Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.03232005 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Rio Grande Conference Room WEDNESDAY~ MARCH 23~ 2005 (Michael Owsley not present) 12:00 NOON JOINT LUNCH MEETING WITH OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD 1:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING Executive Session ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING 2:00 PM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of March 9 Regular Meeting and March 15 Special Meeting 2. Resolution Appointing Volunteer Citizen Board Member, Karen Sahr CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING - 2na Readings 3. Community Development Fee Ordinance, 2nd Reading, C. Houben 4. Ordinance Authorizing Lease Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service for the Red Hill Communications Site, Mark Gamrat 5. Resolution Vacating Possible Hunter Creek Road Routes In Connection with the Settlement of Auster V. McCloskey, Chris Seldin ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING 6. Pfab Hearing on Notice of Violation Pursuant to Section 6.16.080 of the Pitkin County Code, Chris Seldin, Becky Moller (to be continued to April 13, 2005) LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Works Rezoning, Subdivision Exemption, GMQS Exemption, Ordinance 1 st Reading (cont'd from 2/9/05 at request of Applicant) (to be cont'd to 4/27/05) (PN 4/24/04), L. Clarke 2. Formal Recognition of the Emma Can. cus, 1St Reading (PN 3/13/05), E. Sassano 3. Eubanks Extension of Vested Rights (PN 2/20/05), L. Clarke LAND USE CONSENT ACTIONS 4. Fox Ranch Subdivision Conceptual Submission and 1041 Hazard Review, 2nd Reading, E. Louthis LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Grace Church Special Review, 1041 Hazard Review, CDU (PN 4/24/04) (cont'd from 2/9/05 at request of Applicant), E. Louthis 6. Verizon Wireless Special Review (PN 2/20/05), E. Louthis 7. Mountain Queen 1041 Hazard Review, Scenic Overlay, Conceptual Submission & Deed Restriction Review (PN 2/20/05), S. Wolff LAND USE ACTIONS 8.Rezoning - Rural Remote, 2nd Reading, C. Houben BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN (A dinner break is scheduled from 6:00 to 6:45 pm.) THURSDAY~ MARCH 24~ 2005 NWCCOG in Fraser THURSDAY~ MARCH 31~ 2005 NWCCOG Meeting APPROVED APRIL 13, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 (Rio Grande Meetin.q Room) NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR MARCH 23, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:07 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Kay-Clapper, Dorothea Farris, Jack Hatfield and Mick Ireland COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Michael Owsley was visiting his family ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA: Lance Clarke, Assistant Director of Community Development, informed the board about item number 6 under Land Use Public Hearings entitled Verizon Wireless Special Review. Applicants have asked to continue this to April 27, 2005. Commissioner Farris moved to place this item under Land Use Consent Public Hearings as item number 3. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 3 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not yet in the meeting room and Commissioner Owsley not present. PUBLIC COMMENT: Chairperson Kay-Clapper announced that for tonight there was a three-minute limit on public comment for items not on the agenda. Toni Kroneberg announced that Aspen City Council has set the first public hearing on the Burlingame Affordable Housing project. She reminded everyone that the Burlingame Affordable Housing project itself has not been approved. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 first meeting will be on April 11, 2005 and public comment will be taken on April 25, 2005. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: Commissioner Farris announced that Cynthia Callahan lost her battle with cancer this weekend and was buried today. She extended a comment from herself and others who knew her and the contributions she made to this community. She said that she was one of the most fantastic people this community has known and has contributed to its well being her entire adult life. She thanked her family for sharing her with this community for all these years. Chairperson Kay-Clapper congratulated her friend Billy Pinkum for finishing the Iditarod. This is the third or fourth time he has entered and this time he finished 41 st out of 80 some entries. CONSENT ACTIONS: MINUTES OF PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 09, 2005 AND SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 15, 2005 - STAFF PERSON - JEANETTE JONES, CLERK TO THE BOARD - MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPOINTING MEMBERS TO CITIZEN BOARDS - STAFF PERSON - KAREN SAHR - MOTION TO APPROVE Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the items under Consent Actions. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0 with Commissioner Ireland not yet in the meeting room and Commissioner Owsley not present. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS (2ND READINGS): SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND REPEALING AND REPLACING ORDINANCE 018-2004- STAFF PERSON - CINDY HOUBEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR- MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S FOREST SERVICE FOR THE RED HILL COMMUNICATIONS SITE - STAFF PERSON - MARK GAMRAT, COMMUNICATIONS - MOTION TO APPROVE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VACATING POSSIBLE HUNTER CREEK ROAD ROUTES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF AUSTER V. MCCLOSKEY, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS CASE NOS. 02-1324 AND 02-1325 - STAFF PERSON - CHRIS SELDIN - ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY - MOTION TO APPROVE Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none she closed the public comment and brought it back to the board. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the Consent Public Hearing items. Commissioners Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 3 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not yet in the meeting room and Commissioner Owsley not present. ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS: PFAB HEARING ON NOTICE OF VIOLATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.16.080 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 09, 2005) - STAFF PERSON - CHRIS SELDIN, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY AND BECKY MOLLER - COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIALIST; EDMUND PFAB AND JANE CIGRAND - REGISTERED OWNERS OF PROPERTY - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO APRIL 13, 2005 Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none she closed the public comment and brought it back to the board. Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue the Administrative Public Hearing part of the agenda to April 13, 2005. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 3 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland not yet in the meeting room and Commissioner Owsley not present. LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONTINUED FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON PUBLIC WORKS REZONING, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, GMQS EXEMPTION ORDINANCE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 09, 2005 AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT) - TO BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2005 - STAFF PERSON - LANCE CLARKE, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR- MOTION TO CONTINUE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 27, 2005 FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECOGNIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 EMMA CAUCUS - STAFF PERSON - ELLEN SASSANO, PITKIN COUNTY LONG RANGE PLANNER- MOTION TO APPROVE AT FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING TO APRIL 13, 2005 READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR EUBANKS, LOT 2, HEFNER SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN EUBANKS AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY - STAFF PERSON - LANCE CLARKE, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR; BONNIE JEAN AND DR. BILLY RAY EUBANKS - APPLICANTS; HERB KLEIN - APPLCIANTS' REPRESENTATIVE- MOTION TO APPROVE READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENYING SPECIAL REVIEW, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVAL TO VERIZON WIRELESS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A CELLULAR FACILITY - STAFF PERSON - EZRA LOUTHIS, COUNTY PLANNER; VERIZON WIRELESS - APPLICANT; KRIS COX - OWNER OF PROPERTY - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO APRIL 27, 2005 Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none she closed the public comment and brought it back to the board. Commissioner Farris moved to approve the Land Use Consent Hearings agenda as presented and amended with the inclusion of Verizon Wireless. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion with a question on the Emma Caucus. Assistant County Manager Debbie Quinn submitted a letter from Pam Wood voicing opposition by saying that she and her husband were not interested in having a Caucus. Said letter is in additional exhibits to the meeting packet material. Commissioner Hatfield asked who the members were of the Emma Caucus Executive Committee. George Newman responded to Commissioner Hatfield's query. He said the members were himself, Elizabeth Newman, Steve Swanson, David Bork, Liz Conners, David Kelly, Lucy Cerise and Marguerite Dykann as an alternate. Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the question. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Owsley not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 LAND USE CONSENT ACTIONS: SECOND READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANTING CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND 1041 HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE FOX RANCH SUBDIVISION - STAFF PERSON - EZRA LOUTHIS, COUNTY PLANNER; CHARLES J. WYLY, JR. AND CAROLINE D. WYLY; LAMBDA LIMITED; LITTLE WOODY CREEK LLC; AND WOODY CREEK ROAD CORPORATION - APPLICANTS - STAFF PERSON - EZRA LOUTHIS - COUNTY PLANNER- MOTION TO APPROVE Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the Land Use Consent Actions agenda item. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Owsley not present. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: PUBLIC HEARING ON GRACE CHURCH SPECIAL REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITY AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT- CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 09, 2005- STAFF PERSON - EZRA LOUTHIS - COUNTY PLANNER; GRACE CHURCH OF THE ROARING FORK VALLEY - APPLICANT; DOUG DOTSON - PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER; ROBERT A. LEES - LEGAL COUNCIL; KEVIN SNYDER- LEGAL COUNCIL - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO MAY 11, 2005 TO ALLOW A SITE VISIT WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF Chairperson Kay-Clapper announced the Grace Church review public comment procedure due to the large public turnout. She added that staff will make their presentation and the board will be able to ask staff questions. Then the applicant will make their presentation and again the board will be able to ask questions. After that, the public comment portion will probably open. The following two pieces of correspondence from the public regarding Grace Church were submitted at this meeting. One letter is dated March 22, 2005 from Terry Koladish who was against this application for various reasons as stated in said letter. The other correspondence was a March 22, 2005 memorandum from Richard Russo to the BOCC regarding denial based upon certain special review or use questions. Both of these items will be in the additional exhibits to the meeting packet. Ezra Louthis began his presentation as outlined in his agenda item summary. Attached to his summary is an amended request from the applicant in an effort to work with the Town of Basalt and the residents of the surrounding area on expressed objections and concerns. Because of this, the application has been continued for one year at the request of the applicant. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 CLAPPER Does any member of the board have any clarification questions for Ezra? Seeing none, Ill go to the applicant. Would you please give your name for the public record? We need to get names for public record so they go on our recording. That makes it so staff can identify names to faces to voices. MANER I'm Terry Maner. I'm the Pastor of Grace Church. This is Wayne Starr. He is our leader of the development team. Also, Doug Dotson is perhaps on his way still to arrive and also Mike Gamba and Associates, Mike Gamba is planning to be here as well. I'd like to give you a little bit of history of our church and then the acquisition of the property because I think it presents a context (inaudible) as we look at this, at this application together. It was in 2001 when members of Basalt Bible Church were facing an important crossroads as a church. They were going through some transitions and it was during that time that they invited me to be their Pastor. I had been a Pastor/Associate Pastor at Aspen First Baptist in the early 90's and had some connections with the valley. And, knew a number of the people that were a part of that congregation or were around it. And so, it was a great thing for us to be able to come back to the valley and be part of this ministry. A year later after we worked through some of the transition period and some of the transformation of the church we realized that as our church was growing in many different ways, both in terms of our thinking, our theology as we moved forward, our church dynamics, we realized that we BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 needed to make some significant changes. And those changes led us to decide that we, essentially, needed to start over as a church. So, what that led to was the decision to eventually to dissolve the Basalt Bible Church as a church and to start over as Grace Church of the Roaring Fork Valley. Having found that much in the words of Jesus that the old - - or the new wine cannot be contained within the old wine skins and we felt the need to start over. During that same time, was when we were in negotiations with Alpine Christian Fellowship which was the church that began, founded the Alpine Christian Academy. And, during those discussions which were a part over the fact that there was a ten year lease that we had with Alpine Christian Fellowship on behalf of ACA we arrived at the conclusion that for all the parties involved that one of the best options could be for us to sell the property to that church so that the church could be on the same campus as that school. So it was (inaudible) their ministry and also will allow us to move forward with (inaudible) and start over as a church and begin anew. So, we did that. Subsequently, you probably know that Basalt Community United Methodist Church eventually purchased that Alpine Christian Fellowship's property in Holland Hills so that they had a place to go. After years, for them of looking for a place for them to meet after dealing with parking issues and space issues themselves (inaudible) in Holland Hills. Now we explored the (inaudible) property during this period of change but feeling like we needed, perhaps another BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 year under our belt before we continued to add change after change with the church we decided to wait and be a little bit more deliberate in that process before we moved forward with purchasing property. So, we began on October 27, 2002 to (inaudible) Eagle County Community Center and we still meet there to this day. That's where we hold our Sunday services and we have a great relationship with them. By the grace of God we have grown to a church that is now - - we have approximately around 130 men, women and children. And, we have an average Sunday attendance of somewhere between 80 and 90 people. In the spring of 2003 a group of people within the church felt we needed to reexamine, we needed to revisit the property situation and land acquisition situation for our church as we continued to grow in (inaudible) to keep going. And, after an extensive search up and down the valley and talking to people who had searched for properties before we came back to this Gredig property. We felt for us the most adequate, most accessible, and most affordable site that we could find as we did an extensive search in the mid-valley area for location for a church site. We were fully aware that this property was zoned AFR-10 and that a church was allowed by special review. And, we had full confidence that with the possibility and ability to work with the town as well as Pitkin County in order to gain approval. So we went forward with that purchase to Gredigs who were more than eager to move on to DeBeque and continue their shepherding BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 work in an area that they felt was, perhaps a little bit more friendly to that work. Now, it would be fair enough for us to say that this is a little different use than was previously on the property. Our sheep are a little different than the ones that the Gredigs had on their property. But, we would contend that this use is not incompatible with this property. And, if you look at the zoning of this property, if you look at the history of the zoning of this property what we see is that for the predominate history of this property it was zoned in such a way that it allowed churches. So, in that regard, we would suggest that the church was compatible in a rural setting and in such an area given its long history of being zoned in such a way that allowed a church by right. And, even in this recent - - in 1994 when it was zoned AFR-10 that is a use that still does allow a church under special review. So, we would suggest or want to make a point that a church has never been a prohibited use on this property. And, we would hope that that is not the case today. Now, churches do face a challenge in this valley for places to meet, places to locate. And, this problem if it were not our problem it would be someone else's. Just in the situation where Basalt Community United Methodist - - we talked with them and several of them have encouraged us during this process and spoken out on our behalf. Their church can look for years for a suitable site for them to meet and gather and worship together. And, if not for the fact that we vacated the property that we were on and the former Basalt Bible Church property which was purchase by Alpine Christian Fellowship which then BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 sold their property to Basalt Community United Methodist Church - - it was not a new site that some church went to, but both churches relocated to a previously existing church site. So, we're here because we need to find a new site for our church. And again, after extensive research this is the best site that we can find in the mid-valley area. Now, our church, this church was not imported from Texas or North Carolina. Few of the other folks in our congregation speak with the accent that I do or that Wayne does nor do they wear cowboy hats perhaps like Wayne does. Our church is composed of many families who've been in this valley for over thirty years, including Jim and Pam Alexander, Don and Linda Helmich who have been in this valley a long time. Their son Beau who is a worship leader at our church, who was raised here, graduated from Aspen High School. Linda Nelson, who's present here today is - - taught for thirty years in schools, I think, for twenty-four in Basalt Elementary School. My wife and I have spent ten of the last fifteen years of our lives here. My daughter was born in the John Duetschendorf birthing room over at the hospital. My son's lived most of his life here. So, we are people who care very much about this valley and have a strong connection to it. We sincerely believe that there are both tangible and intangible benefits to the church which are often referred to in the Basalt Master Plan as social (inaudible). We believe that the present of a church in the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 mid-valley can enhance social (inaudible). And, we believe that those benefits are denied to the community if zoning laws and conditions prohibit the ability of a church to locate there and that would place a substantial burden on us and our ability to meet and to grow. Lastly, I'd say that perhaps it's no accident that this hearing we will have is landing right in the middle of Holy Week. We recognize that anything that is worth pursuing and anything intrinsic in eternal value is not always, it doesn't always take place without conflict. We're aware of that. But, we believe in it. And we continue to hope and pray for new life on this lot. Wayne Starr is now going to talk you through the plans and the changes (inaudible). KAY-CLAPPER Thank you. STARR (inaudible) I've been given the assignment of taking responsibility for development of the property for our church. I'm also an Elder at the church. (Inaudible). Reinforcing what Terry just said, our church made an extensive study. We set up a real estate committee to search the valley for property that would be adequate and appropriate for our new church. So, we set out on that task but we didn't know how difficult it was going to be. But, it was difficult. The search brought us back to the Gredig property for the second time. And, in the process of negotiating with the (audible) family we made them aware of what our general claims for the property was. And, they had an alternate BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l l REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 buyer that they could have sold to. They made the decision to sell to our church group knowing what we were going to do to the property, endorsing it, supporting it. And, feeling that the church would be a high and best use of that property as they moved from there on down to DeBeque. When we looked at the property we realized, as Terry said, that (inaudible) zoning (inaudible) a church allowed under special review. And we felt confident that we could meet the level of special review in our use of the property. And, realizing that the previous zoning on this property was from 73 to 78 was AF-2 which allowed a church by right. And, in 1978 it went to AF-1 through 86 up until 94, I believe, when the property had come under the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan and then moved to the AFR-10. So, as we observed the history of the zoning on this property one of the things we realized was that a church had never been prohibited on the property. And that, in fact, as we went through that it was clear to us that what was being represented was that residential communities, churches, public schools, and agricultural, forest and rural areas were compatible. That's been a part of the history of this Country since the beginning, especially, this part of our Country. So, as Dick (inaudible) said to me one day, if I can get you (inaudible) to buy this property knowing that it is AFR-10 with special review the answer was yes. It was the best we could do. We went to - - we looked at properties up and down the valley, including properties inside the urban growth zone. (Inaudible) left Basalt, looked at their (inaudible). But, inside the urban growth zone even BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 though there are some properties that are zoned that will allow a church, there was not any property that was either adequate for our church to be developed on, including circumstances where the property's too small for a church and/or required off site, on street parking which we wouldn't want to try and create. We observed the situation (inaudible) Methodist Church already in side that growth zone. There were a couple of properties that we also looked at that were, maybe, large enough to accommodate at least a minimum part of our plan. One of those properties was down there near Blue Lake. It's our understanding that that property has been earmarked for an elementary school. There's a property near Willets that's been earmarked for a performing arts center. And, as we looked at the costs of some of these properties the costs were beginning to become prohibitive in our overall development plan. There's a (inaudible) in his presentation, we paid just a little over a million dollars for this property for 18, almost 18.6 acres of land. So, you do the math. That's a little less than $56,000.00 an acre. So, it allowed us a piece of land that would accomplish what we could economically. And also, when we started looking at the property we realized that if we opened this property up to be (inaudible) in the way we did in our original plan, that we thought that we could bring people to the site in a number of different ways to make it a really community involved. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l 3 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 So, in our original plan we had not only the church building, but we had a future growth expansion capability. And, we had a caretaker unit and we had, what we called, a creek side chapel down near the creek. But importantly also, we had opened the property up with a pathway that connected to the Rio Grande pathway. It came through the property along the creek and, excuse me, made its way back around West Sopris Creek. Along that pathway you would be able to enjoy the open meadows that were left there. You'd be able to enjoy the frontage of Sopris Creek. And I personally am not sure about this, but I'm not sure that the public has the opportunity to enjoy the (inaudible) of that creek anywhere else. We also had on this property a space for a community garden. We thought that that would be an opportunity to bring the community together keeping in fact with the Basalt Master Plan that specifically focuses on opportunities to develop that in places and bring people and community together. We also had (inaudible) to plant apricot orchards and try to retain some of the agricultural character of that site. Apricots were the crop that was common in old Emma. And, we were very sensitive to the history of this piece of land as it went back not only to the Gredigs but back to the (inaudible) and the Berthods. It has always been a piece of land that was farmed in one way or another. And, we wanted to honor and respect that. So, we were going to take the fences down and return the corner to an open meadow. And, one of the things that we proposed was to relocate the refueling center on the corner. And, we entered into an extension of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 a lease contract that Jack Gredig had with Public Works to give us all time, the Public Works Department and us, to evaluate this situation to try and determine what was the best circumstance there. We wanted to open that corner up and return it to a meadow. As we began this process we began displaying and revealing our plans to Community Development here in Pitkin County but also to the Town of Basalt. Before we went through the formal process we were pretty excited about that plan and thought it would be a plan that the County development group and the town would be pleased about. And frankly, as we began that process we were a little bit surprised by the response that we got. Ezra has reflected in his presentation about the history of our application through numerous requests on our part for continuances. When we first made our application and realized that the Town of Basalt and Pitkin County were operating in one area that was covered by the Intergoverning Agreement, it appeared to us that the intent there was to act really as one. One is a review or a referral agency and the other is final approval authority or building authority. So, we recognized that agreement and we went to the Town of Basalt to alert them as to what we were trying to accomplish. And, when we did that we received no (inaudible) recommendations of major changes. There was no comment from either Basalt or Community Development that said you can't do this, this is a bad idea, don't even try this, nothing. There was - - their comments were related to are you going to do a market study? Have you investigated your water rights? Do you know how much parking you're going to have? You know, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l 5 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 this sort of thing. We went through that process and - - we were scheduled in January for a hearing before this board. 48 hours before that hearing Doug Dotson and I came to Aspen and picked up a copy of the comments to learn that P&Z in Basalt had had a meeting without us knowing about it. Negative comments were developed both by P&Z in Basalt and by Community Development without our knowledge. And when we realized that we had negative comments for the first time we (inaudible) need for a continuance in order to respond to those. That's why we responded first with a continuance. And then remained in continuance in order to give us time to go to the Town of Basalt, to the P&Z in Basalt, and to the neighbors which we did numerous times. If you've gone through the summary that we presented and you read through it you'll see how that process occurred. In that process we learned that there was resistance to opening this property up to the pathway, to the community gardens, to the apricot orchards, and more specifically to a plan that we had at the outset to develop a sort of heritage park there. One of my favorite things (inaudible) is history. And I'm a student of history. And I love to read about history here and know about the history of old Emma and Basalt and the whole valley. So, we thought that by creating a heritage park that we might have an opportunity to do that. But also in keeping with the Master Plan of Basalt which says let's find opportunities to tell our heritage and talk about our heritage and reveal our heritage. So, set about doing that. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 But, as we went through this process with the neighbors and we took each part of this process we began to learn, in pieces, that we needed to downsize and downscale the total appearance of improvements on this site. So, we began to do that. One of the first things that we ran into was the relocation of the refueling center. As we had worked with the Public Works Department in trying to find them another location on this site (inaudible) about ½ acre now (inaudible) wanting to buy 1 acre and we agreed in an agreement to do that with Public Works. The first location that was (inaudible) was down West Sopris Creek to the southeast corner of the property. And the thinking there was that you get the trucks off the road, you know, down - - off 82 and be more acceptable in the overall picture. But, Dick Bird called me one day and he says Wayne, have you seen the plan that they're going to work with goes here on this site. And I said ah, I think we have. We drew the basic plan. He said did you know that they want to build a building here. And I said no. And we talked about it and he expressed his concern that it was going to affect his property and I agreed. And so we (inaudible) more to try and relocate that site on our property. Frankly, I guess if we all had our druthers we'd like to see it moved completely off this property to somewhere else. But, we were trying to cooperate with Public Works and we were trying to relocate it on the site (inaudible). In order to reduce the impact of the use of the property because it seemed to the neighbors that we were creating an opportunity for people to (inaudible) on the pathway (inaudible) interaction on the property that would not be acceptable to BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 the (inaudible) we took a lot of things off the property. In particular, we took the pathway system out. We had - - by the way there's a gravesite on this property. There's a little girl who passed away, I think, in 1911 (inaudible) Creek. Her name is Phillips. It's very dear. We wanted to give her recognition and expand that gravesite (inaudible). We removed (inaudible) to remove an old building that's on the Creek bank itself from sliding down the Creek. We also took off the Creek Side Chapel. The Creek Side Chapel was the building that we envisioned as sort of the classic, old, monk style type chapel (inaudible) approximate 700 square feet. That also was an objection from the neighbors themselves so we removed that from the plan. We removed the roadway and (inaudible) down to the Creek Side Chapel. We took out the community gardens, the apricot orchard, the little horseshoe pit, children's playground. We have a formal garden, would you remove that? We have a storage facility that we wanted to use for Lift Up and some of those kinds of outreach community facilities. We took that out. And also, because there was resistance to the heritage concept we removed that and we also removed the existing structures from our plan. And so the plan, as you see it today represents a great deal of (inaudible). You can take a look - - I know you have this in your book but I just want to point out what's on the site here today. CLAPPER it up behind us? Do you want to post it - - oh, behind me. Do you want to put BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 18 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR Can we do that? CLAPPER Certainly. Do we have anything - - FARRIS Do we have anything to put it up with. I don't know. CLAPPER Sorry. We had to move from our usual space. Because it would have been -- FARRIS There have to be tacks. CLAPPER Lyndee got them. Does that work for you? STARR Yes, maam. CLAPPER Because then the camera can pick it up. STARR What I'd like to just start with is the overall site here and just to point out this is how 82 runs across here. This is Emma Road right here and then Sopris Creek Road down through here. West Sopris Creek is along this border here and borders the subdivision over where Liz and Mike Conners live across the creek. This is Homestead Supply Ditch here, Home Supply Ditch. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 19 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Dick Bird is located about right in here. The layout as we have it right now in reduced form - - and if I might before I go there I'll just point out this is where the refueling center is right now on this corner. The gravesite is here. The pathway was to come around this way and follow along this creek and around and back up. The Creek Side Chapel was right in here. The community gardens were about in here and the apricot orchards were set up in these areas here. The original refueling center was going to go right down here by Dick's house and he nor I neither one liked that anymore so we're not even talking about that. So, the improvements that are on the property now are right up in this area here. This is about where the old ranch house is and there are a few buildings there but - - excuse me one building and some sheds that are in pretty bad shape. So, what we have shown here is our church building which is located here the main Chapel, which is designed to resemble very closely just sort of an old ranch or a mountain valley type barn structure. And the reason we chose that is because this lost farm, the history of this property was a farm. And we wanted to continue that heritage and that relationship architecturally. Right in here is the entrance to the property or to the building itself. And the character of this little portion right here takes on sort of a little bit of a clapboard kind of finish and you'll see that it has that sort of a classical church kind of feel right at this point. Other than that it's a barn type structure. The front of the building itself is solid. It has a cross that's built into the fascia of that structure right on the front. It is a little bit visible and would be visible from Highway 82. This building is about 8600 square BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 20 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 feet. It would serve 166 seats in the Chapel itself which is what (inaudible) right here. Back in this area here are Sunday school rooms and Pastor's office. There's a small kitchen located right in here. This is the 400 square foot mechanical building. We did have that in the building and wanted to move it out, outside for sound and maintenance purposes. And then the building right here next to it is a building is our annex, our future expansion building. It's about 2,800 square feet. And Ezra mentioned awhile ago we had not put a time frame on that. What we've been talking about is probably four or five years from now before we'd need that. And if you ask - - some people have asked well why would you have a second building? The reason is because we like the size of this building both in terms of its height and width and presence on the site. We think it's very comfortable. So, in the future as our church will grow or our needs will grow instead of (inaudible) this building we wanted to create a second building that will allow us, again, to continue to serve the character of this property resembling maybe a farm house and a barn here. So that is the main church grounds themselves. And just to the south of that is the caretaker's unit. And we have - - the size of that is approximately 1,000 square feet. As you can see this plan no longer shows a formal garden on it. If you've ever seen that there was a garden right in here. We did move this building forward 60 feet and to the right 60 feet. The Town of Basalt wanted us to move it up here. But, that's a very uncomfortable BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 21 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 place to put it. We now just have an open, sort of a lawn here. The purpose for this break in the parking here is to allow site lines from here to Capitol Peak. The parking itself as shown on here now is about 89 spaces. It should be about 83 spaces. Some of that parking we have said that we would put in there a grass over block type paving so that if you've seen that it's a block that allows grass to grow up over that. CLAPPER We're very familiar with that. STARR Okay. Great. And really where we'd like to put a lot of that is around this side to help add to the buffer, you know, from the street here. The road that comes into the property comes in off just to the east of the existing driveway. You just move that drive over and bring this road down. This is not a paved road. It's sort of a gravel, year round, sort of a ranch style road as you come in and through the parking area here and up and because of fire purposes you need an exit out here. We didn't have some (inaudible) around the building itself (inaudible) type materials because of safety and (inaudible) you need to have some of that around there. So, we try to keep that to a minimum. On this site there's been some suggestion - - some question about how are you going to light this facility. And we have shown in our presentation that what we want to do is to have a minimum amount of lighting here that would provide for security and safety (inaudible) parking (inaudible). And also highlight the entrances and exits BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 22 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 from the (inaudible) itself so that we have a facility that actually works both in the day and nighttime. These lights would be friendly style lighting. There are examples of those in your book that you have. The light fixtures - - you do not see the fixtures themselves. The bulb or the glass covered portion covers horizontally or vertically. The lights do not shine up. We would have the light in the parking areas sufficient to make that a safe place to be. And then the other lighting would be mostly around the pathways. This is lighting that would be on during the time the church is in use. It is not a light that would stay on 24 hours a day 7 days a week. One of the things that we also talked about in changing our plans was to come into this area here and create a sort of natural berm along here that would rise up 31/2 feet or so around here. And also along this roadway and this roadway here, a berm that would be wide enough and (inaudible) enough that it would look natural. But, the purpose of it would be to lower the element of the visual relationship of this property as you travel along the roadway on either 82 or either one of these streets. But, importantly also as you drive into this area here as we put the berms here and there's some landscaping on that when these cars drive in they don't sound like some (inaudible) or across the Creek. So, we tried to be sensitive to that. And you can see up here if you move up a little bit the refueling center is gone. Instead of having an unsightly and what I've said in the presentation is illegal although (inaudible) piece of that property is just not the best use of that property. There have been some comments about this BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 23 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 development here being commercial type development. It is not by any definition and it cannot and will not set a precedent for that kind of zoning or rezoning and allow industrial commercial to come in to this (inaudible). But, if there ever was a precedent for commercial industrial (inaudible) that's got to be the use right there. Because there's no reason for it to be there so we can move it. So, what we talked about then was moving it over here in this area right here. And the original concept of that was when we had a heritage park there and we had this old building that we were going to try to convert to that use. But, as you see in the amendment to the plan we've come back in and put a dotted line right in this area right here. It's approximately 1 acre in this site. There's an acre that could be located in here approximately 190 feet across the front, about 230 feet deep would give about an acre. In talking to the Public Works Department if they remain on this site they would prefer to have that configuration as opposed to the one you see here. But, as far as we're concerned we'll work with the Public Works Department on either configuration. In talking with the neighbors about this there's been a number of suggestions. Dave Kelly talked about it and talked about he didn't (inaudible) that much to it. He'd like to see it, I believe I'm right about this, he'd like to see it go completely off of this site. So would we. But, it's a facility that just does not need to be there. Now we asked the County Public Work's Department if they would landscape around this and to help us camouflage it and they're budget doesn't BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 24 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 permit that so, we have agreed to, at our expense, to come in and landscape around it so that as a neighbor it becomes more beneficial. And it remains (inaudible) use but we don't have to look at it every day. In talking with the neighbors this seems to be the most acceptable place on our site. Generally, when I've talked with the neighbors my presentations have not been (inaudible) much resistance except, as I mentioned before, moving it off the site. In talking to (inaudible) who owns the property next door, he has no objections to this property being the refueling center, in fact, authorized me to talk to the Public Work's Department about giving him an easement down this property line and allowing him to come in. The Public Work's Department declined that opportunity. They didn't want to (inaudible) an easement. So, that's the status right now. We have extended this lease, by the way, with the Public Work's Department for one year to allow the (inaudible) an opportunity to find the right way to get this done. We've worked really hard with Brian Pettet and his crew and Temple Glassier to make that happen. As we go to this area right here we'll talk about the Heritage Park a little bit. We originally had, in the original plan, a regrouping of some of these buildings. And, the idea was to draw up to a sort of a circular pathway here and have not only a building or two that was on that site, but invite the County to (inaudible) update maybe two or three others or other historical buildings on that site. That didn't get the neighbors very excited at all. One of the comments about that plan from the historical group was that it was too formal. And you know what? They were BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 25 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 right. Because in a ranch style setting it should have a more relaxes and realistic character to it and we never got the opportunity to do that. So, it's not on the plan anymore. But, with regard to those buildings that are there now there has been some discussion. Lance and I talked about it. There's a desire, I think, on the part of (inaudible) to keep those buildings there. And there's a mention in Ezra's report about these being on the County's Historical Inventory. I'm sure I know exactly what that means, but I think it's a list of properties that the County would like, at some point, to consider, review and see if they qualify for Historical Designation. These buildings are not on any Historical Designation. Frankly, if you haven't visited that site I would advise you to do that. As Commissioners, come and look at those buildings. The main building itself has some structural problems and has been modified to the point where I don't think it will fit, qualify in any Historical Designations. The rest of those sheds are about to fall down (inaudible) we should have taken them down already. So, it's our proposal that we take all of those down and remove them from the site. Now I understand that one of Lance's concerns that he's expressed to me is well, what kind of precedent would we be setting if we do that? What happens in the area if somebody else wants to tear down a building that may or may not be a Historical building or close to it or something we have our eye on? What I would say here today is with the Historical Society or a group here in Pitkin County wants to come down and look at those buildings with us and say well this would qualify. This is the reason we want to keep this on the site. We'll BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 26 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 talk to you. We're not - - we're here today to work with you. It's the same thing we said to the Town of Basalt. We're not here to be confrontational. We're not trying to impose this on anybody. We're trying to work with you in every aspect. That is why our plan demonstrates now that we've taken a dozen or more major items off of this property. But, with regard to the Historical Designation of this property are we (inaudible) to do that? Let's work together, you know. If a building needs to be kept let's try to do that. If it's not, then let us tear it down and move on with this property. One of the things - - CLAPPER Dorothea, did you want to ask - - FARRIS While you're talking Historic buildings might be the best time to ask. Is this where the old school is? STARR Yes maam, it is. FARRIS Thank you. STARR You know on our original plan - - it's Dorothea, right - - FARRIS Yes, thank you. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 27 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR I don't know you. FARRIS I'm Dorothea. STARR But anyway. On our original plan one of our thoughts was that we might even take that building and move it over here. You know, I didn't know - - FARRIS I just wanted to get the Ioca - - STARR across the road. That's it. And then the old building, the brick building is FARRIS The general store, yes. CLAPPER You can take that one and bring it over. FARRIS Brick by brick. STARR Maam? FARRIS It will come across the road brick by brick. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 28 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR Brick by brick. CLAPPER It's going to come across the road brick by brick - - FARRIS Whether we do anything or not. STARR Well, at that point, we were looking at kind of the old Emma (inaudible). We were trying to honor and respect that. There's been some discussion about traffic as well. I'd like to point out that at the very outset we voluntarily hired a traffic engineer out of Denver. And, we made that traffic study available to CDOT and to Pitkin County. Further, at our own initiative, we (inaudible) copies of those reports in that presentation there's an amendment to that in the smaller - - CLAPPER In this one. STARR And, what I'd like to say about that is that there's a lot of discussion about it and concern like lighting, like safety and like the heritage of this piece of land. We have concerns just like the neighbors do. We own that property. We are in that community. We're a neighbor. So, we have concerns about traffic. We have concerns about lighting. We have concerns about the rural heritage of this property and whether what we're doing is compatible with BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 29 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 residential and agricultural and, you know, the intent of these plans that we're dealing with. But, with regard to traffic, at least the report that we have shows that the primary use of our property, the consistent use of our property is at non- peak hours. And so its impact on this intersection out here is very little. And, we have not seen anything from CDOT at this point that would say you have to put a traffic light out here. I've seen a number of letters which says you have to put a traffic light up here. There's nothing that says that. Now, what we have said is what, whatever this traffic study says and CDOT's response to that is and CDOT imposes on us (inaudible). (Inaudible) a stop sign, if we have to extend an acceleration lane or something we've said in our proposal - - it didn't get into Ezra's presentation, but if you look in here we're prepared to make those changes that are imposed on us. And, if we don't see the impact from traffic, we haven't seen the evidence of that, but if conclusions are that there is something we should be given the opportunity to respond to that. And that item in particular makes me think about a number of things in Ezra's report which are open ended. They don't help us draw conclusions. In the traffic situation if we're dealing with a problem that you think is a problem then we ought to be - - it ought to be a condition of approval not an open ended suggestion for denial. And it shouldn't relate to this (inaudible) for example, one of the things in his report says parking on this site far exceeds the County Code. Well, I've asked Doug what the County Code is and I'm not sure that he knows but he could find out what that is. But, instead of saying that and putting a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 0 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 negative spin on the whole report, why can't the departments just say look the Code is so many spaces. You've got to meet that. And make that a condition of approval. If we don't meet those conditions of approval we can't get a building permit. But, allow us an opportunity to come in and make a good use of this property. CLAPPER Just a second. Debbie, could you ask those people speaking over there because it's difficult to hear up here? Thank you. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. STARR But, we're still having these open ended negative comments that suggest that we're making a bad use of this property and we are going to be a burden to the neighborhood. And I submit that to force us to do some of those things now without conclusion and without further studies are, you know, just putting the burden on us that shouldn't be at this point. We have not asked for any kind of special treatment at all through this process. After being (inaudible) for a year, year and a half I kind of wished we had, but we've gone through the process. We've never asked for any kind of special consideration. And, I deal with it. I'm in the real estate business and I work in different towns around the country. The way it normally works with us is we're given these goals, we're given these Codes and (inaudible) of accomplishment and we're told that if this meets our general plan and our understanding and is compatible then you have to meet these requirements. So, they are items that are subject to approval as BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 31 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 opposed to reasons for denial. So, I think there what we're saying is that the significant thing here is that by using this land in the way that we are we create a burden on this intersection or the traffic situation that CDOT traffic says (inaudible) we're prepared to get that done as a matter of approval. So, in that regard we also believe, sincerely, that our use of this property is compatible with this rural area. And, it is compatible with the zoning that's there. It's compatible on the pages of (inaudible). It's compatible with the Basalt Master Plan. And, for a year we've been hearing you can build this church some where else. You can build it inside the Urban Growth Zone. You can build it in other places. Frankly, we've searched the area. And other churches have for years. It's not an (inaudible) to do that. Now true, there are some properties inside the Urban Growth Zone that are zoned to allow churches to be there and we've asked the Town of Basalt over and over for that information and they just faxed us some information about 11:30 today. We haven't had time to respond to it, but when I looked at it it's the same information, basically, that was given verbally before. I don't see any site in there that would allow us an opportunity to build a church. In fact, you can look in my presentation, the comments from the Basalt P&Z concur with that. Ron Bacheldor says it in his own words there's not a place in this town for a church. The only place for them to be is outside the Urban Growth Zone. And, when discussions have been about this is urban level development I've never seen a situation where a church becomes urban level or commercial development. But, the Town of Basalt's (inaudible) group has said in BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 32 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 their own words also that they haven't even defined what urban level development is. So, I'm not sure how we can be urban level development if there's not definition of it. But anyway, we have worked for a year to go through this process and with the neighbors and with Basalt. One particular item I want to point out here before I get to the end of this presentation on the property is you see this line right here? When we left all these things out back here, we drew a line here and we said, you know, let's build a fence here and for now let's just keep this, you know, open space just like it is. Right now the Fender Ranch bringing cattle on there. And we kind of like that. In talking the day before with some of the people that came to our meetings out in the pasture out here on the top of that because we staked this off and walked people around. Davis said what are you going to do with this property back here? We said we don't know. You know, it's developable property. He said well why don't you sell it to somebody? Well, we can't just sell it to anybody because this is an AFR-10. We can't break this stuff down. We can't sell it to any (inaudible) unless it's a government agency with a critical need or something for the public like this site here. So, I called Dale Will and said Dale, would you come down and look at this property? And he said yes, I will. I'm painfully interested, he said. But, he came down and he walked the property (inaudible) and a consultant. I walked this property. And he says, you know, there's (inaudible) a few things about this property that could relate to open space. One is we have open space across the road this would be a contiguous, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 3 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 you know, a continuation of that across the road. And, he really liked the idea of having some creek frontage here. And, you know what? We already control this Home Supply Ditch along a portion of it over here. That would be kind of nice. And, you know what? There's a por - - there's some great water rights that you get with that. And, we'll talk about it. And, we also talked about an easement from Lyn Swallow along here and creating an equestrian path that might follow along this rail and around this and back over (inaudible). A couple of weeks went by and Dale called me back and said Wayne, the board is kind of interested in that site and I've been authorized to make you an offer. I said ok, what is it? He said $100,000.00. I said $100,000.00 for nine acres of land? He said, well, that's my offer. I said well, it's not acceptable but I'm thinking you and I will just keep the door open and we'll talk about it. And that's where that is. So, our attitude is if this is to be sold to open space and we don't have any buyers or somebody like that to come in and buy a portion of this property because we can't break it up. That would please us. There needs to be some kind of fair price. I said to Dale, I said look, we'll sell it to you at the price we paid for it a year and one-half ago. Nothing unfair about that. So, I don't know if they're thinking about it or if they're not thinking about it. But, anyway, and I was thinking about, I was thinking about Dick. And I was thinking about the people that live across here. And, if we just had (inaudible) open space that would be great. We're willing to talk about that, to work on it. We can't afford to give it away. When you pay $1,000,000.00 for this land we can't just give away BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 34 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 half and (inaudible). But, if Dale continues talking to us about ways to make that work there may be some things we can do. It may be that, you know, that we could sell it to open space. Or maybe we come in and put a pathway or something (inaudible). But anyway, there might be some ways to work better with it. And we're open to that. So, in the final analysis what we're saying here is that we've honored the land, we respect the land and made a Iow (inaudible) use of the land. 12,000 acres (inaudible) for a long period of time. It's a very small percentage of this property. We return this to a meadow. The gateway of Emma is opened up. This little rock fence, by the way, at one time was a signage. And what we've shown here now represents the limits of an old rock fence that would sort of rise out of the ground about this high and fall back down. It doesn't have to be (inaudible). One of the things that sort of bothers me personally is that some of the objections about what we're doing here is from people who don't really live right here. They live miles down this road. And I understand they have to drive by it. But, I've tried to think about this. I tried to think about where are we (inaudible) a lovely (inaudible) country. And I thought what if somebody came and bought the property next to me and wanted to build a church. I think I would have had some of the same concerns that you guys did to this original plan. Although I thought it was a great plan. I still do. But, if that church group came back and made some of these concessions and left 95% of this property in open space and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 5 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 improvements looked like a barn and we did everything we could to make that work, I could, you know, - -that would be - - I could accept that. Now, one last comment. What we're doing here does change the property from what it was originally used for. It was a sheep farm. Before that there were other things. I'm sure Dick can tell us the old history but I guess there was a diary operation at one time. And we admit that this is a change. And it involves growth, growth all up and down this valley. And that's everybody's job not just the Board of Commissioners and the P&Z Development's responsibility. It's everybody's responsibility to try and manage that growth. Growth is going to occur and we just need to manage it. We think that in the process of developing this plan that we have the highest and best use of this property in the future as this down valley area, and specifically old Emma, continues to grow. Now I'm sensitive to the things that (inaudible) and we tried, as you can see, respond to everyone that we could. We have down sized the property to the minimum amount that makes our church work and our ministers' work. And, I think to not approve this would put us out into an area where we don't (inaudible) and we have no place to go. And that's a burden on us that I don't want to see have happened. So, my final comment is we think this is a very good plan. And we think that it enhances the community and does all the things that a community should have BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 6 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 there and I request this of the board. you approve this application. And I respectfully make this request that KAY-CLAPPER Thank you. I'll bring it back to the board. board have any specific questions? Dorothea? Does the FARRIS Several times you mentioned the idea of current use is what is displayed up here and future use, such as? I think that's a fear a lot of people have. What is it you have in mind with regard to future expansion or future use? STARR That's a good question. The future use - - first, first of all Phase I is the main church building itself and some time - - as soon as we can afford to do that we'll build a caretaker's unit. Four to five years out we (inaudible) with this next goal. Right now, that's the only plans we have for the property. We don't have another plan for the property. What I've said to Dale Will about this property here is I don't know what kind of rights it would have. We don't have to give those rights out. If it were rendered useless without any income to us that would double our basis in the land. But, we want to talk about this. But, as far as future use or then, we're talking about (inaudible) that one building so that we have a total of 12,850. FARRIS Okay. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 7 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR We don't have any plans beyond that. KAY-CLAPPER Jack, you have a question? HATFIELD You indicated, well actually the pastor indicated so I'll speak to both presenters, the uses, at least initially are going to be Sunday services and then Sunday school afterwards, et cetera. How does that work with what you indicated? You have about 130 parishers, parishioners, at least at my church that's what they call them - - and you have about 80 or 90 people on Sunday that come. But, you're actually developing a church that has 166 seats. Why are you proposing to build it so big initially? MANER Well, it would have a space to grow. Usually a lot of times your numbers of your total parishioners in a church compare to how many actually come on Sunday. There's probably like 60% or 70% people traveling, it's a powder day - - HATFIELD Easter Sunday it changes. MANER Yeah. But, but, obviously in deciding toward construction we wanted some room to grow. If you - - a lot of the language that people that kind of do this and advise churches for a living tell you is that you want to have a place that's comfortably empty and comfortably full. And, to try to find a space BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 8 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 that where you can accomplish both of those so that if you don't have a large number of people there there's still a feeling of intimacy, of people gathered together. And, if you have a large turnout, if you have certain services - - for example, you know, memorial services or things like that are held in church sanctuaries often are very high things and you want to just - - you're trying to be arranged where you can be comfortably full and comfortably empty. That's around that range. That's what we thought would be the best initial stage. HATFIELD You mentioned - - may I proceed with two questions? KAY-CLAPPER Yeah, go ahead. HATFIELD Initially, you mentioned that one of the reasons you bought the property was for a school, you know, to conduct some schooling. MANER For us? HATFIELD I thought you indicated in your earlier presentation that there was a school element to it. MANER The school element was that on the previous property, the Basalt Bible Church that church had leased out a portion of their property to Alpine Christian Fellowship so that they built their school building on that property BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 9 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 and there was a lease arrangement with that. And during the course of the transition phase of the church that lease and other issues were being negotiated and it was determined that the best, the best move for all parties involved was for Alpine Christian Fellowship, the church which has been located in Holland Hills to purchase the property that was, again then Basalt Bible Church so that they were then sharing the same campus as the schools they founded. So, there wasn't any plan in terms of Grace Church when we, when we reincorporated to form Grace Church there wasn't any plan for a school - - HATFIELD Okay. With that evolution and that in between transfer I just didn't catch that. So, you can say clearly that there is not a (inaudible) intent for example, with a couple thousand extra square feet that you talked about to actually formally begin a school program. MANER There's not a - - HATFIELD We have so many letters. And I'm sure, I hope you've all been copied, pro and con. And we have spent hours reading all this. And so we're going to have to sift through a lot of facts here in an attempt to do that. STARR May I comment, also? With regard to your question. KAY-CLAPPER Yeah, do you want to - - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 40 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR Okay. In the early, I think, in the early planning we had in that (inaudible) one of the (inaudible) showed a classroom - - KAY-CLAPPER Yeah, a classroom which is - - STARR - - and (inaudible) with the neighbors I think there was some misunderstanding. The classroom that (inaudible) refers to Sunday school classes for our Sunday services. But, there's never been any intent to have a school on this property. HATFIELD Good, I'm glad we clarified that. Patti, I assume that at this point - - I mean we're at a point where we can clarify some things that were said - KAY-CLAPPER Yeah, go ahead. HATFIELD - - per our hearing process. KAY-CLAPPER his clarification. And then we'll go to public comment as soon as Jack gets BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 41 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 HATFIELD Yes, on traffic. You said you had worked with - - and apparently by reading the several memos we've had it would be the State because we apparently delegate CDOT to work with that access permit. Does that include paying, at your cost, the need for a light, if it's determined that that would be necessary. STARR Yes sir. HATFIELD Okay. Something that was not really touched on was the sewer element, the septic. And, our staff has looked at this and it seems to have come under that State standard of 2000 gallons per - -. But our staff has indicated - - and I really looked. I could not find a layout for the septic and how all this was going to work, you know, and you have a separate envelope and I really couldn't find that, believe it or not in all of this. But staff is worried about setbacks from wells and the stream. Is there at least a conceptual plan for that that our staff has looked at? STARR Yes sir. HATFIELD It's more of a site plan than - - and honestly staff, jump in if I'm incorrect and it is somewhere here. I saw a lot of tables et cetera but not a site plan. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 42 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR It is my understanding that (inaudible) that (inaudible). But to respond seriously to your question, with 166 seats the (inaudible) was calculated, as I understand, is 2 gallons per person per day which is 1660 gallons. And if we add in the caretaker unit (inaudible) be another 300. That's 1960 gallons. What we're saying in our application is that at 1960 that does not take us into the State application process. What we would like to do is we have this (inaudible) and propose that we would monitor a lot of these issues until such time that as we might feel the need to add this other building here. At that point in time we would have the history. And we want to monitor specifically on Sunday, like from 6AM to Monday morning at 6AM, and have as much record, several years of record of actual water usage. So, when we began the property, construction it did not fall into the category of having to make a State application for that type of system. However, if we did expand we would have to go through that kind of system unless we could demonstrate an actual usage that was less than that. Frankly, we believe that formula is very high. And I personally think that we want (inaudible) than that. But at that point in time - - HATFIELD Just the peak period use. STARR - - or whatever period of time. And if it didn't - - if it did not qualify us to not go to the State level we would be obligated to do that. That's what we would have to do. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 43 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 short of the State cutoff? Sunday school classes? KAY-CLAPPER Can I just clarify you said 19607 So, you're like 40 gallons And you didn't even include your kinder - - I mean your And trust me, I've got kids. And they're going to flush the toilet and they're going to use the toilet a lot. So it's probably just with those numbers there it's going to kick you up over 2000. STARR Well, based on your formula it doesn't. That's on the calculations we've got. So I'm saying - - what I am saying is this. This (inaudible) working for (inaudible). If the determination is we're over that point and have to go through the State application then we go through State application. We're not saying we're not going to do that, obviously. But, the other part of your question I think the answer to that is that we will comply with all the stream setbacks and make sure that that happens. But right now, by the way, the water (inaudible) is right over here on the (inaudible) wall. There's a well right there and we own 4/5ths of that well and they own 1/5th. We also have asked for permits to drill a well over on this site so that we have plenty of water for the property. We have this surface water rights here and (inaudible) rights so we don't have any problem with surface water irrigation. So, we're really talking about the well used for our domestic water purposes. KAY-CLAPPER Jack, you had another question? FARRIS And your current septic is where? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 44 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR For the old building the current septic is right up in this area right up in here. And I believe - - is Mike here? Yeah, Mick. Am I right that this septic area works its way down here - - KAY-CLAPPER Michael, I need you to give your name for the public record. GAMBA Michael Gamba with Gamba and Associates. The proposed septic system for the sanctuary would be over in this vicinity. And we have shown Carla Block a conceptual layout of the entire septic system. Actually showed her one initially for the first plan that had a septic system for the Creek Side Chapel at that time the caretaker's unit was larger, and would have required a larger septic system. And, with all of the uses in the original proposal we rarely meet all of the State and County ISDS setbacks for the wells as well as for (inaudible). Carla of Public Health and Environment has changed, well not changed, clarified in here the regulations with respect to ISDS setbacks on the same property. And, with that clarification it basically requires the leech fields be pushed further apart when you've got more than one leech field on the same property. And, even with that environment, we are (inaudible). KAY-CLAPPER Thank you. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 45 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 HATFIELD In reading all of this I noticed that for the amended he said he has an application, he has an amended application and then another amended. At least that's what the little book here represents the last amendment. Carla did not respond to the amended application nor did Joanna, Joanna Schaffner, our zoning officer. LOUTHIS I spoke briefly with Carla Block about it and she didn't have time to go ahead and put (inaudible) in writing. But she did discuss this with Michael and basically was concerned but it's all conceptual at this point so she didn't have anything firm so she didn't feel that she had - - HATFIELD Her original comments (inaudible) some concerns and then obviously at this (inaudible) at conceptual then we'll get further feedback from her. Okay. Mr. Starr, you talked about the fuel dump site for a bit. And in fact I understand that it is certainly not part of this application. That's a separate application. I don't know - - John, we don't have to weight in on that - - KAY-CLAPPER Well, it's been continued until the 27th. ELY You'll see it eventually but not - - HATFIELD application? I mean it's a site planning issue but not specific to your BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 46 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 GAMBA Yes. STARR It is my understanding from the Public Works Department that their application for setting aside another parcel and the rezoning of that site has been continued until we got through this process here. They wanted to see the land use of our overall property (inaudible) before they rough ball a formal application (inaudible) a separate parcel and rezoning of that particular parcel. KAY-CLAPPER We continued that earlier today to April 27th. STARR So, that's my understanding. KAY-CLAPPER We're moving ahead so quickly. HATFIELD Yeah, we'll have to see where this application, of course, goes. I kind of wonder how that ever became a use in, you know, - - FARRIS Because Mr. Gredig wanted that on his property. HATFIELD - - if it's a character issue which we've heard numerous times throughout all this. We'll have to weigh in. Conceptually, I don't really like the idea but we'll weigh in if that comes back to us, of course. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 47 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR It's my understanding that Mr. Ganz spent time - - KAY-CLAPPER He worked for public works. STARR - - and (inaudible) letting him use it down on the end in the corner because it's my understanding some (inaudible) - - HATFIELD It started in the 80s and probably no one asked the question but maybe, fortunately we're asking the question now. So - - KAY-CLAPPER Well, we needed (inaudible). HATFIELD You indicated that through the history of the zoning of this property it had multiple zone designations to the current, but within those designations a church was never prohibited. Obviously, you understand an evolution of zoning and land use regulation and what was once one thing and now is now. So, that really, there's no way to (inaudible) what we used to be and what is now is two different things. STARR The point I was trying to make is that no where in the history or even now under AFR-10 does it say it's a prohibited use. There are some BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 48 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 prohibited uses for AFR-10 but this is not one of them. And, under special review a church is allowed. HATFIELD Yeah, well we understand and that's why it's special review. And you certainly recognize the ability of the County Government to weigh in and make a decision about final review of a special review. Final decision, excuse me, on a special review. STARR Yes sir. I understand you'll make a final decision. And I (inaudible) special review. So, I believe we've met that level of requirement. KAY-CLAPPER Jack, more questions? HATFIELD Well, I guess my last question is you do understand the AFR-10 zoning and the fact that it is really a residential, agricultural, wildlife (inaudible) residential zone district and why you are in special review? Essentially, your proposed uses not inclusive of any of the things I've just mentioned. So, a church is not necess - - it's not prohibited, but it's not a use by right. STARR I understand that it's not a use by right. under special review. It's a use allowed BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 49 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 HATFIELD Right. For which you've got to go through the criteria. STARR Yes sir. We're trying hard as we can. HATFIELD Thank you. KAY-CLAPPER I have a question. the tree farm at EI-Jebel at Eagles. You're currently able to use the facility at STARR Yes, that's correct. FARRIS Eagles? KAY-CLAPPER Eagles. The Eagles Club I was going to say. And you've been using that for how long? Eagle County. MANER Since October of 2002. KAY-CLAPPER And it's 2 and 1/2 miles from the Gredigs or so and it has a single line intersection out of- - I mean it's a beautiful building. MANER Yes. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 50 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 KAY-CLAPPER And parking lot has lights for safety issues, et cetera. you have - - I mean it's a comfortable building we've been down there for meetings and it's brand new. And STARR It is. There's a statement in this presentation (inaudible) that when we first started using that property we had a one year agreement - - KAY-CLAPPER Right. STARR - - for the use of that property, for the use on some of that property, at the County's request not ours. KAY-CLAPPER Eagle County, let's start by which county. STARR At the Eagle County request, not ours. They took us to the month by month use of that property. That could be ending tomorrow. KAY-CLAPPER Do we, do we have anything written as to that in the record? MANER And I have the correction from the, from the person who person who - - in the Facilities Management, Director of Facilities Management to make that correction. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 51 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR In other words we're at the mercy of Eagle County. KAY-CLAPPER Have you had any conversations with Eagle County Commissioners as to your continued use, by chance? MANER Yeah, we initially had, as Wayne said we had a one year lease. And then when we went back to them for our time of renewal they were going through some changes. So, Rich (inaudible) over there he got injured. He was moving out. He's been in rehab, I think, to try and get back into shape. But they - - when they discussed it, and this is included in this note here, they were uncomfortable with doing the long term lease at that point because they were concerned about, you know, other people asking to use it. Things like that. They were a little concerned about that. So, they continued to rent to us on a month to month basis and they communicated to Ezra, I believe, and they communicated to us that they had no problem with our use of it. But nonetheless, they are just unwilling to do a long term lease and speaking for the church that's a big concern. KAY-CLAPPER next Sunday. Yeah, because you don't know where you're going to be MAN E R Exactly. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 52 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 KAY-CLAPPER Do you, are you aware that Pitkin County has a vested interest in that building? We were part of the whole transaction of the tree farm property with Eagle County and we have a vested interest in if we ever wanted to add an addition to that building. So, we do have, you know, some support in the uses of that building that's why we're able to have meetings there. And, I don't think the board has a problem with, you know, providing you some use of that. We can't - - it's up to Eagle County to make the decision, but - -. MANER The issue with that is a love for that place. We love meeting there. We rearrange it and it's a space that's transformed to a worship space for us on Sundays. What that limits us is as a kind of base of operation obviously there's no office for me there, there's no place to have a quiet counsel with someone, there's no kind of home and there's no place that someone could see visibly everyday of the week and say, you know, here's the gathering place of Grace Church. And that does place a kind of burden on the Church in order to exist and to grow and to establish our identity in an area. So we've been thrilled and we have a great relationship with them and it was a good initial stage. But, they would communicate as well but in our conversations their understanding was, you know, we were using that space as a kind of intern step while we were looking for other properties. So, it's never been meant to be a permanent home. KAY-CLAPPER And when was it that you sold the other property that you were able to pra - -you were able to worship? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 53 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 MANER That was in September or October - - KAY-CLAPPER something like that. Like a year or so before you bought the Gredigs or MANER --2002. KAY-CLAPPER Okay. Jack? HATFIELD You've indicated, Mr. Starr mostly, in this presentation indicated that there are other sites within the UGB that you could potentially look at. I wonder if some of the basic tenets of your religion, because we all have different characteristics of (inaudible), is this Gredig site specific to worshipping. I mean is it an absolute necessary or is there another site that would serve your needs just as well. Not a physical site but does a basic tent of your religion you must worship at this site. STARR The answer to that is we don't, first of all we don't know of another site we could build so far at this price and these conditions and in this proximity where our church basically is. It is not represented by the Town of Basalt nor our own (inaudible). The answer to (inaudible) is that it's not the only piece of land in the world and it's not the only piece of land that we can worship BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 54 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 on. But, it is the piece of land that we've have grown and attached ourselves in a lot of ways. It feels right. I think it does, Jack, it does provide a setting for our church in the sense that we're, we're a quiet group of people. We like the open space around the church itself. We like the setting. We like the neighborhood. We're really not going to find ourselves in downtown Basalt parking in the street dealing with neighbors who are concerned about (inaudible) on Sunday. In a way that (inaudible) and the type of the use of that would not be good for anyone. In our studies, our studies show that we need at least 4 or 5 acres of land from a (inaudible) development today. If you took the site that we have here, this relation to the church grounds and exclude the meadow and all the other (inaudible) you have something around 5 acres or so. And these sites inside, really that I know about are 2 acres or less and there expensive. And the two sites that I am looking into have parking problems. The two sites that I am aware of that are large enough - - one is by Blue Lake (inaudible) - - KAY-CLAPPER As long as you're up wind you're probably okay. STARR Yeah, okay. FARRIS Or downwind. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 5 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR But we were told that that site was used by (inaudible) and the one in the woods is really a (inaudible) for performing arts. So, we really don't know where we can go. In fact, the truth of the matter is we've literally (inaudible) every building in site as far as we know we have no place to go. HATFIELD It appears by what you've said that it might be - - how do I say this - - that you've done some home - - a good amount of homework - - STARR Yes, we have. HATFIELD - - it might be inconvenient to go to another site. Now I've been going back to my Planning and Zoning days in Pitkin County. We've had - - I've seen many applications with 10,000 square foot homes on ½ acre. I can't imagine that you couldn't build a lot of this on less acreage than 5 without the consideration of the parking. Now I don't know how we - - I don't mean we, you would site plan. But, so, it might be inconvenient if this didn't work out so it certainly is not a burden because it appears by what you've said that at least there are sites available, maybe not the ideal site. STARR There are sites that are zoned and (inaudible). KAY-CLAPPER Okay. Dorothea has a question. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 56 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 FARRIS I have one question. Clarification of something you said that church experts, planners say you need 4 to 5 acres for church use, generally. And, I'm asking - - I know in education they say for an elementary school you should have ten acres. You're saying 4 to 5? STARR Yes. FARRIS Okay. STARR (inaudible) FARRIS Okay. I wasn't sure what you had said. KAY-CLAPPER Mick, do you have any questions because I want to give us a break before we start public comment because we've been sitting here since noon, so. IRELAND I have two, two questions. KAY-CLAPPER Okay. IRELAND than it is now. You said that the parking was limited possibly more even Is that right? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 57 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR I think in the plan we had to show 89 parking spaces and it should be actually, Mick, slightly reduced because the parking ratio that we have for our seating calculated at a ratio of 2 persons per vehicle. So, we did that so that we'd enter in at about 80 or 83 something like that. IRELAND Now, if you did that and exceeded that parking, those people would naturally just park along the road, wouldn't they? STARR Sorry? IRELAND They would just park along the road if there wasn't - - STARR If we didn't have parking? Just sir, I guess they would. They'd park on the road and driveway and that's what we're trying to avoid. IRELAND Okay. And then you said, well then we would come in and work with you. But, wouldn't that really put the burden on us to add, to allow additional parking spots? STARR Add additional parking spaces? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 8 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 IRELAND planning to grow. Sure, if you were over flowing onto the road because you're STARR Well we've got in that portion up there we have enough parking to handle 166 seats if we actually - - you're talking about if we expand the sanctuary beyond that? IRELAND Sure. STARR Well, I can't (inaudible) on the new application. The plan is to increase the parking along that roadway there. Because one thing we don't need is a situation where (inaudible) into church and those churches there becomes a parking lot and a traffic hazard. And we think it's unsightly and we think that we have a sight here that can handle the parking. (inaudible) in the new application for the expansion of this building and we'd ask for a building permit we'd have to address those things but we would try to keep the parking off the street. IRELAND The more fundamental question is on your old application, by your description, asked for a dozen more uses. And I wrote something down PHONE RINGS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 59 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 IRELAND Hold on. We have a - - KAY-CLAPPER Okay, Mick. IRELAND No, let's - -. would you turn that off somebody? KAY-CLAPPER She's done, she's done. IRELAND Okay. I just didn't want to interfere with some phone call, you know. The other question is you eliminated about a dozen uses and then you said, well we'll do these uses here. What is to prevent an application from, for restoring those uses to this property? I mean, it makes, it would make a certain amount of sense once you did this to have other uses on the property. Would it not? And so, how do we - - on what grounds would we then be able to deny this application from going back to its original larger form? STARR Well hopefully, Mick that if you approve this plan that's the land use plan that you're approving. If we had any other modifications this plan would have to come through with a new land use application and you would have an opportunity for that at that point to approve or deny. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 60 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 IRELAND But, I, I don't think, I don't know if you can articulate any grounds on which we could not approve additional uses once we've changed the character of this property to allow this particular use. I don't see how to get around this we could say no to a Sunday school, no to a Creek Side Chapel, no to other uses., Do you? FARRIS Unless you - - STARR deny it. Sure. You make an application and you can approve or IRELAND But, having (inaudible) this use on this property, having said that under our criteria that this is an approved use, what grounds would we have for denying expansion of the use for additional items that were compatible with the operation of the church? STARR I don't know, Mick. You'll have to ask John. IRELAND Well, I, that's a little bit glib for me, you know. I think what we're really dealing with here is the original application. Because the intent of the church, rightfully so, I mean in the Bible that I had to study is to grow. And, once we approve this we've really opened the door that we can't shut. We can't really say yeah, this is okay compatible with the character, you know rural BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 61 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 character and so on, but Sunday school is not. The church is okay but a Sunday school is not. I don't see how I can say that from an illegal or even a moral point of view. I don't see where I would be justified in saying that. And, I don't see where it would make any sense at all to have you come in and the argument you made today is well, there's no where else I can put my church. Okay. Eagle County is a month to month lease. I've looked at all the properties. They're too expensive or they're too small. But, you really think that you can come in and I'm going to say well, you've got 18 acres there but you've got to buy another parcel for your Sunday school and you've got to buy another parcel for your chaplain, and you've got to buy another parcel for this and that. I really think that we're in a position to either accepting as a community a great many more uses that have been described in prior applications or not accepting them. There isn't any hard way changing character. You don't change your character part way. I'm a good guy on some days. Well, I'm not. I'm not bad but I (inaudible) to see the good and bad through the neighborhood and once we've done it, we've done it. And we're not, we're just not in the position to come back later and say, you can't have a bigger parking lot, you can't have this, you can't have that, when those things, to me, seem to me to be fundamental of the operation of the church. And, it's a slippery slope for better or for worse. So, that's my question to you and your answer to me is, ask my attorney. I think that you should just acknowledge that having opened the door we're really opening BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 62 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 the door to future applications to which it would be very difficult, legally or morally to deny STARR The only reason I made reference to John was because I thought you were asking him a question. But, I can just repeat that our intent here is to ask you to approve this (inaudible). Our belief has always been that if there was anything that changed that we'd have to come back to you for approval and you'd have the ability to approve or deny. I don't know what else to say. IRELAND Well, my question is though I have the ability on what grounds as practical or ethical or fair manner could I deny the additional uses listed in your prior application? STARR I don't know the answer to that question. IRELAND Okay, well. You're not proposing a deed restriction that would prohibit those uses, are you? STARR Sir? IRELAND You're not prohibiting (inaudible) that would prohibit further development on the property, are you? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 63 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR No. IRELAND Okay. That's all I wanted to know. KAY-CLAPPER Okay. We - - before we - - and I apologize to the public but I think we all need a little break here. We're going to take 15. I know it will take 15 for you guys to get in here. UNKNOWN Are you really going to take that long? KAY-CLAPPER Okay, ten. So let's say ten. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the public comment portion of the meeting. The following people gave public comment in support of this application. Letters, photographs and other documents submitted by the public and/or those giving public comment tonight on this item can be found in additional exhibits to the meeting packet. Donald Sarver, Don Helmich, Linda Nelson for herself and for Korba Andreus, Katie Neal, Beau Helmich, Jan Gessele, Joel Haas, Carol Mayer for herself and for Susan Spalding, Tom Fisher, and Pam Wood. The arguments in support of this project included: the countless hours worked to meet the criteria; wanting to make a positive statement in the community; not doing this for monetary gain, but to service the area; believe churches and schools are an important need in this valley; this is a legal land use; junkyard on either side of property; attends small church in Aspen whose neighbors worked with them on parking issues; only 2% of land used for the main church building; have addressed all concerns and made changes; a church is allowed by special review on this property. The following people gave public comment in opposition of this application. Letters, photographs and other documents submitted by the public and/or those giving public comment tonight on this item can be found in additional exhibits to the meeting packet. George Newman, Tish Bartlett, Dick Bird, David Kelly, Laura BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 64 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Clasen, Ron Clasen, Liz Newman, Doug Sheffer, Joan Bain, Gordon Keating, Martin and Susan Finklestein, Bart Johnson, Liz Conners, Marguerite Dykan, Julie Murad, Jim Cardamone, Howard Gunther, Carolyn Shipp, and Dave Bellack. The arguments in opposition of this project included: increased traffic on East and West Sopris Roads; Highway 82 ingress and egress dangerous enough without additional traffic; too much lighting; number of activities would increase beyond Sunday services; members and friends of the church do not live in Emma; unwanted visual impact to entrance to Emma; not opposed to the church itself, just the impacts caused by it; heard nothing about employee housing requirement; worried over water supply; believes special review is too discretionary. FARRIS Thank you very much all of you. I think we're done with the KAY-CLAPPER Yes, we are done with the list. FARRIS So I just want to say thank you to everyone for the graciousness with which all the comments were made. I also want to say that this is to this board is a land use discussion. I think a lot of the issues that have been brought forward have to do with impacts, whether it's traffic, or noise, or lights, or cars, or size of parking lot, or use of the land. I think you need to remember that we, as a board looking at land use development - - that is what we're looking at. And that's - - I appreciate the comments that reflect that. KAY-CLAPPER I have a brief announcement here. The board has, because of some late night meetings we've had and this is up to the board, I'm bringing this back to the board, we have decided to stop around 6:00 o'clock just to take BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 65 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 (inaudible) and see what the board wants to do as far as a meal break since we've been here since noon. And I know you guys have been waiting and I hate to do that to you but we have a couple of other issues on our agenda. We are not yet done with this one. And I just want to run it by the board so we don't break off in the middle of something. Dorothea? FARRIS I would like to say thank you very much, consider all these comments, and set up a site visit so that the board can visit the site and discuss this and so to continued this. And, get on with the two other items or one other, two other items on the agenda and see if we can finish before 6:30 and then not break for dinner. That would be my choice. KAY-CLAPPER Mick? IRELAND You know, I agree with that. I would like to also direct staff to bring us more information on some issues that were in conflict. Namely, the ISDIS capacity, the GK water rights since we do have a policy of not approving things that don't have adjudicated water rights, whether or not the wells are meeting the - - the proposed well meets the 600 foot (inaudible) rule. I was looking on my map and doing some measurements and I'm not really sure but we don't want to go (inaudible) all that. I would like some staff comment on the Affordable Housing and job generation issues since we traditionally address those. And, I would like some traffic data. You know everybody's saying well it's BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 66 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 dangerous, but I would like some hard data if it's available and the number of accidents in or near that intersection. Whether or not that - - I'm very familiar with the curves because when you ride your bike past there you have more time to think about them. So, the sight line in question has been raised and (inaudible) and I would like some special (inaudible) if you can get it on sight lines and dangerous intersections and the actual history of accidents there. Because I don't know and it's easy to say it's dangerous but to me the whole highway so I want to know if it's particularly dangerous and how dangerous it is and that can be quantified. So, that kind of information should be available to us before making a decision so I'd like to do that. And, I would also (inaudible) before we dismiss this matter and schedule a site visit, we give the applicant five minutes to respond to what we've heard today while it's fresh in the mind. KAY-CLAPPER They only get three that's all I can count to. IRELAND Well, three minutes (inaudible). KAY-CLAPPER And I want to let you know too that Michael Owsley is hopefully visiting his new grandson and is not here. But I'm knowing Michael and how astute he has been since he's been on the board, will be reviewing and I'm sure he will want to hear this public comment. We will try and set it up when Michael, of course Michael will probably be back I'm hoping by then, for a site BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 67 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 visit. So, would the applicant like to make a brief - - and Ezra, do you have anything? LOUTHIS I don't have anything at this point. KAY-CLAPPER Jack? HATFIELD Would we, after the applicant, have a chance to make a few comments like Mick? KAY-CLAPPER If you'd like, yeah, and then I'm going to wrap it. HATFIELD I'll wait till the applicant - - KAY-CLAPPER Would you like to come back to your table? I really want to thank the public. I was very apprehensive about filling this room which you did such a great job of and everyone was very polite and very kindly. And George? UNKNOWN meeting? I'm sorry, quick question. Will there be another public KAY-CLAPPER Yes. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 68 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 HATFIELD If we agree to a site visit. UNKNOWN Okay. KAY-CLAPPER Well, I think we do anyway. HATFIELD accept. Well, yeah we usually do but we got to ask the applicant to STARR I do want to thank everyone that has come here today. And I tried to listen very carefully to every comment that's been made that's been for and opposed to this plan. And I try to take different positive and negative comments into consideration as we proceed in this process. I too, would like to invite you to come to the site. In addition to the items that Mick mentioned, I would like to also suggest that we talk about these old buildings that are on the site and whether they meet with the level of, of - - FARRIS Historic significance? STARR - - historic significance and if (inaudible) relates to that. KAY-CLAPPER We can see if Suzanna Reid might be able to join us. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 69 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 STARR In addition to that and Mick's suggestion, I would like also at that time talk about this portion of land, this (inaudible) here that we talked to Dale Will about on our open space. KAY-CLAPPER We'll have Dale Will come with us, too. STARR Maybe that would help in response to Mick's earlier question and a time to settle some of these issues. But we think that this plan has positive issue which (inaudible) a positive (inaudible) to this neighborhood. We also believe in (inaudible) comments that it is consistent with the AFR-10 Zone. And I believe it's been consistent and is consistent with the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan and that it is consistent with the Master Plans. The other issues like traffic, and lighting, and parking and safety and health, those are issues that we have tried hard to address. (inaudible) it should be incumbent upon us (inaudible) and we will continue to try and do that if the County will help us understand better what they (inaudible). We too would like to see you come to the site and (inaudible). Thank you very much. KAY-CLAPPER Thank you. Jack, before you get started - - John, Lance and Ezra? Does the board want me to keep the public comment open or close it at this time? I'm leaving it up to the board since we've had a significant amount - -. Mr. Ireland? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 70 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 IRELAND I think at this point you could leave the opportunity for people to continue with written comments, but we're not going to do another - - KAY-CLAPPER Okay. So we will - - if anyone has or knows of anyone who wants to submit any further written comments please submit them through staff. Staff will copy them to the Board of Commissioners. We have boxes. We all have a folder now that we have been generating. And don't' ask us to respond to them all personally. But - - and we would, I think, - - as a board does the board want to schedule a site visit? And I'll let you comment, Jack. HATFIELD Yeah. Certainly we've been invited and we would like - - KAY-CLAPPER And we will have specific staff attend with us. We appreciate site visits because it really gives us a feel for the land and the neighborhood. STARR We would like that very much as it puts more things in perspective understanding the relationships we're talking about. I too would like to thank you for the service that you provide here and I used to sit on City Council and I understand how this goes. And, I appreciate you (inaudible) and thanks for your time. KAY-CLAPPER this. Thank you. Mr. Hatfield has some comments before I close BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 71 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 HATFIELD I just have a couple more questions. Did this go before P&Z at all? Seth, Ezra, question. LOUTHIS No because it's special review. HATFIELD Special review. FARROS That's right. HATFIELD And we didn't just because they are a valuable resource we didn't think to just run it by them? CLARKE No, we don't run by - - FARRIS We don't run things by P&Z. HATFIELD Because it's a one step - - KAY-CLAPPER It would be selective. HATFIELD No one has mentioned on our board, which we should be familiar with and certainly the applicant might not know, but we have an impact BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 72 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 fee, you know Ordinance in our Code for the roads. And I'd like to have us further that conversation just as the housing mitigation issue. That would be - - KAY-CLAPPER That is separate from anything that would be required specifically from CDOT at the intersection. HATFIELD Yeah. And then (inaudible) so let's just answer that question. And I am very concerned about the issue that's been brought up about future expansion and what it means, the financial for this project. There's an element, of course, that it's your business and you will finance how you wish but in my mind there's a question of okay, we started out small at 166 seats and golly, we got to pay for this and how's that going to happen and do we need to expand to create other opportunities for (inaudible) services et cetera. So, the financial question is an important one related to future expansion. And so we ought to at least be thinking about a response when we get together next time. Also on the site visit, I'm wondering if it makes any sense if we could put up either some story poles or balloons to show the ridge height of the main building, or actually there's two ridge heights, I guess proposed. That would be helpful just as another visual. This issue for much of the community is a character issue. And I'd like to get a comparison on what that means. We have had numerous comments certainly about the zoning which is more residential oriented and this is a church. Well is it commercial? And I'd like staff BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 73 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 to clarify how we quantify where this fits, this zoning. I mean it's not a commercial application but it's not residential either. I really believe that this discussion today has been very positive, the comments and the courtesy by everyone and I thank you from my perspective. I really have to agree with Dorothea. For me this is absolutely not a religious issue. My heart, certainly on the religious side has its own element of connection to what you all are proposing. But, this is very much a land use issue and a character issue so a site visit is a very good idea. But I see what we're doing here in no way putting you under a burden of any sort trying to - - this is a special review and it's a discretionary one. And we've heard, several times by the applicant that there are other pieces of land in the mid valley where's he looked at them and et cetera. So, I really need to really struggle as to what this means about (inaudible) created situation where your religion is being impelled by not approving this. I don't know. I have to deal with that. But it seems you have a site and you have the ability to look for other sites if this doesn't work out. And we'll have to make that judgment when we get together next. KAY-CLAPPER tonight? Is there anything else you'd like to say before I close this for STARR Yes, I'd like to just make a couple more quick comments to Jack's comments. First of all, with regard to the development of this property has been very, very carefully and thoroughly thought through. We have a study of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 74 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 our (inaudible) and it includes a very detailed line of budget of how much this project costs. It's not any where near the numbers that we heard here today. I welcome your - - you're welcome to look at it and I will share it with you. As far as staking out the improvements on the site we would be glad to stake out the location and the corners on these improvements as well as the ridge heights so that you can see exactly where they're located, their relationships and heights as much as - - HATFIELD Yeah, that's - - thank you. STARR So we'll do that. And also it will be fun to share with you the rest of the properties that we have looked at. As we said earlier there's some properties that have been described to us by the Basalt P&Z and the Town of Basalt and through our own efforts that we know are zoned for churches. I have the results of our work, hard work and (inaudible) works for us. So, we can get into that later and it's something to talk about on the site visit. And I'm very pleased that you'll be down and enable us to do that. KAY-CLAPPER So, we will have staff contact you and we can arrange a date when the board is available and when you're available. STARR Just have Ezra call me and (inaudible). BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 75 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 KAY-CLAPPER Ezra. Marty? Ezra knows where to find us and we know where to find FINKLESTEIN Is your site visit open to the public and you can decide if we can come to the site visit? KAY-CLAPPER Yes sir. FINKLESTEIN So, who do - - KAY-CLAPPER I'm getting too many nods of heads over there so I know, sir. FINKLESTEIN - - so we can be there and try to give you a perspective of the people that live there that would be very helpful. KAY-CLAPPER John, how would you like to do the public notice on that? ELY The site visit will be a public meeting of the BOCC and anybody can attend the visit. But, it won't be a public hearing. There won't be an opportunity to make statements or present information or - - KAY-CLAPPER Because we won't have a record. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 76 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 ELY - - or discussion that you had here because it's just a physical impossibility to generate a record. We are going to be at the visit and anybody - - at the site and anybody can attend that site visit and observe the same things that the board observes but then the discussion of the application will resume in a room like this. KAY-CLAPPER And a site visit goes on our regularly posted board agendas. So it's a public notice on our board agendas. Okay, I'm going to close this for this evening. HATFIELD Do we need a motion to continue? KAY-CLAPPER Oh yeah, we need a motion to - - yeah. HATFIELD can work out - - I'd like to make that to a date uncertain at this time so we KAY-CLAPPER Can we do that to a date uncertain? Yes we can. Wait, wait. Let's close the public hearing. Hold it, hold it. We're not - - please, we're not quite finished. HATFIELD We need one more minute, please. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 77 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 KAY-CLAPPER I'm closing the public hearing for oral comments but written comments can be (inaudible) and I'm going to leave that open so people can submit them to staff and staff will copy us. Or John, do you not want to do that? ELY I would rather do a date certain. Although the public hearing is closed and it ended in the past there is a consciousness on the part of the board to allow public involvement even if the discussion is limited in front of the board to staff level, the applicant and the ability of the people here to attend. And there may not be a on any mailer or list for a Caucus or for the church and therefore it might fall out of (inaudible). It should at least be a date that people could look at our agenda and know when there's a possibility of official action taking place. So, basically that's the key and again we would post it as such. KAY-CLAPPER 27th. Give me a date guys and I'll consider it to date certain. April FARRIS No, I will not be here. Excuse me, I would not be here I would like you then to entertain a different date. HATFIELD How about the 13th and if it doesn't work for staff, Mick's asked for traffic and whenever we could convene at that time. ELY The 13th - - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 78 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 FARRIS I'd go -- We won't - - we may not even have a site visit by then, Jack. KAY-CLAPPER Can we do it the first week, the first meeting in June, April, May. No, May. Excuse me. I missed a month. Sorry, Jack. I justwanted to make you nervous. May? What's the first meeting date in May? HATFIELD That would be May 11th. KAY-CLAPPER May 11th. HATFIELD That seems so long out, I mean - - KAY-CLAPPER I'm continuing this till May 11th ELY And if the site visit occurs before then, that site visit will be noticed and posted to the County. If anybody in attendance today wants to inquire with the County that date, feel free. I'm sure that notices will get out to everybody but in case it doesn't then refer to the County. Call anyone of these faces up here and find out. KAY-CLAPPER Call John. I'm continuing this meeting till May 11th BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 79 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 HATFIELD That's 7 weeks, that's really not appropriate. KAY-CLAPPER Well, Jack, this meeting, this application has been continued for a year and one-half I think we can continue it for 7 weeks so that we can go out and see the property. STARR (inaudible) KAY-CLAPPER And we would appreciate that. Do I have a motion to continue? Dorothea? FARRIS Yes. KAY-CLAPPER Mick, second? DEAN Jack had a motion on the table. HATFIELD I withdraw my motion. And so you can make a new motion. IRELAND Okay. We go enough votes. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 80 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 FARRIS will be here. You can do it on the 27th if you want if that eases people. I KAY-CLAPPER We are continuing this meeting until May 11th. motion and a second. I have a FARRIS That has people upset. KAY-CLAPPER Dorothea, you made the motion for the 11th. FARRIS Got it, got it. KAY-CLAPPER saying aye. I'm calling the question. All those in favor please signify by IRELAND Aye. FARRIS Aye. KAY-CLAPPER Aye. All those against? HATFIELD I abstain. Just to note my - - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 81 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 KAY-CLAPPER He needs to eat. It's a blood sugar issue, I know it is. While you're taking down the map we're going to take five and then we're going to go to our Mountain Queen issue. Thank you very much. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENYING 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW TO REPLACE THE MOUNTAIN QUEEN INC. EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT- MOUNTAIN QUEEN, INC.- APPLICANT; GLENN HORN -APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE; SUZANNE WOLFF - SENIOR PLANNER - DIRECTION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE RESOLUTION BASED UPON TODAY'S DISCUSSION AND RETURN WITH DOCUMENTATION FOR CONSENT AGENDA Suzanne Wolff began her presentation as outlined in her memorandum to the board. Commissioner Farris asked County Attorney John Ely why we can't have a deed restriction that in the deed on that property it says this will be used for an employee of the valley. Commissioner Ireland answered her question by saying that it's not enforceable. Glenn Horn represents the applicant, Mountain Queen, Inc. He also introduced David Finholm, the architect. He said that they've been working on this project for awhile and that this is the last thing that is going to happen on the property. Mr. Horn proceeded to give the board the background on this property as shown in his January 20, 2005 letter to Suzanne Wolff found in the packet material. Mr. Horn said that the applicant wants to have a full time person there who would probably be watching over this property as this is right on the edge of the property. He said that the applicant has no way to accommodate this. And in addition to this there's a recommendation to tear down this unit that's there and get rid of it and lose a place where a family is living. He sees the only plausible option is probably to write a check to the County for close to ¼ million dollars. He doesn't see the property owner doing that. And, he added, he doesn't know why we even have to address the deed restriction. He said that the unit that's there operates under this deed restriction. We're just building another unit. It's just going to be a better unit with the same deed restriction, he said. To him it is completely illogical not to figure out some BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 82 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 way to keep a brand new unit here for a family to live in that would be a Iow income unit and a great place to live. Commissioner Ireland said that the problem is that the deed restriction is not enforceable. The owner could come in, he continued, and say this isn't enforceable I've decided to use this for whatever, sorry. He said that he wouldn't worry about this so much if it hadn't happened two or three times already. He said that there are other solutions he supposes. Maybe he could create a 1% ownership interest which other people have actually done. They've created these property interests so that the County has a property at first and then they're able to enforce their deed restriction in the future. Mr. Ely responded to the issue of property ownership interest. He said that it's still of questionable merit to him to obtain a 1/10th of 1% interest in a property for a couple of reasons. If we're interested in acquiring it, he said, and paying for it then he would have less of a problem. But, even with that, there are dilemmas that present themselves with that scenario. It's been used in the City a few times and they have not had a problem with it yet. It's just like the rent control that was used in the City and County prior to the Telluride decision bringing that statute to everybody's attention. Commissioner Farris asked if there is any way to accept the deed restriction from the applicant with a condition on it that at any time that is not the case, then the $500,000.00 in lieu payment would be made to the County. Mr. Ely said that you could have a rental restriction set up that is geared toward an occupancy that does not relate to rent. That also goes in that direction for properties that are more rural with somebody who's going to be on the property and working there and it's a restricted unit for somebody working on that property. That has been something we've done in the past recognizing that there will have to be a balance between the property owner and the person employed by that property owner. Commissioner Farris asked if the board could approve it for that with the condition that if it's not used for that use the payment in lieu would have to be made and be secure and then relinquish that if the law changes. You can require on-site employee occupancy and that it shouldn't be vacated, said Mr. Ely. Then you're in a situation of shifting sands. It's vacated and then by the time we're enforcing its occupied again. You're always kind of chasing yourself in circles in a scenario like that. It sounds good and he can't say it wouldn't work but he does perceive situations where it could be problematic. But, he said, if that's the only solution you feel that you have then there's no legal reason not to employ it. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 83 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Commissioner Farris and Chairperson Kay-Clapper were in agreement on this idea. Commissioner Hatfield addressed Mr. Horn. He asked him if under his Growth Management discussion as part of his application, that he stated that the applicant did not intent to change the use. He said that one of the options from staff is a for sale scenario. Is there any possibility for that he asked. Then they could really manage that. Do we not create for sale situations where the owner can put someone in those units, he asked? Chairperson Kay-Clapper said that it was for sale to the person who lives in the unit and that would be difficult. Mr. Ely said that what Commissioner Hatfield is talking about is taking a for sale unit out of the rental unit and you can do that by the willing property owner. Mr. Horn said that this owner will not subdivide this piece off and sell it plus he doesn't think he can based upon the deed restrictions that we just agreed on regarding not partitioning the property. Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked Mr. Finholm the following question. Since you know the owner do you think it would be worth your time and energy and ours to have you go back to the owner and talk to him about deed restricting under the grounds that this remains in use by someone who is quote unquote the caretaker of the property. If not, then it reverts back to the board as payment in lieu. Mr. Finholm asked is that not the situation we have right now. The board did not think so. Mr. Horn explained that there is a rent restriction as there is restriction on the income of the person and there is a restriction that it must be occupied. He said that Chairperson Kay-Clapper is saying that they would have a restriction that it would have to be occupied, a restriction on the income of the person and those would be the restrictions. But, if it ever changed and the owner wanted to change that we would be agreeing to pay a cash in lieu payment. Mr. Finholm said that that what the board suggested he thinks could be agreed upon. Mr. Ely said that as a situation of occupancy control is based upon the income assets of the occupant that, by itself dictates what rent can be charged. Because the person's income and assets is at such a level the rent can't exceed that otherwise a person in that situation won't be able to pay the rent. Should the unit become vacant it could be a violation of the deed restriction then the County could take action and enforce to either remove the unit or to do something else. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 84 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 And, the something else I'm looking to you guys for, he said, but he thinks there should be some kind of financial security behind that. Commissioner Farris asked if it wouldn't be different for a caretaker unit. Mr. Ely responded by saying yes, a caretaker unit is a different type of deed restriction. Ms. Houben asked if it's legal to have restrictions on a property or a plan for a certain piece of property that said that this unit would be used in a certain way. And then if it wasn't used in a certain way there is a bond or whatever that the County could then come in and remove the unit. Mr. Ely said that the $500,000.00 wouldn't be so much to remove the unit but the unit exists as dedication for the first house. Therefore, if the unit is not occupied there is no mitigation. Mr. Finholm asked if they couldn't just get another employee. Mr. Ely said that you own it, you house it. Commissioner Farris moved to direct the County Attorney to work out the wording and come back to the board on a Consent Agenda with this resolution. Chairperson Hatfield seconded the motion. Mr. Horn clarifies the concept. He said let's just say that there is a violation in the occupancy restriction and there's nobody in the unit and the County takes action and says you've got to get somebody in there and this owner or a future owner is uncooperative. Then that's going to trigger some sort of action. You tear down the unit and there's a payment in lieu of whatever that unit would be. The one thing where he thinks this may break down is he can't see this owner or any owner doing a letter of credit that goes on and on into the future for $500,000.00. Mr. Ely said that if the law changes we would incorporate some language should the County be able to reinforce the original EDU deed restriction then this covenant would probably expire. Commissioner Hatfield asked if we had the ability given this non compliance of occupancy to tear it down is there a need for a bond. Mr. Ely said yes, to cover that mitigation and the expense of removing the unit. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none she closed the public comment and called the question. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Owsley not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 85 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 SECOND READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON UPPER SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN WITHIN PITKIN COUNTY, TO THE RURAL AND REMOTE (RR) ZONE DISTRICT - STAFF PERSON - CINDY HOUBEN - DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECOND READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON ASPEN MOUNTAIN AND ALONG CASTLE CREEK WITHIN PITKIN COUNTY, TO THE RURAL AND REMOTE (RR) ZONE DISTRICT - STAFF PERSON - CINDY HOUBEN - DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECOND READING ON ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ALONG EXPRESS CREEK AND EXPRESS CREEK ROAD WITHIN PITKIN COUNTY, TO THE RURAL AND REMOTE (RR) ZONE DISTRICT - STAFF PERSON - CINDY HOUBEN - DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE Chairperson Kay-Clapper stepped out of the meeting room for five minutes. Commissioner Ireland took over the meeting. Commissioner Ireland announced that he would have to abstain from participating in the section on Aspen Mountain/Castle Creek (Exhibit 3, revised map) due to his client's holdings in that area. He should, however be able to participate in the other two portions. Commissioner Ireland opened the public hearing on the Smuggler Mountain portion. John Walla represents Ed Smart's interests in this area. He announced that Ed Smart has two properties in the Ashcroft/Express Creek area (Exhibit 2). They are Castle Forks Mining & Milling and Apex Mining & Exploration. As Commissioner Ireland's client was Ed Smart he stated that he would have to abstain from this portion of the meeting as well. So, Commissioner Ireland will participate in the Smuggler Mountain (Exhibit 1) portion only. PORTIONS OF SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN (Exhibit 1): BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 86 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Ms. Houben proceeded with her presentation as mirrored in her memorandum to the board. She informed them that there have been no changes to this portion since first reading. Chairperson Kay-Clapper moved to approve a portion of Smuggler Mountain (Exhibit 1) to rural and remote. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Owsley not present. ASPEN MOUNTAIN/CASTLE CREEK (Exhibit 3) Ms. Houben begins her presentation on this portion of the rezoning as outlined in her memorandum. At the March 09, 2005 BOCC meeting the board adopted, at first reading, P&Z's recommendation which is as follows: In the Castle Creek valley, follow property lines where there is no further potential for subdivision or additional development, on those properties that are less than 20 acres in size and have established building envelopes as of the date of adoption of the attached ordinance. The only question on this was with additional development potential. Gideon Kaufman, local attorney called her to make sure what that meant. She said what that meant was that if someone had approval on their property they could still develop their property even if it isn't developed today. If it's a vacant lot, that vacant lot may have an approved and established building envelope. That doesn't mean that additional development has already been approved. She wanted to make it clear for the record that those properties can be developed. Ms. Houben asked Mr. Kaufman, who was present at this meeting, if that was made clear to him to which he replied, yes. Mr. Houben continued on by saying that at the last meeting there were also issues on some property on top. There were concerns regarding access and water. She said that staff is still recommending that that it be rezoned to rural and remote. She said that additional letters and emails have come in that have been forwarded to the board. One was an email from James C. Bull on behalf of the Park Tunnel properties of which his clients own 40%. The other letter was from John F. Coughenour on behalf of the Pfister Group who owns 60% of the Park Tunnel properties. Both correspondences support the rezoning to rural and remote. And, both can be found in additional exhibits attached to today's meeting packet. Ms. Houben said that Dave Bellack, who represents the Ski Company had to leave the meeting and he left his comments with her. She said that he had said the Ski Co agrees with the rezoning of those properties to rural and remote. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 87 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 John Coughenour spoke to the board regarding the Park Tunnel properties and his clients' 60% ownership. He said that he thinks he knows all of the board members and that the board knows most of their owners because they've lived here forever. He said that they have owned that property for 25 years. He wanted to point out some things. He said that there is no historic property on that property and there's no access. Joe Wells represents Leonard Waldbaum who owns a 14.7-acre parcel in lower Castle Creek which has no ability to be further subdivided. Mr. Wells said that it does have an approved building envelope and it has a valid building permit. A single family residence of roughly 2500 square feet is under construction on the property. He said that this is one of the parcels that had been removed from the proposed rezoning. He said it was his and his clients' understanding that he wanted to be sure, on the record, that they would still have the right to come forward under the AFR-10 Zone District provisions and apply for additional square footage under that designation. Ms. Houben was asked to respond by Chairperson Kay-Clapper. Ms. Houben said that yes, you are still AFR-10 and you have that ability. Florian Halazon represents Imago LLC who purchased his property in May of 2004. It is adjacent to the Park Tunnel properties. He said, for the record, that it was purchased with the review of the past, present and future zoning maps, none of which indicated a change in zoning. Mr. Halazon said that what he knows about the property is that between Summer Road and Keno there is a road and that it is well established that that road was built up to a certain point in 1918. Past that, he said, the road was extended on in 1980 or 1981. He said that he submitted various documents today with his 1041 application. He said that those documents include various easements that have been given. They include Mr. Smart and an opinion letter from an attorney in Denver that speaks prescriptive easement. He continues on by explaining adverse possession and adverse prescription. He said that he has no adversity whatsoever to his neighbors if they want to have their properties down zoned. He continued by saying that he was told today that the owners of Park Tunnel are in partnership with the County, the Ski Company and the US Forest Service. He said that if there were a partnership then there's a conflict. Mr. Halazon said that he hopes his addendum to his 1041 will address that particular issue. Chairperson Kay-Clapper said that the board was specifically concerned about access to his property and from what she heard prior there is no legal access. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 88 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Mr. Coughenour gave a short history lesson on this property. He said that when Jim Blanning came back he tried to buy this property back. He said that he sued us, the County and the Ski Corp. Mr. Blanning lost the lawsuit. Mr. Coughenour said that in 1971 he was responsible for the County to get the Summer Road open as a perpetual road. He said that the only people that were ever on Park Tunnel since his clients bought it were the Ski Corp, when they had the water control damage they had a perfect right to go. And, he said, he believes Pitkin County went up there a couple of times to look at some things. And, he knows that Nick DeWolfe was there a couple of times, Art Pfister has been there once and Steve Master goes there once in awhile and Dick Fitzgerald, of course, lives in Mexico. He said that's how that property became what it was. Between his group, he continued, they wiped off 98 claims on the ski area. Mr. Coughenour added that he remembered having the property sold once and remembered Dwight saying to him that there was no emergency access. He said that he also remembered Joe Edwards at that time saying that if you don't have any emergency access then let's just forget it. He added that the Ski Corp access to Park Tunnel was lovely. When the mountains closed you could ski in, walk in or snow shoe in. There's no motorized access at any time during the winter. And, he said, the gate has been closed. The no trespassing sign has been torn down. Ms. Houben said that she thinks that the issue at hand is whether or not this property is appropriate to be rezoned. She said that staff believes it meets the rural and remote criteria. Whether or not Mr. Halazon's application is complete is kind of separate from this, she said. If it is complete he will continue under AFR- 10. If it isn't complete, then it will be open to be rezoned to rural and remote. John Walla questions parts of the rezoning specifically to the concept of split zoning of parcels. He asked if this area was determined differently from say, the Smuggler area. Ms. Houben clarified this for Mr. Walla. She said that in the cases where there would have been split zoning found that those parcels which were less than 20 acres in size and had no further development and had established building envelopes then the lines were drawn around those properties so that those properties are still zoned AFR-10. He said that some of the properties will be partly in AF-SKI and then if they're rezoned they will be partly in rural and remote. To him they are two types of contrary zoning. Mr. Walla said that to him one of the concepts of AF-SKI was joining properties that were something that was part and parcel of the ski area. Ms. Houben said that the Ski Company has done the best job they could at this point to describe where their ski area boundary is. If in fact, she said, there is a property that is leased by the Ski Company and is part an owner in AF-SKI and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 89 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 the Ski Company has drawn the line where that is the case, it is not staff's intent to split those properties with zoning. It is only where the Ski Company has drawn the line to show us. Mr. Walla clarified Ms. Houben's response by stating that those properties that were under lease to the Ski Company would be retained as AF-SKI? Ms. Houben responded that this was her understanding. Mr. Walla said that there may be a bit of a controversy on a couple of those leases. He said that there is a lease in effect that the Ski Company has been - - they haven't been paying rent on some of these leases, but they have acknowledged and have received a loan from Prudential in 1980 something. All across that whole strip going up on Ruthie's there are under that lease. The board asked Mr. Ely if this information would affect their decision on zoning. Mr. Ely said that he wasn't a decision maker. He did say, however, that the board had information from Mr. Bellack who was here earlier who said that the Ski Company, who is the operator and owner of the ski area, had no objections. He said that they would know better than anyone else where their leases are. Ms. Houben said that the GIS mapping could be off by as much as 400' in any given case. Further discussion ensued on this issue of Ski Company leases and zoning. Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked Mr. Walla what he was asking from the board. She asked if his concern was that if the board rezones this to something that that affects the lease or the use guaranteed by the lease. Mr. Walla said that the lease does encumber the whole property and if part of it gets zoned differently he doesn't know where he would be going. Chairperson Kay-Clapper again asked Mr. Walla to specifically state what he is asking the board to do or not do with this item. He responded by saying that he asks that we go through due process; that we do careful homework even if something comes up that we didn't know about, even if it is at second reading; that the properties are the same and that the boundaries on the properties are the same. Now, he said, we are trying to change and split some things that have been in place for a long time. Ms. Houben said that there is confusion here that doesn't need to be here. She said that the issue here is whether the zoning is where the board wants it. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 90 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Commissioner Farris moved to approve a portion of Aspen Mountain/Castle Creek (Exhibit 3) to rural and remote zoning. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion for the sake of discussion. The board continued to be confused over Mr. Walla's concerns regarding leases with the Ski Company. There was nothing that the board or Ms. Houben thought concerned tonight's decision for approval of rural and remote on this area. Chairperson Kay-Clapper said that this issue was not really one for the County. She said that it seemed to be strictly between Mr. Walla and the Ski Company and those who had leases with the Ski Company. She told Mr. Walla that he needs to contact Dave Bellack and voice his concerns with him. Mr. Ely reminded the board that the owners' consent is not required for changes in zoning. Chairperson Kay-Clapper closed the hearing to public comment and called the question. Motion passed 3 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland abstaining and Commissioner Owsley not present. ASHCROFT/EXPRESS CREEK (Exhibit 2) Ms. Houben proceeded with the final portion of the rural and remote rezoning as shown in her memorandum. She stated that at the last meeting on March 09, 2005 the board asked staff to come back with P&Z's recommendation to go forward with the rezoning to rural and remote with the exception of the Planet Lode and the Ivanhoe Mill Site. Staff was directed to develop the Upper Valley Transitional Zone District (UVT) and take it back through the P&Z and board processes for adopting the rezoning of the Planet Lode and the Ivanhoe Mill Site to that newly created zone district. The board further requested that staff come back with a zoning analysis on the Leininger parcel. The Elmira Lode was also part of staff direction as to bring it through the hearing process for consideration for rezoning from AFR-10 to UVT. Other options were to rezone the Rice parcels to rural and remote and direct staff to create the UVT zone for all other parcels (including Leininger). Or, reconsider the proposal to rezone all parcels to rural and remote, take it back to the P&Z and rezone to rural and remote within 30 days of the P&Z decision. She added that under the scenario of creating the new zone district UVT, the Planet Lode and the Ivanhoe Mill Site will remain AFR-10 until the UVT zone district exists. She also added that if the board were to go through with rezoning the Rice property and the Leininger property then those would go into rural and remote and that the other two properties would remain AFR-10 until such time that the UVT is completed. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 91 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 She reminded the board that they do run the risk of those properties having applications walk in the door that may be above and beyond what was contemplated in the UVT zone. She is talking about the Planet Lode and the Ivanhoe Mill Site. And, she continued, when and if that UVT is completed board direction was to bring the Elmira Lode into that UVT as well. Stan Clauson represents David Middleton on the Elmira Lode. He responded to Chairperson Kay-Clapper's question on what the Elmira was approved for. He said that the Elmira Lode is not currently approved for any square footage. It does, however, have approval by BOCC Resolution 149-2000 for 7500 square feet. The vested rights on that have expired. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Houben informed the board that regarding the Leininger parcel staff was uncomfortable with going on a site visit due to what they believe to be potential avalanche danger along the road. She said that they contacted the 10th Mountain Hut system which also includes the Braun system. She said that they keep track of avalanche activity on the road. They said that at the ¼ mile, the % mile, the 1 mile, the 1.2 mile and at the 2 mile up from Ashcroft there were large gulleys and there are potential flag areas and recorded slide areas through the trees on the skiers left as you're going up. Bill Jobe is the representative of the Leininger parcel and father in law of Donald Leininger. He clarified a couple of points for the board. He said that the property itself is not in a direct avalanche path. He also said that they have had an underground telephone access for some time. He said that they don't have electricity at this time either. His request was to be included in the UVT Zone District as it was closer to the road than the Obermeyer parcel. Tom Newland represents the Obermeyer parcel (Ivanhoe Mill Site). He said that he recently had a detailed avalanche study done on the property and it concludes that they were clear of avalanche danger. He did say that relatively small slides do come down there. He wanted to check with Ms. Houben to make sure that Exhibit 2 still shows the Ivanhoe Mill Site and the Planet Lode as being rezoned rural and remote. He was concerned that it's board approved and that what people see on the maps on the wall will be rezoning those properties to rural and remote. Ms. Houben responded by saying that there was another map showing the Ivanhoe Mill Site and the Planet Lode being excepted from rural and remote zoning and made a part of the UVT Zone District. Glenn Horn spoke to the board on behalf of the Kurt family. They have two entities. The larger parcel, where the cabin is falls into the UVT Zone District. The smaller parcel is up valley and will go into the rural and remote zone. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 92 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Lynn Mace asked Bill Jobe if they had access to their property because it doesn't go down to the road. She submitted a photograph. Said photograph is located in additional exhibits in today's meeting packet. They have to cross from the road to Forest Service to get to their property. Ms. Mace said that there is a flat space on that Leininger property but how do they get to it? Chairperson Kay-Clapper asked Ms. Houben if they were to make the Leininger property part of the new zone are we providing the development to where the Kurt development is or are we allowing development to go to another site on that claim. She thought it was just development where development was rather than creating new service and new development within that new zone if we went that way. Ms. Houben said that the proposal for the UVT Zone District deals with existing development. But, if the board is saying that if this whole parcel in the upper valley becomes UVT then the board's desire is to keep the development where it is rather than to allow it to go - -. Stan Clauson spoke to the board regarding winter access on the Elmira Lode. He explained some details and characteristics of the Elmira using enlarged photographs and maps. Said items were not submitted for the record. He asked the board to look at the zoning rather than the development right that's been given. He is looking for justification for changing the zoning here and requested that the board not include the Elmira Lode in the UVT Zone District. John Walla represents Apex Mining and Exploration and Castle Forks Mining and Milling. He requested that the board include these as part of the transitional area. When asked by the board if there was access, his reply was, "there isn't currently". He said that they've been in conversation with the Forest Service as far back as when Al Grimshaw was still here. He continued by saying that there were no structures that he knows of and that there was access in the summertime only. Commissioner Hatfield was having a hard time with the options before him. He said that he is familiar with the Kurt parcel but not with the Leininger parcel, other than staff discussion on hazards. Commissioner Farris moved to continue to support the P&Z recommendation and give direction as listed in Option A to staff to come back to the board with the Upper Valley Transitional Zone recommendations as printed in Ms. Houben's memorandum dated March 23, 2005. This would include the Leininger and all the "in addition to". This BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 93 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 would include the wording shown in Option A. (OPTION A STATES: Continue to support the P&Z recommendation and give staff the following direction: 1. Develop the Upper Valley Transitional Zone District (UVT) and 2. Take the proposed zone district back to the P&Z and BOCC for adoption; and 3. Concurrently, bring a recommendation back to the P&Z and BOCC for rezoning the Planet Lode and the Ivanhoe Mill Site from AFR-10 to UVT Under this scenario, the Planet Lode and the Ivanhoe Mill Sites will remain AFR-10 until creation of a new zone district, and subsequent rezoning of these sites is complete). When asked to clarify her motion, Commissioner Farris said that she was making a motion that the board really do what is listed under Option A of the memorandum and add that the Leininger parcel and the Elmira Lode be considered under the UVT zone. Chairperson Kay-Clapper requested that the motion include the fact that she would like the other claims and a portion of the Kurt claim to be rezoned to rural and remote. She said that she understands the concern about the Elmira and how that might affect the use of the road, but she thinks that's a separate issue and will be handled if and when they come forward with that issue. To further clarify those parcels to be zoned rural and remote, Chairperson Kay-Clapper stated that they were the two parcels at the bottom end of the map but the upper end of the road which are the Rice parcel and the Castle Forks Mining and Milling and the corner portion of the Kurt parcel. (NOTE: Glenn Horn clarified for the record that this corner portion of the Kurt parcel being rezoned to rural and remote is the triangular shaped parcel just up valley of the Waterfall Gulch shown on Exhibit 2) Chairperson Kay-Clapper seconded the motion. John Walla asked a question on procedure. He said that if the board moves ahead to rural and remote and the new zone is codified and created as a UVT could his clients apply for rezoning? Chairperson Kay-Clapper informed him that he could. Mr. Walla asked if they would be considered along with the other applications that at this point are not being rezoned. He asked why they wouldn't be considered the same. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 94 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Chairperson Kay-Clapper responded that in her mind she is not considering them the same as they don't have structures on them and they're in a different location at the top of Castle Creek. (farther up the road, not higher) Chairperson Kay-Clapper closed the public comment and called the question. Motion passed 2 to 0 with Commissioners Farris and Kay- Clapper voting aye, Commissioner Haffield voting nay, Commissioner Ireland abstaining and Commissioner Owsley not present. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Farris moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 PM. Chairperson Kay-Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Owsley not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 95 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 Respectfully submitted, / .Lynd~/'l~. Dean !~-"Clerk t5 the Board of County Commissioners Patti Kay-Cl~(pper Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners g\bocc\minutes~005\min.reg.03232005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 96 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005