairperson Kay-Clapper directed staff to bring these items to work session in the future. READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SUPPORTING THE BURLINGAME AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT- PULLED FOR DISCUSSION READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' TO APPROVE THE COMMUNITY SERVICE BLOCK GRANT FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT - STAFF PERSON: SUSAN BERDAHL, BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 CONTRACT MANAGER, PITKIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES - MOTION TO APPROVE READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' REPEALING RESOLUTION 94-140 REGARDING TRAIL CONSTRUCTION REFERENCES (TO RECOGNIZE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS) - DALE WILL, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS DIRECTOR - MOTION TO APPROVE READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SUPPORTING THE INCLUSION OF LYNX HABITAT PROTECTIONS IN THE REVISED WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OPPOSING DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY TENNY'S ORDERS TO ELIMINATE THOSE PROTECTIONS - STAFF PERSON: DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER; SLOAN SCHUMACHER - DIRECTOR OF WILDERNESS WORKSHIP - MOTION TO APPROVE Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the Consent Actions, with the exception of the Burlingame resolution that has been pulled for discussion. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SUPPORTING THE BURLINGAME AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT - MOTION TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED Commissioner Hatfield requested that two sentences in the resolution be deleted. The first is Recital number 1, first and second bullets. He is totally comfortable with the first bullet except for the last sentence that reads The AACP Housing policies include: "providing 800 to 1300 additional affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary". The second bullet reads, The Housing Strategic Plan re-confirmed an existing shortfall of 995 units. Commissioner Hatfield said that for him, he wants to make sure that we're dealing with just the policy of the Urban Growth Boundary and such matters as opposed to endorsing numbers that some might perceive as political. Commissioner Farris and Commissioner Ireland were acceptable to these sentences remaining in the resolution. Their reasons included the fact that in the recitals the plans are stated as fact and that the BOCC adopted those guidelines as part of their strategic housing assessments. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Commissioner Owsley had a concern about page 3 under the second to last paragraph that reads, Citizen Housing outside of the urban growth boundaries is only acceptable where the densities are appropriate for the surrounding area, and where such development is containable. Caretaker or employee dwelling units may be acceptable uses in a rural environment". He would like to have a clear policy that we have high density growth within the Urban Growth Boundary. He said that this seems to allow some "wiggle room" for high density growth outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Chairperson Kay-Clapper and Commissioner Farris said that they spent many hours working on this paragraph just so it wouldn't preclude the board looking at anything that may come forward in the future. Commissioner Ireland came up with a compromise. He suggested that staff add the following wording instead of deleting the two sentences requested by Commissioner Hatfield. Projects such as Burlingame would not be appropriate outside the Urban Growth Boundary Commissioner Ireland made a motion to add the wording "Projects such as Burlingame would not be appropriate outside the Urban Growth Boundary" under Citizen Housing page 3, bullet 2. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Toni Kroneberg addressed the board regarding her opposition to the board's resolution supporting the Burlingame Affordable Housing project. Her main opposition was that when this property is annexed from the County to the City, it does not meet the criteria of the 1965 municipal annexation act. Ms. Kroneberg submitted three colored photographs of the area to show how it looks now. She addressed each of the 12 criteria shown on page 1 of the draft resolution and gave reasons why she felt the board should not support this project. Commissioner Ireland addressed Ms. Kroneberg's comments, stating that many of her comments were misstatements, particularly her use of the 1965 municipal annexation act. After further discussion by the board, Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the resolution supporting the Burlingame Affordable Housing Project, as amended. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 1 with Chairperson Kay-Clapper voting nay. (Chairperson Kay- Clapper's reason for voting nay was that she does support Affordable Housing and the County's position, but she has concerns with the free market portion of this project) CONSENT ACTIONS: (FIRST READINGS - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MARCH 09, 2005) BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF COUNTY PROPERTY TO WAGAR ET AL - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 09, 2005 FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF 129 ACRE COZY POINT SOUTH, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS - STAFF PERSON; DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER- PULLED FOR DISCUSSION FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF BROKER LODE MINING CLAIM, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS (GOLDSMITH) - STAFF PERSON: DALE WILL, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS DIRECTOR - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 09, 2005 Commissioner Hatfield wanted the Cozy Point South Ordinance pulled for discussion. Commissioner Farris moved to approve the Wagar Ordinance and the Goldsmith (Broker Lode) ordinance. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Chairperson Kay-Clapper reminded Ms. Quinn to notify the EPA about the change in ownership on the Wagar property as she believes it is in the Super Fund Site. Ms. Quinn responded by saying that it will also go on the deed as well. Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the question. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Farris and Commissioner Hatfield thanked Dale Will, Director of Open Space for the work he has done. Commissioner Hatfield added thanks to the owner of the Broker Lode, the voters and Pitkin County, who actually fund this program for helping to save the habitat of the Big Horn Sheep. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF 129 ACRE COZY POINT SOUTH, AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS - STAFF PERSON; DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 09, 2005. Commissioner Hatfield thanked the members of the ACDS LLC and their manager, Michael Goldberg as this is an important wildlife habitat in our community as well as the entrance to the Upper Valley both for Snowmass and Aspen. He said that Snowmass Village ought to be really appreciative of this. Dale Will included his thanks as well. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the Cozy Point South Ordinance on first reading and set second reading and public hearing to March 09, 2005. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS (SECOND READINGS): SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2004 BUDGET - STAFF PERSONS: LINDA KASDEN AND TOM JAGOW, FINANCE DEPARTMENT- MOTION TO APPROVE ON SECOND READING Commissioner Hatfield's questions at first reading have been answered to his satisfaction. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the supplemental appropriations resolution on second reading. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public comment and returned to the board to call the question. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: Commissioner Hatfield wanted to comment on the Melinda B. Payson special review. He said that he would like to re-look at the 1,000 foot bonus in future Code rewrites to see what community goal it meets. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' REPEALING AND RE- ENACTING SECTIONS 9-110-030, 9-110-042, AND 9-110-051, INCENTIVE BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '7 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 FOR DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) - STAFF PERSON: EZRA LOUTHIS, COUNTY PLANNER; KEN AND BETTY MOORE AND LPV PROPERTIES - APPLICANTS; GLEN HORN - APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVE - MOTION TO APPROVE AT FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING AND SET SECOND READING TO MARCH 09, 2005 CONTINUED FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' REGARDING REZONING - RURAL REMOTE (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 2005) - MOTION TO CONTINUE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 09, 2005 CONTINUED READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVING THE MELINDA B PAYSON 1993 TRUST SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA WITHIN THE AFR-10 ZONE DISTRICT (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 09, 2005)- STAFF PERSON: EZRA LOUTHIS, COUNTY PLANNER; MELINDA B PAYSON 1993 TRUST- APPLICANT; JOHN DAVIS - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE - MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVING LAMBDA LTD AND LITTLE WOODY CREEK LLC SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND 1041 HAZARD REVIEW- MOTION TO CONTINUE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 09, 2005 Commissioner Farris moved to approve the Land Use Consent Public Hearing agenda as submitted. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public comment and came back to the board to call the question. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVING THE MOUNTAIN QUEEN INC. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUTURE WITH BATHING FACILITIES - STAFF PERSON: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR COUNTY PLANNER; MOUNTAIN QUEEN, INC. AND LOUIS BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 OTTE WILLE/WILLE FAMILY TRUSTS- APPLICANTS; GLEN HORN - APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVE - MOTION TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED Suzanne Wolff made her presentation to the boards outlined in her memorandum. Glenn Horn said that this property has been completely redeveloped. He mentioned that there was a garage and an illegal kitchen. He said that there is a deed restricted affordable housing unit on this property over by the road. He said that there is a proposal to raise and rebuild that affordable housing. The board should see that sometime in the future. He anticipates it will be the last land use action on this property. Commissioner Ireland commented on the existing residence. He asked why there is not a covenant against further subdivision or separate sale of the property, which he feels is appropriate? Mr. Horn said that there is a covenant in the draft approved by the County for the other property that the unit can't be sold separately. Commissioner Ireland does not see a reference to that covenant. Mr. Horn has no objection adding that to the approval. Assistant Community Development Director, Lance Clarke said that staff has a model deed restriction that they have been using. Commissioner Ireland asked that they reference it so that no one loses track of it in the future. Commissioner Ireland moved to amend the resolution to provide a reference to a covenant to be filed with the Clerk and Recorder restricting the property from separate sale of any buildings or from subdivision (It was agreed that this would be shown in condition number 3 as item D). Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion to amend passed unanimously. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public comment and brought the item back to the board. Commissioner Farris moved to approve the resolution, as amended. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' REPEALING AND RE- BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 ENACTING SECTION 3-150-130, CARETAKER DWELLING UNITS- STAFF PERSON: EZRA LOUTHIS, COUNTY PLANNER; MICHAEL LIPKIN AND JODY GURALNICK - APPLICANTS - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING TO MARCH 09, 2005 Ezra Louthis started his presentation as shown in his memorandum. Mr. Louthis pointed out that staff feels it is appropriate to consider the Code Amendment for the entire Urban Growth Boundary and not just the R-15 zone district, as suggested by the applicant. Mr. Lipkin had nothing to add. Commissioner Hatfield said that he is not opposed to extra square footage, but he feels that the board is being incrementalized with numerous amendments and looks at different things. He has concerns about the board's overall policy about how they are dealing with Caretaker Dwelling Units. He said that he would like to have either RO (resident occupied) and a family can be resident or staff's suggestion of the use of TDRs to make them work. Commissioner Farris asked staff if they could start asking the applicants for the intent of the CDU use, not a commitment, just asking for the intent. Mr. Lipkin explained that his wife is an artist and the existing barn on their property that they wanted to use is in really terrible shape. In rebuilding the studio they thought it would be nice to look into a CDU and help contribute some life to their neighborhood which is mostly dominated by houses that don't have anyone living there. He said that it is their intention to rent it out, probably to a close friend of theirs who has children as they do. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Glen Horn commented that the income he saved from the teachers, nurses and ski technicians he rented to over the years in his CDU will help to send his son to college. Chairperson Kay-Clapper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Farris moved to approve the Ordinance repealing and re- enacting Section 3-150-130, caretaker dwelling units on first reading and public hearing and set second reading to March 09, 2005. Chairperson Kay-Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to I with Commissioner Ireland voting nay. The board took a 15 minute break before starting with the Woody Creek application. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Chairperson Kay-Clapper wanted to make a quick public comment she didn't get a chance to make earlier. She wished an 80th Happy Birthday to her mother who lives in California. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MOM! CONTINUED FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' GRANTING DETAILED SUBMISSION, FINAL PLAT AND GMQS EXEMPTION APPROVAL FOR THE WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 2005) - STAFF PERSON: EZRA LOUTHIS, COUNTY PLANNER; ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY - APPLICANT; GLEN HORN - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE; WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVE - TIM WHITSITT - MOTION TO APPROVE AT FIRST READING, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF, AND SET SECOND READING TO MARCH 09, 2005 AND CONTINUED FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 3-270-030, PRE-EXISTING MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 2005) - MOTION TO APPROVE AT FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING TO MARCH 09, 2005 AND CONTINUED FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' GRANTING A REZONING FROM SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL (SR) TO MOBILE HOME PARK/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MHP/PUD) FOR THE WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK - MOTION TO APPROVE AT FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING TO MARCH 09, 2005 Ezra Louthis proceeded with his presentation as outlined in his memorandum to the board. Mr. Louthis said that the detailed plan is essentially the same as conceptual with the following exceptions. The original request was for Resident Occupied. The applicant is now requesting that the classification be Category 4 for the deed restriction. Secondly, during the original request five (5) of the existing pads were to be eliminated and the eleven (1 '1 ) new lots would be created in the southern portion. Now, the request for safety reasons would eliminate ten (10) pads and create more lots in another portion. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Louthis stated the issues facing this application. One, at the request of the County Engineer has staff recommending denial of the road vacation and requesting, instead, an encroachment into the right-of-way for a portion of the road that exists in the Upper River Road right-of-way. Also, a new water system is being proposed on the Elam parcel to the east of Upper River Road. As part of that, there will be State approval required. Currently, they don't have engineering reports and such that the State will accept that and go ahead and review that approval. This may take up to 45 days for the State to approve a community water system like this. Another issue is floor area, he continued. The applicant has requested a 3600 square foot maximum per lot. Staff feels this is far too large being that some of the lots in this subdivision are about 2400 square feet. Staff has recommended that the floor area ratio be similar to Aspen Village and Lazy Glen. This would allow the maximum house size to fall in line with what the deed restriction for a Category 4 cost would be which is around $300,000.00 for the sale of a lot. The average size of a lot if you were to do the .56 floor area ratio staff suggested, the numbers would come together. For example, he said, a 2,000 square foot house at the average cost of 150 square feet would be about $300,000.00. There is also a slope issue as the applicant has requested crossing slopes in excess of 45% for the main water line coming from the Elam site. There are also a couple of sections that are steep due to the road cut. Applicant has requested that it just cross those 45% slopes. The lot area issue is the reason staff is recommending a Code Amendment to Section 3-270-030, Pre-Existing Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks. It requires that all lot area would be 5,000 square feet as a minimum. Staff has requested a Code Amendment to allow a variance to that in order to allow the smaller lots to occur in the new section. The Planning & Zoning Commission made three requests different from what staff has put into the Resolution of approval. The first one is to remove the condition that requires the petition for inclusion into the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. They also wanted to remove the requirement for sprinkling for each new unit. And, they wanted the BOCC to make a determination that the request to encroach on slopes in excess of 45% for the water be considered a minor slope anomaly due to the fact that it's a road cut and allow the encroachment. Other than these three issues, Planning and Zoning agreed with staff's recommendation and voted to recommend approval. Glenn Horn, representing the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as applicant addressed the board. He said that in working with Ezra Louthis of staff, everything appears to be in order. He did, however, want to mention that there was an issue that had come up regarding the two additional lots across from the Post Office and Fire Station. The applicant's charge, they believe, is to produce BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 as much Affordable Housing opportunities as possible. That's the reason those two lots are included. Commissioner Ireland asked Mr. Horn what happens to the people who currently live in the area shown in pink on the map. Where do they go and can they afford to go there? Tim Whitsitt represents the Woody Creek Mobile Home Owners Association. He responded to Commissioner Ireland by saying that there are ten (10) that are being eliminated and only seven (7) of them currently occupied. Those people will have the opportunity to move to newly created lots and of the seven, six of them have units that can actually move. There is one unit that is, due to it being reconstructed and to its' age, probably not moveable. The cost of moving within the Park has been represented somewhere between $3,000 and $4,500.00. The Home Owners Association, hereinafter referred to as HOA, has considered and, he thinks, is prepared to compensate the owners a certain amount of that cost. There is also language in the deed restriction that would give those owners more room under the cap. The biggest issue is the one that can't move. The HOA is looking at overall financing to buy this whole thing out. And, as part of that financing, their thought is that there will be some compensation to that owner for at least a portion of the equity that the owner has in that unit. That owner will have a chance, also, to have one of the new lots. Commissioner Ireland said that this needs to be worked out before approval. He said that he is committed that those people need to be compensated period, one way or the other. If that's passed on to subsequent owners then so be it, he concluded. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Lanny Curtis, President of the HOA, explained the process to be used for those who will have to move. The seven who have to move will get first pick of the ten lots that are 3,000 square feet a piece. If everyone picks a different lot then they get the lot they chose. If two or more pick the same lot, then the decision is made by lottery. After that, anyone else in the park who wants to relocate will go into a second lottery. And then after all that is satisfied it will go to the public through Housing. Mr. Whitsitt told the board that he thinks that the HOA does not disagree with Commissioner Ireland's sentiments on compensation. He did, however, remind the board that the only "pocket" here is the homeowners themselves. The compensation will be coming from the Park, in general as there is no other money available. Darryl Grob, Aspen Fire Chief, addressed the boards shown in the January 10, 2005 memo to staff from Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshall who was unable to BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 attend today's meeting. There were three issues. One was fire sprinkler systems and that all new and replacement structures must have them. Second is the water supply. And third is placement of fire hydrants. Regarding the sprinkler systems, Mr. Grob did say that he understands cost is an issue. He said that he did do some investigation into manufactured housing costs which falls somewhat below the projected figure of $5,000.00. He was also able to determine that most insurance companies were reasonably expected to reduce their insurance rates by anywhere from 5-15% as a consequence of these sprinklers. Orrin Moon of the Aspen Fire Department informed the board that many of the manufactured homes are already being equipped with sprinkler systems. He also added that all housing built within Affordable Housing guidelines have been sprinkled in the last 5 to 8 years. Chairperson Kay-Clapper reminded Mr. Moon that she was more concerned with the older models. Ben Ludlow, Project Manager for Asset Management for the City of Aspen informed the board that all housing that he has been associated with since 2000 that has been done through the City, including Burlingame, is required to be sprinkled. It's an agreement with the Aspen Fire District. Lance Clarke, Assistant Director of Community Development, explained that at the P&Z meeting the same debate took place. P&Z recommended to the BOCC that they not be required to be sprinkled. Staff is still showing that as they are going by the recommendations of the Fire District. Chairperson Kay-Clapper requested the following issue to be brought back for finalization at second reading on March 09, 2005. The issue is if ALL structures must be required to have sprinkler systems. She argued that the older trailers might not be able to support the "wiring" needed to accommodate that type of system and wondered whether "stick" type housing would have to be required to have it. Park neighbor, Bill Dinsmoor, said that he attended the P&Z meeting on this project last month. He asked if this was the best that could be done for these residents. He said that it was certainly the easiest but not the best. He did not like all the compromised lots throughout the Park. And, he asked, instead of using the space in the center of the Park for a future, community building, which may or may not have any funding, why not move some of the trailers at the end of the Park that are encroaching on the road to that spot instead. He said that he thinks it should be "tweaked" more to make it better. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Dinsmoor was informed by the board that they can only act on the application presented to them at this time, barring any issues that can be remedied before second reading. It is not up to them to "tweak" this application further. Mr. Whitsitt added that by and large, this is the best compromised plan that they could have come up with. There are some strenuous differences of opinions in a couple of areas from the things that have been asked by the applicant. He told the board that he would go through them now, the last being the deed restriction which he feels is the biggest point of contention between applicant and the people who live there. The following is a list composed and stated by Mr. Whitsitt, representing the Homeowners Association, of those areas that have been discussed or need to be discussed. 1 The two extra units - Mr. Whitsitt is happy to see that staff recommendation now has gone with the 58 units instead of 60. That was the difference between the applicant and the home owners. The HOA doesn't want the extra density or other negative effects from gaining those two extra units. 2 Sprinkler requirement- The HOA said no, this is something where we're being singled out and not being treated the same as the rest of the units. A lot of the ones being cited are multi-family units. This is not a multi-family development. This is single family. 3 Joinder to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District- The HOA does have a number of options. One of which is creating their own Metro District which they have been looking at for a long time. The State will require them to have a certificated operator. The HOA thinks that their options will be cheaper than joining the Aspen San District and they would like to have those options preserved for them. 4 Recommendation by staff of a .56 FAR with no exemption for below grade development - The HOA thinks that this is a fairly dense development. By giving no exemption for sub-grade and a .56, what you're telling people to do is spread out and use up their already unlimited yards by development on the surface, he said. If the owners were given a .35 FAR, discussed at P&Z, with an exemption for sub- grade development, it would allow people to develop to the maximum if they wanted and it would be less impactive to the Park. 5 Compensation - has been discussed earlier in this meeting. 6 Wyly Fund money availability- Before buying the Park, the HOA has some testing they must perform and some investigating. There are Wyly funds donated by the Wyly family. He believes that those funds were turned over by the County to the Housing Authority. The HOA is having a very difficult time working with the Housing Authority to get authorization to use those funds for consultants and testing among other things. The funds are about $84-85,000.00 and are still sitting there. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 7 Deed Restriction -When this application was brought in for Conceptual Submission in 2001 an RO deed restriction was a provision of that submission. This had been discussed with the Housing Authority up through a year ago as stated by Mr. Whitsitt. In a Housing Authority Executive Session held in February 2004, according to Mr. Whitsitt, the Housing board voted on a Category 4 deed restriction and that was put into place. He said that the owners feel somewhat disappointed and abused by that process. He said this Category 4 needs to be reviewed and has to be changed. Why should Woody Creek Mobile Home Park be treated any differently than other Mobile Home Parks by not getting an RO deed restriction? He concluded by saying that the Category 4 deed restriction does not work. Mr. Curtis had some additional remarks. He reiterated Mr. Whitsitt's remarks but did add remarks regarding a rental unit now in existence in the Park. He said that there is currently an agreement in place between the Housing Authority and one owner of one of the existing units in the Park who wants a rental unit in perpetuity. He said it is in violation of the proposed deed restrictions and covenants and the current lease and regulations and is inappropriate and inconsistent and it should be rescinded. Chairperson Kay-Clapper clarified with Mr. Curtis that the HOA wants the opportunity to grandfather back that rental unit and have it taken away. They don't want people living elsewhere and renting to others. Mr. Dinsmoor addressed the board. He said that the Woody Creek Caucus Planning Committee has never encouraged rental units in Woody Creek. He also spoke to the .35 FAR with below grade exemption request from the HOA. He said that any basement built will be considered a living space as egress windows must be added. He said that he feels the owners will use the basements as additional bedrooms. Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager of the Housing Office said that in October 2000 the Housing board recommend and approve a deed restriction at Category 2 ownership. She said that there are notes and minutes that they were fine with that. They were going to do an RO as to the person who was living there. In other words, the price would be capped at Category 2 but the person living there could be an RO person and that was what was approved. We have readdressed that, she said, so the Housing Board put the Category 4 on the property because they thought it could work. The pricing structure has two figures. One without all the improvements which does fit basically under that $48,000.00 which is in the deed restriction for Category 4. The other one is with the improvements which, granted, is over that amount of money when you take the regular improvements. When you set a price of $300,000.00 you do get 10% of capital improvements added on top of that. So, everybody is able to add BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 additional improvements on to their place on top of that so their unit isn't totally capped at the $309,000.00 under that Category 4. Marsha Goshorn is the Vice-Chair of the Housing Authority Board. She said that one of the assumptions being made here is that the lot price they're talking about includes the capital improvements. If they do what they're suggesting with the Metropolitan District, that number isn't the number you would use. That number would not be part of what would be deducted from their final sales price because that is something that would be paid over a period of time. So, over the period of time that that capital improvements is paid, it would be something that would be added on through the years. Regarding those who may have to move she said that if they could come up with a proposal to help those relocating and the one that can't, then perhaps that also could be added in to the total capitol improvements cost and done under the Metropolitan District. So, she said, there are ways to cover some of those costs on both of them. The Housing Board was uncomfortable with RO based upon what happened at North Forty regarding a house being put up for sale for $1,000,000.00. Maureen Dobson, Housing Director said that the one thing she heard consistently from board members that they were most concerned about in terms of having a cap was that they did not want to create such a diversified community where you had mobile homes and then next to them huge, expensive stick homes. Regarding the Wyly funds, Ms. Dobson stated that the language regarding those funds was that they were to be used for Woody Creek at the discretion of the Housing Authority. She said that the Housing Authority was concerned about releasing money without a clear scope of work, clear outcomes and values attached to that. This was proposed a year and one-half ago to the HOA, she said. Chairperson Kay-Clapper closed the public hearing. The board took a five minute break before proceeding with board comments. Commissioner Hatfield had the following concerns after other concerns he had were answered to his satisfaction. 1 He addressed several external lot line discrepancies that have evolved throughout this process. He said there were two owners that were kind of hanging on. He asked if this can be shown as a condition that will be resolved. Mr. Ludlow responded to this concern. He said that draft agreements have been submitted recently to the lawyers of Obermeyer the sellers. The board would prefer this to be done by second reading and final plat at the latest. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 2 Regarding water lines and the alignment either in the road or across 45 degree slopes. He would prefer staff's recommendation for the road alignment if he can get cost differences given to him. Can we demonstrate that this is an anomaly? Glenn Horn responded to this concern with information from Mr. Louthis on linear feet calculations. He said that it's 100 feet versus 600. He said that there's a big grade differential. It's a man made slope as a result of creating the Elam Access Road and the rail bed and the trail. Mr. Ludlow stated that based upon the numbers he has on Burlingame calculations with Gould Construction he said that he sees $50 a linear foot on installation pipe, which would mean a $25,000.00 cost increase to the homeowners to go the long distance. Commissioner Hatfield said that if we can verify that that is an anomaly and the Code Section can be used he is okay with this. But, he doesn't like abusing that Section even though it's an important reason to do it. The board was told by staff that this is a decision the board will make. 3 Regarding PM-10 mitigation plan that hasn't been signed off on. And, why hasn't Bud Eylar done a construction management plan, the mitigation plan? He said that in his reading there are four elements that have not been dealt with. They are drainage and erosion control, PM-10, fugitive dust and construction management. And the fourth one, the County Attorney hasn't signed off on the water. Why haven't these things been done? Commissioner Hatfield was informed that these issues will be dealt with before pulling a building permit. He is okay with this. 4 Regarding the PUD Guide - how will the covenants protect the overall dimensional standards? Tim Whitsitt informed the board that the PUD Guide cannot be amended by the homeowners but instead, must come to the BOCC. Commissioner Hatfield was acceptable to this issue getting BOCC feedback. Commissioner Hatfield supports the Housing Authority's conservative approach and agrees with Commissioner Ireland's fiduciary responsibility but we have to find a way to create a standard to use that money for the Park. 5 Regarding .56 FAR versus .35 FAR BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 18 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Louthis said that it might be better to go with .35 FAR and just do a below- grade exemption but no other exemptions and not specify the square footage for the below-grade exemption. Mr. Clarke said that this would end up working out the same with maybe a little more floor area potential. Commissioner Ireland wanted to know if the homeowners had an idea or plan for set-backs that will allow substantial sized units on a 3,000 square foot lot. Mr. Whitsitt said there would be 1,050 above grade under .35 is all that would be allowed. A 10 foot setback on all sides per unit would continue. The set-back is unit to unit. Then everybody has a little yard. Commissioner Hatfield said that if we can incorporate that thought into these conditions, he agrees with that so that the homeowner will have some flexibility. He would like this articulated at second reading. 6 Regarding deed restriction only being for on-site owners and no rentals - he agrees with this. Cindy Christensen explained this existing rental scenario. The owner of that unit was able to purchase something else so he rented his unit to his employee. The housing board looked at it and since an employee was not being displaced they allowed it. The Housing Board gave him a waver to be able to allow him to continue renting until such time his business goes away and then he would sell that unit to a qualified employee. Discussion ensued on what happens if and when the employee's term of employment is up and he or she chooses to vacate. Commissioner Hatfield would support the homeowners request that there be no rentals after this one. When that person leaves, there would be no more rentals. Chairperson Kay-Clapper said that she supports just leaving the one person there with some restrictions and guidelines and when that person is gone then the place goes up for sale. Ms. Christensen said that the agreement is now that as long as an employee of his is in that unit, he can maintain ownership of that unit and buy the lot. Commissioner Owsley clarified that the homeowners want that renter out now. He said that there's no hope of eviction here. He said that when this particular person's term of employment is up with this employer then the unit should revert back to an ownership unit and no longer be a rental unit. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 19 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Commissioner Ireland said there was an agreement between the owner and the Housing Authority. He is not holding up this deal for one renter. He believes that the enforcement issue is for the homeowners, not the BOCC. DIRECTION FOR 2ND READING - The board agrees with the Housing Authority agreement and gives staff direction that for this one unit only as long as that employer has one of his employees in that unit it can be rental. And, if that current use as it is now changes then that owner must sell to a qualified employee. 7 RO versus Category Commissioner Hatfield is NOT in favor of RO as it exists today without caps. Chairperson Kay-Clapper said that Commissioner Hatfield, Commissioner Ireland and herself, at least, feel that we need to work out a better agreement on the deed restriction, particularly with unlimited RO. Commissioner Farris said that she might accept RO with a cap at second reading. DIRECTION FOR 2ND READING - Commissioner Owsley said that what the board is saying is that RO is totally unacceptable in its current concept. So, the homeowners should find a Category that is acceptable or come back with a cap range that could attach to RO. Gary Beach addressed the board regarding the service plan for a Metro District. He said that there are three facets. One is the services plan, the second is the financial plan and the third is the engineering plan. At the end of 2003, the assessed value of all property within that District was $294,000.00 because they do not own the land. He has spoken to many lenders in this town who are comfortable with lending probably as much money as is needed to build all these facilities. Commissioner Ireland had to leave for a meeting in Carbondale and gave his comments regarding this application before he left. He thinks that if the homeowners went to the Sanitation District maybe they could borrow the money and contract with them. Then they would be paying them instead of HOA dues then they would be able to deduct he payments and perhaps save 15 or 30%. Commissioner Ireland's comments were as follows: 1 He doesn't mind slope encroachment. 2 He thinks new and replacement for sprinklers. He doesn't want to retro that. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 20 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 3 He wants the Housing Authority to find a way to enable the Wyly money to be used for things that have to be done such as forming a District or whatever. 4 There has to be a compromise on RO. 5 He would request, but not demand, that the homeowners give thought to moving those teensy little lots by the road into that 10,000 square foot area in the middle of the Park. 6 The homeowners have asked for 3.5 FAR with sub-grade. He said that he generally leans that way because it allows people to build in space below which is cheaper and allows for much less development above ground. Discussion ensued on the 10,200 square foot area in the middle of the Park. Mr. Horn explained that the optimistic use would be for below grade storage and perhaps a community-common use with a one-story building above, which is the height restriction. Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked about cash in lieu payments for school impact mitigation for each new lot. Will the people that have to be relocated pay for that or will it be assumed by the HOA? Mr. Whitsitt said that if someone moves their unit to a new lot they won't have - - She wants to make sure that those cash in lieu payments are included in that. Cash in lieu is for only the seven incremental new lots, not the seven relocations responded Glenn Horn. Commissioner Farris made her comments. She agrees with most of what has been said to a degree. 1 She hopes that the Park doesn't turn into a totally paved 8-acre property with regard to paving the roads and the parking lot to mitigate dust. Mr. Horn had a comment on that issue. He said that one of the issues was what is the PM-10 mitigation plan? There is a lot of parking in dirt areas. The applicant's PM-10 mitigation plan is a resurfacing of all of the existing streets in the Park and the existing dirt areas where there's parking will be paved. And then the area where there's vacant ground that isn't irrigated right now will have homes and landscaping on it as well as a new subdivision road. That is their PM-10 mitigation plan. He would ask the board to find this plan acceptable so they don't have to come back with this issue. Commissioner Owsley's comments: 1 He said that the overriding thing is that we're adding burden after burden to the homeowners of this Park, some of which are justified. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 21 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 2 He feels new home sprinklers are justified. He said that we have to allow leeway on the upper end of Category housing for people to recover those investments that they're making Chairperson Kay-Clapper's comments: 1 Make sure that Darryl Grob's issue about water pressure is addressed so if sprinklers are going in that they will actually work correctly. 2 She suggests that sprinklers go into all new structures only and not for the replacements or the ones that are being relocated. But, she added, we want smoke alarms in every single unit. She has concerns that some of the older trailers can't be retrofitted for sprinklers. Discussion ensued on Chairperson Kay-Clapper's sprinkler system issue. It appeared that Commissioner Haffield, Commissioner Owsley and Commissioner Farris were in favor of staff's recommendation for new AND replacement structures being fitted for sprinklers. County Attorney, John Ely asked for several clarifications. Regarding condition 19 in the resolution. It shall read "all new and replacement structures shall be sprinkled. Lance Clarke said that takes care of the sprinkling but he also needs the recommendation on access and water supply in there also. DIRECTION TO STAFF to prepare correct wording by second reading on condition 19 to the intent of the board. 2 Regarding condition 17 (Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District)in the resolution. It was decided and agreed that condition 17 would be eliminated. Mr. Ely suggested that if the board wants to deal with that it could be left as an item to be put into the Protective Covenants. That way the covenants will require a maintenance of the facility and the ability to collect money to do so. And if and when the owners get a Metro District going they can remove that from the covenants. This was agreeable to all. 3 It sounds like it's implicit but never discussed in the resolution, Mr. Ely continued, that the plat is not going to be recorded until the sewer plant is up and running and permitted. He asked if that was the intention. Mr. Ludlow said that it looked as if they'll be running sewage into the plant by the end of next week or the following week. It is then the responsibility of the licensed operator to get final approval through the State. They will be working on this along with our consultant who did the design on that to get all the red tags removed. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 22 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Ely thinks that should be reflected in the resolution. The board agreed. DIRECTION TO STAFF was to bring back as a condition for second reading. The board agreed that the wording "at the time of installation" on condition number 15 will be deleted. Mr. Horn asked about condition number 3, items C, D & E. He said that the applicant has submitted a fugitive dust control plan and a drainage and erosion plan in the application. He would like to find out what needs to be done. DIRECTION TO STAFF to try and review and have these items (condition number 3, items C, D & E) finalized by second reading. The board will require the relocation plan to come back at second reading. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the detailed submission, final plat and GMQS exemption approval for the Woody Creek Mobile Home Park Subdivision, with direction to staff, at first reading and set second reading to March 09, 2005. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. MR. HORN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT IS NO LONGER THE WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION. IT IS NOW CALLED THE WOODY CREEK SUBDIVISION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE WORDS MOBILE HOME PARK WILL BE STRICKEN THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENTATION. Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the question. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the ordinance repealing and re- enacting Section 3-270-030, pre-existing mobile homes and mobile home parks. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the ordinance granting a rezoning from special residential (SR) to Mobile Home Park planned unit development (MHP/PUD) for the Woody Creek Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. CONTINUED FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' GRANTING THE SCHLUMBERGER MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT FOR LOT 2, RIVER DIVIDE SUBDIVISION - STAFF PERSON: EZRA LOUTHIS, COUNTY PLANNER; MARTIN SCHLUMBERGER - APPLICANT - MOTION TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 23 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Ezra Louthis proceeded with his presentation as outlined in his memorandum. Since the last hearing on this application, the Colorado Division of Wildlife submitted a letter supporting the County Wildlife Biologist, Jonathan Lowsky's recommendation that the barn and/or CDU be located below the Eli Cerise Ditch. The area that is currently disturbed on the northern portion of the lot is 1.66 acres and is located above the Eli Cerise Ditch. Mr. Schlumberger began his own presentation. He said that he has decided to go along with the trend that Commissioner Ireland was going for at the last meeting which was to put the barn and CDU in the disturbed area above the Ditch. The main house would be in the lower site and it would have the retaining wall around it and it would eliminate building this wall around any other structure such as the barn and CDU. When asked how big the main house and the existing "yellow" part (on the map) were, he said that he's not at 5750 but he's not asking for 10,000 like all the neighbors are building either. The barn is exempt from the 5750 calculations, announced Mr. Louthis. Commissioner Farris asked if there were any way to build in there without the retaining wall. The reply was a resounding no. You would only have to build it 2-feet high, Mr. Schlumberger stated. But, the USGS "boys" have a 3-foot buffer you have to add on top of the 2-feet. That's where the 5-feet height comes in. The recommended material to build this wall was big concrete blocks that often used in temporary retaining, but there are other materials that could be used as well. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Joseph E. Edwards, III represents Mr. Schlumberger's neighbor, Paul Theofaunous and his family. Mr. Edwards made comments as shown in his February 17, 2005 letter to the board. It appears that the only remaining issues, according to Mr. Edwards' letter, are the location of the barn and CDU and the size of the northern envelope. Mr. Edwards understood from the last meeting that the board requested a survey of the disturbed areas. He has heard tonight that digital mapping of some kind was used and came up with 1.66 acres. He has no idea what was and what was not included in that 1.66 acres. He said that Mr. Theofaunous would be happy to pay for and have done a professional survey by a licensed surveyor and label exactly what areas are in and what areas are not in and show all the improvements on what areas are disturbed. He said that he thinks the board should require the survey. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 24 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Edwards further requested several additions to the draft resolution. On condition number 2 he said that any amended plats should also show things such as acreage and existing improvements. In addition to the CDU, Mr. Edwards continued, he would like condition number 4 to also say that the barn should be located only in the primary envelope. With regard to the size of the structure necessary to stop the debris flow, he added, as long as the barn is located to the west of the primary house in that primary envelope the structure doesn't have to get any longer. Mr. Edwards mentioned that at the last meeting, Commissioner Ireland was pushing the idea of putting the barn in the northern envelope to minimize areas of new disturbance. By having the barn above the Ditch and in the disturbed area, he continued, you would increase the impacts on wildlife and on the neighbor. Right now, the northern envelope is used occasionally in the summer. It is not used 7 days a week 365 days a week. If a barn and CDU are put up there, he contended, it will be used constantly and a much greater impact on the neighbor. Regarding condition number 17, Mr. Edwards would like the second sentence deleted which reads, "in the event the applicant chooses to build the barn in the agricultural envelope, the CDU shall be located in the principal envelope and shall be calculated as floor area, however, the barn shall be allowed to be 2,500 square feet exempt from the calculation of floor area". Linda Waag gave her public comments. She said that that family isn't here right now and that Mr. Edwards said that that upper parcel is not used except just during the summer. Mr. Edwards said that is what he's been told. Ms. Waag said that is not true. She said that the family isn't here but maybe five weeks out of the year and they're here in the summer. That's when it's used primarily. If they're not here for the rest of the time, what difference is it making, she asked? Chairperson Kay-Clapper closed the public hearing. Mr. Schlumberger made further comments. To further clarify a question from Commissioner Farris, he replied that the disturbed area that he measured is 1.66 acres. The 1.75 is the acreage he is allowed to have disturbed. He went on to add that Mr. Theofaunous bought this property in 1998 after this all happened. He said that he knew all about it and he's here all the time so he doesn't understand what he's complaining about now. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 25 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Schlumberger wants the total barn at 2500 plus the CDU included in that 2500 as it was given to him in the original subdivision. He is not complaining about the size he just doesn't want it all in the bottom unit. Commissioner Farris and Commissioner Hatfield would like the development of the barn and CDU in the lower portion as it is best for the wildlife and the neighbor but, unfortunately, not for the applicant. Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked the board if they wanted to take advantage of the survey offer on the disturbed area from Mr. Theofaunous. Commissioner Farris said that if the board agrees that everything goes on the lower parcel then there's no need for the survey, in her mind, because there's no change in what's already there. Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked the board where they wanted the barn and CDU. Commissioner Farris said the primary envelope. Commissioner Owsley commented that he thought Commissioner Ireland already felt that we had a disturbed area up there that was going to be used no matter what and it was going to be used for agricultural purposes. So you might as well have the associated agricultural buildings where the agricultural use is going to be. He said that he would also put one unit there attached to the barn. To him, it makes a lot of sense, he concluded. Commissioner Hatfield said that if he played devil's advocate he would say that this is going to be disturbed with a 5750 so why not consolidate the impacts up here on the already existing future - - where the primary residence is going to be. It appears that Commissioner Hatfield and Chairperson Kay-Clapper want the barn and CDU on the upper portion above the Eli Cerise Ditch. The other option stated Chairperson Kay-Clapper is to put the barn above and the CDU below. Discussion ensued on this option. Commissioner Owsley moved to place the CDU and the barn on the (disturbed) upper parcel above the Eli Cerise Ditch as long as the parcel does not exceed the restrictions of the survey requirements. Chairperson Kay-Clapper seconded the motion. Mr. Louthis asked if the survey would be done and paid for by Mr. Theofaunous? BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 26 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Edwards informed the board that if they put the CDU and the barn up there, he doubts that his offer would still be valid. His offer was to get it done now so that the board could see if the applicant was in compliance now. Mr. Schlumberger said that he would have to survey the property anyway to do a new plat amendment so he was okay with this. Mr. Edwards informed the board that when Mr. Theofaunous was here at the January meeting he clearly said that he DID NOT want the barn in the northern envelope. He would much rather have it in the lower primary envelope, this includes all of the new structures. Chairperson Kay-Clapper made the following amendment as part of her second to Commissioner Owsley's motion. Her concern is to the use of the CDU (is it really going to be associated with the 5750 dwelling or with the barn). She reminded Mr. Schlumberger that his plan was just to do 5750 and restrict it to that. So, she would like to limit the house and the primary envelope to 5750. Mr. Schlumberger isn't exactly happy with totally limiting the property as he doesn't want to stop somebody else in the future from using TDRs, etc to get additional square footage if they want it. Chairperson Kay-Clapper withdrew her second and amendment to Commissioner Owsley's motion. Commissioner Owsley's motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Farris then made a motion that all construction activity occurs in the lower envelope. Her motion died for lack of a second as well. Mr. Schlumberger then said that he wanted to move his agricultural envelope around the corner and put the barn in that main development envelope. That area is currently used as a pasture. Commissioner Farris moved to support the expansion of the primary envelope (so that he can reconfigure the site) and expansion for the landscaping envelope for mitigation. Chairperson Kay-Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. Chairperson Kay-Clapper moved to put the CDU and the barn in the existing residential primary building envelope at the bottom and no BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2'7 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 additional agricultural envelopes or whatever. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 3 to I with Commissioner Hatfield voting nay and Commissioner Ireland not present. CONTINUED FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' CREATING A NEW ZONE DISTRICT ENTITLED TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL (1) ZONE DISTRICT (TR-1), TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE - AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE EAST OF ASPEN/INDEPENDENCE PASS PLANNING AREA TO THE TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL (1) ZONE DISTRICT - STAFF PERSON: CINDY HOUBEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING AND SET SECOND READING TO MARCH 09, 2005 Cindy Houben began her presentation by informing the board that the exhibit and the ordinance that were published in the paper (see map exhibit marked published map) will come back to the bourdon March 09, 2005. It went through P&Z last night, she added. Ms. Houben said that at the P&Z meeting, staff had decided to take that portion out of that consideration because of the ownership being mostly Pitkin County (some of the mining claims that went to the Forest Service as part of the whole swap), U.S. Forest Service land, a parcel that's already been developed lower down within the City jurisdiction and a couple of other claims that come down but actually have development potential in the City limits, and that there really is no reason to be rezoning this at this time. It really ought to be, she continued, the Conservation/Natural Resource Zone District given the ownerships in this area. So, staff is proposing that this area not be rezoned tonight. The other map (marked Revised PZ map) reflects the Shadow Mountain side and, because this is a more lenient proposal, you would not have to go back to re-publishing the actual map for re-zoning purposes. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Farris moved to approve the ordinance at first reading and public hearing and set second reading to March 09, 2005. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. LAND USE ACTIONS: READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DENYING THE SIEMEL APPEAL OF A DENIED BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 2005 BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 28 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 AT THE REQUEST OF APPLICANT) - STAFF PERSON: JOANNA S SCHAFFNER, COUNTY ZONING OFFICER; SALLIE GOLDEN AND CARLTON SIEMEL -APPLICANTS - DIRECTION TO BRING THIS BACK WHEN THERE IS A FULL BOARD A letter dated February 17, 2005 from the applicants to the BOCC was submitted before today's meeting. It can be found in the additional exhibits attached to the BOCC meeting packet. Chairperson Kay-Clapper made a disclosure that she is friends with the applicants, Sallie Golden and Carlie Siemel but they have gone to extreme measures not to talk about the "B" word (basement). Joanna Schaffner announced the applicants and Jennifer Hall of Holland & Hart who represents the applicants. Ms. Schaffner continued with her presentation as outlined in her memorandum. She explained the history and progression of the below grade interpretations with drawings attached to her memorandum and gave staff's reasons for denial. Commission Farris said that her feeling is that the idea was put in because allowing below grade space took away from the scenic impact of a bigger building. And, by the applicants doing what they've done they've accomplished this goal. She is willing to accept what the applicants want to do. Jennifer Hall, applicants' representative proceeded with her presentation based upon her February 17, 2005 letter to the board. Ms. Hall submitted two drawings. One drawing is of the proposed basement and one is of the approved basement. These drawings can be found in the additional exhibits attached to the BOCC meeting packet. Ms. Hall said that she believes there is an ambiguity in the Code and feels that the applicants have met both the letter of what's there and the intent. She said that she doesn't know what to tell staff on how to proceed in the future. Commissioner Hatfield said that natural light goes in there so it's exposed. If it wasn't exposed, it wouldn't receive light. Commissioner Farris made a motion to grant the appeal by calling attention to recital number 5 of the draft resolution GRANTING the appeal of the denied building permit PREPARED BY THE APPLICANTS. It reads, the BOCC finds that the proposed access does not alter the below grade area such that it will be exposed above the natural or finished grade or otherwise exposed so as to have visual impact from the outside of the home, AND THEREFORE COMPLIES with the below grade exemption from Floor Area allowed in the Urban Growth Boundary. Commissioner Farris BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 29 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 said she would DELETE everything after the words AND THEREFORE COMPLIES as she doesn't know if it's accurate. She did say, however, that she would add THEREFORE it's consistent with the intent which is to reduce the scenic impact. She does not support the denial. John Ely, County Attorney asked Commissioner Farris if she was granted the appeal to which she responded, yes. He said that what he would recommend was to flesh that out at some point before the board signs off on it. He does not feel there's an ambiguity in the definition at all. Commissioner Farris said that she didn't mean to support an ambiguity. He said that it's a clever approach but it's not provided for here. Mr. Ely said that if she wants to do it, she should do it within the context of a change that's going to recognize what's being done and allow it. Ms. Schaffner asked if it was going to be as a Code amendment or specific to this case? Mr. Ely said as a Code Amendment so that everyone else knows that this is an avenue until some future change can be pursued. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Farris' motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Farris moved to go into Executive Session at 8:50 PM. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. The board returned to the regular meeting at 9:02 PM. Commissioner Hatfield moved to deny the appeal based upon staff findings. He does not believe that the Code is ambiguous. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. MOTION FAILED due to two yea votes from Commission Hatfield and Commissioner Owsley and two nay votes from Commissioner Farris and Chairperson Kay-Clapper. (Commissioner Ireland not present) Commissioner Farris made a motion to grant the appeal and memorialize the effect of the appeal within the County's regulatory scheme. Commissioner Kay-Clapper seconded the motion. MOTION FAILED due to two yea votes from Chairperson Kay-Clapper and Commissioner Farris and BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 30 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 two nay votes from Commissioner Hatfield and Commissioner Owsley. (Commissioner Ireland not present) The board was deadlocked. This appeal will be brought back when a full boards in session. Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue this appeal for a full board vote to March 09, 2005. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. TIMROTH PARCEL C 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION -TAKINGS DETERMINATION -STAFF PERSON: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR COUNTY PLANNER; ALBERT G. TIMROTH REVOCABLE TRUST AND DONNA M. TIMROTH REVOCABLE TRUST - APPLICANTS; MITCH HAAS- APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVE; LEONARD OATES- APPLICANTS' ATTORNEY - MOTION TO FIND THAT A TAKING HAS OCCURRED AND DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION OF MITIGATION Lance Clarke made Suzanne Wolff's presentation in her absence as outlined in her memorandum to the board dated February 23, 2005. Mitch Haas, applicant's representative, said that this is exactly the same building envelope as approved in 2001. He's not looking to change conditions. He continued to address the boards outlined in his February 16, 2005 letter to staff. Leonard Oates, legal representative for the Timroth Trust, told the board that when they adopted the TR-2 zone district, he had asked for special consideration in connection with that in terms of this application's location and the fact that the infrastructure was in for development of these lots. At that time, the board declined to do so but indicated that they would be receptive to an extended vested rights period and would treat the applicant the same as they would the mine property. He said they then amended their application to ask for an extended vested rights period. Mr. Haas added a caveat that staff had said if the applicant goes through the takings process and the board finds that there is a takings, then the application would be continued to a date far enough out to do a public notice and consider a vested rights period with the remediation resolution. Lance Clarke explained to the board that if they find a takings, staff would be directed to come back to the board with a resolution of mitigation and remediation. Staff would set that meeting far enough down the line that staff could also advertise for a request for extension of vested rights. He didn't know how long a period of vesting they were asking BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 31 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Oates said that they asked for 15 years. Mr. Haas had some requests for changes in BOCC Resolution 117-2001. The board was told by Lance Clarke that their only charge this evening was to find a Takings or to not find a Takings. Commissioner Farris moved to find that a taking has occurred and directed staff to come back with a resolution of mitigation. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Kay-Clapper moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not present. BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 32 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Respectfully submitted, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners atti Kay-Clappe~/ Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners g/bocclminutes/2005/reg02232005 BOA_RI)OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 33 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005