Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.05112005 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA LOCATION: RIO GRANDE CONFERENCE ROOM WEDNESDAY~ MAY 11~ 2005 1:00 PM ABATEMENT HEARINGS Lalone, ABC 32, LLC, 23 Pine Crest Inc., LINROC LLC #5, Anna Griffiths 2:00 ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Month of the Young Child Proclamation CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of April 19 & 26 Work Sessions, April 26 Special Meeting and April 27 Regular Meeting 2. Abatements: Benson, Fabrocini, Arbaney Family Investments, Jerome Office Aspen, CO, Schlumberger, Gibson Aspen Properties, Jack Guenther Trustee et al, Kris Cox, Andrews, Rocky Mt. Manstions, CH Major et al, Paul Dallenbach 3. Resolution Approving 2005 EOTC Budget for the ½ Cent Transit Sales and Use Tax, Tom Oken CONSENT ACTIONS- 1st Readings~ Set for Public Hearing on 5/25: 4. Resolution Approving the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Management, Maintenance and Use of Brush Creek Park-N-Ride, Tom Oken 5. Ordinance Placing Restrictions on Use of Hunter Creek and Red Mountain Ranch Roads in Connection with the Settlement of Auster vs. McCloskey, Chris Seldin CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING~ 2n~l Reading: 6. Resolution Authorizing Aspen Historical Society Special District and Service Plan, Jeanette Jones, Ezra Louthis 7. Resolution Approving a Consent of Sub-Lease Between Aspen Base Operations and Aspen Executive Air, Jim Elwood LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Crystal Island Ranch Final Plat, 2na Reading Public Hearing (PN 4/10/05), S. Wolff 2.Tahitian Ventures Caretaker Dwelling Unit (PN 4/10/05) (Withdrawn by Applicant), S. Wolff 3. Aspen Mountain Master Plan Amendment & GM Exemption (Horse back trips) (PN 4/10/05) (Withdrawn by Applicant), S. Wolff 4. Smuggler Result 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review, Scenic Review, GM Exemption & Modification of County Road Classification (PN 10/16/04) (cont'd from 4/13/05) (cont'd to 5/25/05), S. Wolff LAND USE CONSENT ACTIONS 5.Steel Caretaker Dwelling Unit, RA Sullivan LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. High Country Tree Galleries Special Review and GMQS Exemption (PN 3/13/05) (cont'd from 4/27/05), S. Wolff LAND USE ACTIONS 7. Grace Church Special Review, 1041 Hazard Review, Caretaker Dwelling Unit (PN 4/24/05) (cont'd from 3/23/05), E. Louthis 8. Goldsmith Request for Constrained Lot TDR, L. Clarke 9. Gibson Request for Constrained Lot TDR, S. Wolff BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN (A dinner break is scheduled from 6:00 to 6:45 pm.) Note: An executive session was convened during the High Country Tree Galleries application. APPROVED MAY 25, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MAY 11. 2005 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR MAY 11, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 1 :00 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Kay-Clapper, Dorothea Farris, Jack Hatfield, Michael Owsley and Mick Ireland COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADDITIONSIDELETIONS TO AGENDA: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR RAYMOND J. AND VICKI K. LALONE - MOTION TO APPROVE A PARTIAL ABATEMENT - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE. DEPUTY TREASURER Commissioner Ireland moved to amend the Assessor's valuation to $200,000. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR ABC 32. LLC - PETITION WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE. DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION DENYING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR ANNA GRIFFITHS - MOTION TO DENY PETITION - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE. DEPUTY TREASURER Commissioner Farris moved to uphold the Assessor's valuation and deny the petition. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11,2005 RESOLUTION DENYING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR LIN ROC, LLC 3 5 - MOTION TO DENY PETITION - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER Commissioner Hatfield moved to uphold the Assessor's valuation and deny the abatement petition. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION DENYING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR 23 PINE CREST, INC. - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER Commissioner Farris moved to uphold the Assessor's valuation and deny the abatement petition. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT: John Bush appeared before the board to appeal RFTA's position regarding salvaging the old Rio Grande Railroad rails. Kip Wheeler appeared before the Board to request its support of an excursion train on a portion of the rail corridor. A copy of Mr. Wheeler's letter is attached to the end of the packet for this meeting, under additional exhibits. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioners gave comments on current local and state issues and sports events. PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MAY THE MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD CONSENT ACTIONS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 19 AND 26, 2005 WORK SESSIONS, APRIL 26, 2005 SPECIAL MEETING AND APRIL 27, 2005 REGULAR MEETING - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JEANETTE JONES, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR SB19 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - JAMES J. BENSON - PINES EAST VILLAGE, LOT 19 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR SB19 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - JAMES J. BENSON - PINES EAST VILLAGE LOT 24 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR SB19 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - JAMES J. BENSON - PINES EAST VILLAGE LOT 23 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR SB19 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - JAMES J. BENSON - BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE BLOCK 5, LOT 7, FILING 1 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR BILL FABROCINI - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR ARBANEY FAMILY INVESTMENTS, COMPANY - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR JEROME OFFICE ASPEN COLLC - MOTION TO APPROVE- STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR MARTIN SCHLUMBERGER - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR GIBSON ASPEN PROPERTIES, LLC. - MOTION TO APPROVE- STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR CH MAJOR, CARL M, KEVIN BRIAN AND KENNETH lAN ANDREWS - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR KRIS COX - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR JACK GUENTHER TRUSTEE, ETAL - MOTION TO APPROVE- STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN MANSIONS, LLC II- MOTION TO APPROVE- STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR GIBSON ASPEN PROPERTIES - MOTION TO APPROVE -STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY TREASURER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES FOR PAUL DALLENBACH- ABATEMENT STIPULATION AGREEMENT - NO ACTION NECESSARY RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2005 BUDGET FOR THE 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX - PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Consent Actions agenda with the exception of the 2005 EOTC budget for the 1/2 cent transit sales and use tax, which he would like to pull for discussion. RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2005 BUDGET FOR THE 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: TOM OKEN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER After an overview by Mr. Oken with some clarifications to the resolution, Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Resolution. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT ACTIONS - FIRST READINGS TO BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 25, 2005: RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON THE MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE AND USE OF THE PARKING FACILITY AT HIGHWAY 82 AND BRUSH CREEK ROAD KNOWN AS THE BRUSH CREEK PARK-N-RIDE - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 25, 2005- STAFF PERSON: TOM OKEN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Resolution as written. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF THE HUNTER CREEK AND RED MOUNTAIN RANCH ROADS IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2005 SETTLEMENT OF AUSTER V MCCLOSKEY, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS CASE4 NOS. 02-1324 AND 02-1325 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CHRIS SELDIN, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY- MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 25, 2005 Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Resolution as written. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS - SECOND READINGS: SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE ASPEN HISTORIC PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS - JEANETTE JONES, DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK Chairperson Clapper noted that the Aspen Historic Park and Recreation District Service Plan is to be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion purposes. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING A CONSENT OF SUB-LEASE BETWEEN ASPEN BASE OPERATIONS AND ASPEN EXECUTIVE AIR - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JIM ELWOOD, AIRPORT DIRECTOR Commissioner Farris moved approval of the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE CRYSTAL ISLAND RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD FINAL PLAT- MOTION TO APPROVE TAHITAN VENTURES CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT- WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT- STAFF PERSON: SUZANNE WOLFF ASPEN MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND GM EXEMPTION (HORSE BACK TRIPS) - WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT - STAFF PERSON: SUZANNE WOLFF RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENYING THE SMUGGLER RESULT 1041 HAZARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2005 REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A TDR RECEIVER SITE (CONTINUED FROM 04/13/2005) - TO BE CONTINUED TO MAY 25, 2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Land Use Consent Public Hearings Agenda. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE CONSENT ACTIONS: RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE STEEL DETACHED CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT (LOTS 2A, 3A AND 4A, BLOCK 3, RED MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION) - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: ROSE ANN SULLIVAN Commissioner Ireland moved approval of the Resolution approving the Steel application. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENYING THE HIGH COUNTRY TREE GALLERIES INC SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Applicants Request: Special Review approval to operate a landscape contracting yard. Applicant: High Tree Galleries, Inc. Applicant's Representative: Rick Neiley Commissioner Hatfield moved go into executive session at 4:05 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 4b. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hatfield moved to reconvene the regular meeting. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Farris moved to continue this matter to a date uncertain. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE ACTIONS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2005 RESOLUTION DENYING 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 MARCH 23, 2005 - MOTION TO DENY- STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS This application was prepared as a verbatim transcript and is attached to the end of this record. RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANTING A CONSTRAINED LOT TDR FOR THE BROKER LODE - GOLDSMITH - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE Commissioner Ireland moved approval of the Resolution. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANTING A CONSTRAINED LOT TDR TO STUART, TERESA AND TODD GIBSON - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue this matter to May 25, 2005. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Farris moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 P.M. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2005 Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Patti Kay-Clapper Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners g\bocc\minutes~2005\min, reg.05112005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON MAY 11, 2005 GRACE CHURCH SPECIAL REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITY AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT EXHIBIT EXHIBIT TITLE DATE NO. 1 Transcript Of Hearing Before The Board Of 05-11-05 County Commissioners 1-A Staff's Memorandum For Board Of County 05-11-05 Commissioners' Meeting Of May 11, 2005 2 Staff's Memorandum For Board Of County 05-23-05 Commissioners' Meeting Of March 23, 2005 3 Grace Church Current And Potential Employee Undated Organizational Chad 4 Correspondence From Doug Dotson To Ezra 04-08-05 Louthis, Staff Planner 5 Correspondence From Bud Eylar, County 05-05-05 Engineer To Ezra Louthis 6 Correspondence From Carla Block To Ezra 05-04-05 Louthis 7 Correspondence From Martin Finkelstein And 05-01-05 Susan K. Frazier To Pitkin County Commissioners Re: Denial Of Application 8 Correspondence From Richard Russo To Pitkin 03-22-05 County Board Of County Commissioners Re: Denial Of Application 9 Correspondence From Rose Ann Sullivan And 03-31-05 Paul Sanders To Ezra Louthis Re: Denial Of Application 10 Correspondence From Terry Koladish To Board 03-22-05 Of County Commissioners Re: Denial Of Application 11 Correspondence From Tish Bartlett To Dorothea 04-26-05 Re: Approval Of Application 12 Correspondence From Mahlon S. Neal To Pitkin 04-04-05 County Commissioners Re: Approval Of Application 13 Correspondence From Katie Neal To Pitkin 04-24-05 County Commissioners Re: Approval Of Application 14 Correspondence From (First Name Unknown) S. 04-25-05 Badgett To Pitkin County Commissioners Re: Approval Of Application 15 Map Showing Pitkin County Parcels Inside Undated Basalt UGB And Zoning 16 Denying the Grace Church Special Review, 05-11-05 GMQS Exemption for an Essential Community Facility, 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO OF GRACE CHURCH SPECIAL REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITY AND SPECIAl REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT MAY 11, 2005 KAY-CLAPPER Before we get started with this item on our agenda - - this is the Grace Church special review. It's the continuation - - right, Mr. Ely? Continuation of our - - ELY Yes. KAY-CLAPPER When, when was our last one? ELY March 23rd. KAY-CLAPPER Thank you. Time flies when you're having fun. I want to make it known that we did - - technically did not close the public hearing but we did close it to oral comments. We have many letters submitted in the interim. So, this is not a continuation of the public comment. We have taken public comment on this item. But, we would like the (inaudible) to present. LOUTHIS So, the board did hear this first on March 23rd at which time the applicant provided the presentation and the public offered comments both for and opposing the proposal. Then it was requested a continuance in' order to conduct a site visit which was conducted on April 12th. The BOCC also had a number of outstanding questions and concerns to be addressed at this meeting. First of which was the sewer treatment and collection. There are concerns that this site might not be able to handle this type of proposal. But, the applicant's representative, Mr. Gamba, met with Carla Block of Environmental Health and stated that the proposal, as presented, would comply with County reqs. There's also a couple of other issues. One is what is a church? We consider a church an essential community facility through the Code and it requires review under the Code standards for GMQS exemption for essential community facility. The third issue is the affordable housing mitigation. In the application, the applicant did not address the affordable housing mitigation standards. They did represent that the proposal would generate three full-time employees but yet no mitigation was offered. The fourth issue was Grace Church's existing situation. In Maner's memo dated for today, May 11th, it was stated that the church requested a month to month lease from Eagle County Community Center. But, it appears that contact person that we had through Eagle County was incorrect with that information. And, that it was Eagle County and not the church that requested the month-to-month lease. But, they went on to offer that they had no problem with Grace Church as a tenant and they offered this to the public comment. KAY-CLAPPER month-to-month? So, to clear that it was Eagle County requested the LOUTHIS Yes, it was. Eagle County facilities manager. KAY-CLAPPER Thank you. LOUTHIS The fifth issue was other special review and non-residential applications in the area recently. There were two special review requests in the area in recent time that were denied by the BOCC. One was the Road to Bucks, LLC requesting to convert a portion of the riding arena into a commercial veterinary clinic. The second one was the Emma Store request to establish a subdivision which included single-family residences and commercial uses. And, that was on the parcel directly across Highway 82 from the Gredig parcel, the parcel in question. There is also a question about traffic impacts and safety. The applicant's representative, Doug Dotson, provided a follow-up analysis of traffic safety and traffic generation and it found that the intersection of Emma and Highway 82 has had a small number of accidents in the last eight years specific to the intersection. And, the County Engineer and staff generally agreed with Mr. Dotson's traffic analysis. The seventh issue is water rights and the possibility that the church might not have the proper water rights to run as a church on this particular parcel. And, the applicant has indicated that they will address this issue. Those were the issues that the BOCC requested to be addressed. Staff's recommendation remains the same that (inaudible) inconsistencies with the proposal and the parcel's designation as rural/residential in the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan. As well as inconsistencies with C(~unty policies 230 and 2- 230 of the Land Use Code and the Town of Basalt's recommendation of denial as well as the size and use of the proposal being out of character with the surrounding Iow-density residential neighborhood staff is recommending denial of the application. KAY-CLAPPER Thank you. Any questions of Ezra from the board? Would you state your name for the public record? STARR Yes. My name is Wayne Starr. I'm an Elder with the Grace Church. And I have with me today Terry Maner who's our pastor who was with me at the last meeting here. Also present here today is Doug Dotson our land planner, also Mike Amber our civil engineer and Martin Mata who is our architect and Robert Lees who is our legal counsel. So, in the process of our discussions today if you have any questions of any of us feel free to ask those individuals that are here because they're here to try to respond to any concern or question or matter which you might be interested in. With regard to water rights we have a letter here that I'd like to submit to the board. It addresses water rights. We have been counseled on recommendation by Thomas E. Kinney who is our water rights attorney. And, it seems to be a pretty straight forward set of circumstances where we have a - - attached to this letter you'll see our deed to the water rights and Home Supply ditch and also the interest in the well that exists there now. Based on the information we have from Mr. Kinney and information contained in these documents, it appears clearly to us and to our counsel that there is sufficient water to accomplish everything within our development plan. It is a - - we currently have a well at the site we have a 4/5th interest in and during the site visit you were able to see where that was located. And that well is rated about 20 GPM. It's currently producing about ~ that so it is our intent to look at re-working that well or drilling another well beside it, if necessary to replace it. We will need to make an application for change of use from domestic to the use that we have as a church property. We also intend to make an application for a second well that would be closer to the church improvements themselves. That well would insure sufficient water for a full build-out of this property. Our legal counsel with water rights advises us that to whatever extent is necessary for that particular well it can be augmented. The water rights for the Home Supply ditch which are senior. And part of that augmentation comes from the dry up that we have on the property in terms of portions of the site that would be improved into the drive area, parking area and building footprints. Right now it's estimated that it's approximately a little over an acre of land and translating that to acre/feet it would use 1.83 acre feet which is what the County used for the airport period when it made the same augmentation. That translates to about 2 acre feet. The conclusion is that it appears that we are in compliance with the (inaudible) 208 water management plan and that we have sufficient water, more than sufficient water on the site to supply and resource our development plan as it is. So, if you have any questions on that please let us know and we would be glad to respond further or make any other comments that you need I believe that everything you might need is here at this point in time to answer that question. We'll leave this other with Ezra. A couple of other areas we - - that it does appear with regard to sewer treatment collection that Mike Gamba's office and Carla Block are in agreement that our plan, as it's presented at this point in time, is in compliance. And that mostly we will continue in the permitting process to develop working drawings which she and I will be reviewing for compliance. And I'm sure that the end result of this designed stage be in compliance. With regard to traffic, we did submit a secondary report during this period of time with regard to traffic safety in response to the numerous comments that were made about safety at this intersection. And, it appears to us also that the County Engineer agrees with our assessment that this is a less, one of the lesser hazardous intersections along Highway 82. So, hopeful that has answered basically those questions. With regard to a question that Jack asked, I believe, at the beginning of the last meeting with regard to other properties. We have provided here today and presented for the record three maps which lay out the location of other properties that are identified in a Basalt letter to us on the 23rd of March identifying areas within the urban growth zone that permit, under certain conditions, some conditions, a church to be constructed. As I indicated in our last meeting we have researched properties very thoroughly both in the Basalt area and near the Basalt area before we acquired this property. And, our conclusion was then and is now that there are no other properties that are available to us at this point in time that are suitable or available for our church to development. And you can read the notes put on these maps. I think they're pretty self explanatory. The only zoning that I'm aware of that allows a church by right is AF-1 and AF-2 which don't exist in Pitkin County, I believe, anymore. So, we approached this property, approached it (inaudible) that the zoning was AFR-10 with a right to build a church here under special review. We have worked very hard to comply with the requirements of AFR-10 and the level especially of you and we believe we have done that. So, this map is here if you need other information (inaudible) ourselves later. Our position is being that we own this piece of property and we don't think we have to defend ourselves at this point in time. We're under a burden at this time with a month to month lease with Eagle County and those leases there could be terminated at any time. We've also spent considerable money in the redesign of our land and also the planning of our property. So, it's, it's very important to us that we continue this process to affirm that we are allowed to build a church on this property. A couple of other issues that Ezra has brought up - - a portion of his memo refers to review of other properties that would be considered under special review. I would like to clarify that those were commercial issues and not churches. Churches are not commercial or industrial properties. So, it doesn't relate. But, it's interesting to me that while these two examples were denied, at the same time there were prohibited uses allowed in the area. I have photographs of the properties in the area that are not only actually prohibited, but when we talk about the Gateway to Emma, which has been a subject of discussion at length, and when we look at the photographs and see what the Gateway to Emma really is, it includes about five commercial, prohibitive uses including a junk yard and other industrial uses including the one that the County has on the corner. So, it seems to me that these examples were used as denial in relationship to our property which brings me to another issue. Specifically, the church is not commercial or industrial. It's not identified as that anywhere, at any place at any time. It's not urban leveled a development. It cannot be used as a precedent to approve or a basis for request for approval of commercial, industrial at any other point in time. With regard to our plan, I'd like to remind us also that part of our plan is the refueling center which is currently located in this corner. Part of our application is to request that the refueling center be located to the west northwest portion of the property as indicated up here. And, we believe that is very much in the best interest of the County and the neighborhood and this particular piece of property. So, we want to remind ourselves that we would prefer that this is the focal part of our land planning application. There's been another point of discussion that I think the board had and (inaudible) on uses of this property as related to commercial and industrial. And, upon approval of our application, we're prepared to enter into a covenant that runs with the land that would clearly state that this property is used for purposes other than - - or that would not be used for commercial/industrial purposes. That would obviously limit our ability to sell it to those users as well. But that is clearly our intent to build a church on this property and use it for our purposes and to assure (inaudible) and the neighbors and to support that intent we would be willing to enter into a covenant that would run with the land that would limit its uses to exclude commercial/industrial uses. Another comment I have, and I intend to be brief here today because I think that most of what needed to be said has been said and we're at a point where a lot of the comments are beginning to be repetitious, I think. But, it's been a long road for us, you know. It's been a year and one-half since we first came and met with the County. And when we first met with the County and looked at our extended plan, not the one that's here now but the one that had the pathways and other improvements here, there was no resistance to that plan at the staff level. We weren't told it was prohibited. We weren't told that it didn't conform. And the same recitation went to the Town of Basalt. We believe that our application does conform, does comply. We have met with the neighbors. Just listening to Mick's comments earlier about the previous applicant. And, we (inaudible). We have met with our neighbors indications. (inaudible) what we had to start with. And we have tried very hard to be a good neighbor and to respond to the staff questions and requirements both here at the County and also at the P&Z in Basalt. At this point in time I believe we have done everything that I know of and I have asked Doug Dotson, Mike Gamba, Bob Lees and Martin Mata what else can we do. What else should we do? What else is there to do for us to comply and meet the level of AFR-10 and special review in this case? The answer from every one of them was we don't know what there else to do. As far as we know is your counselors and advisors have done everything that they can. So, at this point in time, our position is that we have made our application, we have met all the requirements and we are under a substantial burden at this point in time. And, l0 we're here today to respectfully submit that we have done that and to respectfully submit that this application should be approved. We ask that you would come to a vote and honor that. KAY-CLAPPER affordable housing. Would one of you two - - I didn't hear anyone discuss STARR Maam? KAY-CLAPPER Mitigation. Wasn't that something that you said - - STARR Okay, let me speak to that right now. From the very outset in our plan we have had a caretaker unit on this site. We have represented that we would have, at some point in the future, a full-time employee who would care for the maintenance and security of this property. And we want the housing on this property. We never tried to avoid any requirements of affordable housing. Our position was and our interpretation was that if we had an employee on site that we would agree to provide a housing for them. And if it was required or desired, that housing would be in conformity with the affordable housing requirements in terms of square footage, (inaudible), you know, the laws of any kind of those sorts of things. We would place that unit under those controls. It is our understanding that we have (inaudible) that if we provide the property, the improvements on the property for our employee that we can control, that he ]! actually lives in that unit. But, if the Housing Office has other requirements (inaudible) at this point, our position is that we are willing to do that. At the moment, we don't know exactly those are, Patti, but we would like to communicate with the Housing Office to determine (inaudible). There are a number of employees who work the church. Apparently, we have one full-time employee which is Terry Maner, our pastor, and one part-time employee which is (inaudible), our social pastor. And, in the future when this property is in place we will need a caretaker or someone for security. We think that's part of the (inaudible) security to mair~tain the property properly. We think it's part of a being a good neighbor. So that if the ultimate (inaudible) that we have here (inaudible) in terms of things that we control, the safety and the (inaudible). We have also represented in the information that we gave Ezra that in the future we might anticipate a couple more part-time employees. So, we don't know when that would occur. Those would be persons who would be involved in children's (inaudible) children in the church. So, that - - we have that information in response to a request (inaudible). And, (inaudible). Our application, as far as we knew, represented compliance with affordable housing mitigation. If there's a requirement we're willing to look at that and certainly comply. 12 KAY-CLAPPER Well, Ezra, maybe you can do - - maybe you can help me out with this. I thought you said three employees up for the Housing Authority. LOUTHIS No, this is what they offered. That they would have three full-time employees ~ - KAY-CLAPPER Because we're talking 11,800 square feet. FARRIS We're talking three full-time and two part-time employees - - LOUTHIS Correct. FARRIS - - for potential mitigation. LOUTHIS But they are - - KAY-CLAPPER This is a standard requirement, isn't it? LOUTHIS Yeah. For example, at the Animal Shelter they provided three - - or two apartments in association with the Animal Shelter to mitigate. And I'm not indicating that this was something that the applicant's trying to avoid. I think they just simply didn't understand that they are supposed to mitigate for. And a caretaker dwelling unit we typically haven't considered mitigation for employee or affordable housing. KAY-CLAPPER I don't know how we figured Mick is the expert on this but it's the 11,800 square feet there's probably a calculation - - IRELAND I, I think that the applicant is entitled to a decision on the threshold issue which is, is this appropriate development in this particular location. If it is, we can work out the affordable housing. KAY-CLAPPER All right. IRELAND It's not, but rather than drag them through that and say yeah, but we're not going to do this. I have thought a long time about this. Some of my best experiences in life were in church, have been in churches. I think churches are a positive thing for a community. But I have a, I think, an obligation to uphold what has been the cornerstone of our planning process. And that is the notion of an urban growth boundary and intensive development being retained within an urban growth boundary. Some years ago when I was on this board we were brought a proposal by Owen Minnick for development across the road which was very attractive actually. He was going to refurbish that collapsing building and do a number of things that were positive. It was my experience, then and now, and my conclusion that there is no halfway. There is no partial development. 14 I listened with keen interest today when I heard about slow build out. And I think we're really - - what we have to decide, and I will abide by the board's wishes - - but we have to decide between development and accepting the extreme and logical outcome of more extensive development. I know that this application does not include schools and other uses, but if we approve this and they come back and they say well, we should put a school there I'm going to say yes. Because I think that it should all be there in one place or it should not be there. Now I don't think it should be there but I think if it's going to be there it should be developed fully and properly and we shouldn't be saying yeah, you can have a church there but not something else. And I wrote - - I actually did attend law school. I just don't have much time to practice it anymore. But, I heard with interest the composition about the Federal Law basically requiring us to give an approval here. And, whether or not that's true I think if it is true that if we approve this proposal here there will be no moral, ethical reason legal way to say no to extensive development there. So, what do you do? So, I have to decide right here between extensive development, extensive logical development or do I uphold what I have stood for in the past and that is milepost 21.5 - - and incidentally I identified five acc - eleven accidents in four years there. But that's the CDOT map and it's not material to my decision. I have to decide whether or not we've reached that urban growth boundary principal here or not. And, I cannot do that as much as I think that this ]5 would be a good facility, a good thing for the community just as Owen Minnick's proposal would have been good for the community. And, as much as I like schools, I like churches, I like all those in-town activities I do not think this is the place for it. And therefore, I am going to move for denial of this application. KAY-CLAPPER Do I have a second, please? OWSLEY Second. KAY-CLAPPER I have a motion and have a second. I actually (inaudible). Any other comments or I'm going to call a vote? STARR Yes. We have no other place to go. We've proven that over and over again. And, when we talked about running the church inside the urban growth zone properties don't exist. I'm sure you read what Norm Bacheldor had to say about this. He's the Chairman of the P&Z in Basalt. He said when I think of where a church can go in the Town of Basalt there isn't (inaudible). We don't have any zoning that's available for a church. Michael Ernemann said don't you think that's a huge gap in our Master Plan? And Bacheldor said yeah, apparently that needs to be addressed. And then Bacheldor says this, yeah, I think we have a big problem that we haven't zoned or planned for. There were two churches in Basalt. Now there's one. - - sorry, there were three churches. kindergarten or a pre-kindergarten. The other one switched to Originally it was a daycare center and a Now it houses the Episcopal Church. And the other facilities are in the same building for multiple purpose. Then you have the Methodist Church is now a private residence. The Catholic Church (inaudible) is looking for another facility and they can't find another place. So, I'm not sure we have a building within this community to provide a church. I don't see anywhere in my mind that there's a church available. And so in some ways, you can talk all you want to about growth, urban growth boundary which I care passionately about. I go back to twelve years ago when I was applying to be on the P&Z and said we can't have all (inaudible) bottom of the valley to the top of the valley growth. We are not doing our jobs if we do that. And so, having said that twelve years ago and never changing my mind where would we put a church? Alpine Church moved from where they are to where these guys used to be. But, there's no place for a church in this valley except possibly the urban growth boundary. Susan Phillips says right behind that, she says what we're going to do with our plan is really nail down what urban rural development is. Now the difficulty is this. Is that (inaudible) to define urban rural development and you know obviously there are reasons like this outside the power, you know, outside our urban growth boundary. That's kind of the trickier issue here. l? My point is this. We have no place to go. We have complied with every requirement in AFR-10 in special review. The burden is now on the County (inaudible) we have no place to go. You are going to create a substantial burden on us if you deny it. KAY-CLAPPER Jack? Thank you. Any other comments from the board? HATFIELD I'm supporting this motion because I feel it's an inconsistent use with the surrounding area. Members of the Basalt P&Z - - certainly I respect their opinions. They have their opinions, we have ours. We're dealing with both our Code and our structure of our County which is partially built on the Caucus area and has a long-term history of trying to respect rural uses in rural areas. This is to me a lot of carry over from what we just talked about. Certainly this is not a quote unquote commercial use. But, this is just simply (inaudible) surrounding area. I do not believe that a member of the P&Z can speak for the whole valley when he was saying well, there's no place in the valley. That's, that's his opinion. I respect it. But, also I believe that there are places that could be. I would have to have a long conversation about all of these properties and I'm not sure if my dec - - I know my decision isn't based on well, there's no place here. I can't say there is or not. But, I'm defending in my decision neighborhoods and what people, why people move there, why they invest the large bucks, et cetera. And, I really hope that you are able to find a location, another location both suitable and appropriate. KAY-CLAPPER Any other questions from the board? Comments? I'm going to call the question. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. FARRIS Aye. HATFIELD Aye. OWSLEY Aye. IRELAND Aye. KAY-CLAPPER Aye. Motion passes 5 to zero.