Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.08242005 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 24. 2005 12 NOON Joint Lunch Meeting with Financial Advisory Board Economic Assumptions Adjourn Joint Meeting ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1:30 2:00 PM CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of 8/1 0 Regular Meeting 2. Resolution Concerning the Adoption of Policies and Processes that Involve thorough Public Input to Identify and Assert Rights-of- Way under RS 2477 CONSENT ACTIONS _1ST readine: AND Set for Public Headne: on September 14 1. 1st Reading and Set for Public Hearing on September 14th, Resolution Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for Funding Improvements on Independence Pass, Jodi Smith CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING - 2nd Readine:s 2. Resolution Approving the Ballot Question to Issue General Obligation Bonds for the Twining Flats General Improvement District, Debe Nelson 3. Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Pitkin County Code, Regarding Rules for Public Use of Open Space Properties, Dale Will LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Code Amendment - Visually Constrained Lots, 2nd Reading (PN 8/14/05), John Ely LAND USE CONSENT ACTIONS 2. Baker Takings Remediation, 1. Clarke 3. Diaz Appeal, J. Schaffuer (continue to , 2005 at request of applicant) LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Code Amendments - Subgrade Space and Grading in Setback, 1 sl Reading (PN 8/14/05), J. Schaffner 5. Tagert Lakes Family Trust Code Amendment, 1st Reading (PN 8/14/05), S. Wolff 6. Morrow/Wingo Junction Ranch SubdivisionlPUD Detailed Submission/Final Plat, 15t Reading (PN 7/24/05), S. Wolff 7. Shapiro Appeal of Barnett 1041 Hazard Review (PN 6/12/05) (cont'd from 8110/05), 1. Clarke 8. Code Amendment - Approval Limitations for Properties Currently in Review of Prior Development Actions, 1st Reading, (PN 8/14/05), J. Ely & C. Houben LAND USE ACTIONS 9. Compass & Aspen Community School Rezone, PUB Master Plan Amendment, Special Review, GM Exemption, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission & CDU's, 2nd Reading, S. Wolff 10. Aspen Valley Ranch Development Agreement, S. Wolff BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN (A dinner break is scheduled from 6:00 to 6:45 pm.) APPROVED SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24. 2005 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR AUGUST 24, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Clapper called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:00 PM. COMMISSIONER MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Kay-Clapper, Dorothea Farris, Mick Ireland, Jack Hatfield and Michael Owsley PUBLIC COMMENT: Ray Pogman appeared before the board to ask questions with respect to transfer of property in the Crystal Valley. Mr. Pogman was asked to draft his specific questions and submit them to the county manager for possibly a work session discussion. A copy of Mr. Pogman's letter submitted at this meeting is attached to the packet material for this meeting, under additional exhibits. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioners gave comments on current local and state issues and sports events. Owsley thanked the Thompson family for the orderly event they held in memory of the late Hunter Thompson Commissioner Clapper noted Janet Elder's passing with condolences to the family. CONSENT ACTIONS: MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 10. 2005 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JEANETTE JONES. CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCESSES THAT INVOLVE THOROUGH PUBLIC INPUT TO IDENTIFY AND ASSERT RIGHTS-OF-WAY UNDER RS2477- MOTION TO APPROVE- STAFF PERSON: HILARY SMITH. COUNTY MANAGER Commissioner Farris moved approval of the items on this portion of the agenda. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT ACTIONS - FIRST READINGS AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SEPTEMBER 14.2005 FIRST READING - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CDOT) FOR THE FUNDING OF EROSION CONTROL. WATER QUALITY AND ROCK FALL MITIGATION ON STATE HIGHWAY 82 AT INDEPENDENCE PASS - MIDDLE CUT PROJECT- MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JODI SMITH. PROJECT MANAGER Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the items on this portion of the agenda. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS - SECOND READINGS: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO. ACTING AS THE EX-OFFICIO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TWINING FLATS ROAD GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. ORDERING THE QUESTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND THE LEVY OF PROPERTY TAXES TO PAY SUCH BONDS BE SUBMITTED FOR THE TWINING FLATS ROAD GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AT AN ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 1.2005 AND SETTING THE BALLOT TITLE AND BALLOT ISSUE FOR THE ELECTION- MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DEBE NELSON. FINANCE DIRECTOR Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing on this matter to public comment. There being no comment, she closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the board for action. Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Twining Flats Resolution. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. SECOND READING - ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLES 1. 2 AND 4-7 OF TITLE XII OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE AND RE-ENACTING OPEN SPACE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 AND TRAILS REGULATIONS - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DALE WILL. OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS DIRECTOR Commissioner Clapper clarified that retractable dog leashes can be extended to only a maximum of six feet. Commissioner Owsley commented that he thinks that rather than limiting the number of dogs that the responsibility of keeping the dogs in control should be the responsibility of the person walking the dogs and any violation should be subject to a penalty. Commissioner Ireland commented that with respect to the dog issue he thinks we should regulate only when we need to regulate (for violations of control, not the number of dogs). Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Ordinance as written. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes with two nay votes by Commissioners Ireland and Owsley. LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: SECOND READING - ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3-310. ADDING SECTION 3- 310-070. VISUALLY CONSTRAINED SITE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED- STAFF PERSON: JOHN EL Y. COUNTY ATTORNEY. CINDY HOUBEN. DIRECTOR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Commissioner Hatfield suggested an amendment to Section 3-310-074.1 changing the word "visually" to "visual". Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Gideon Kaufman questioned why there was a sunset clause of only 120 days. Commissioner Ireland suggested that the sunset clause be changed to read 180 days. Commissioner Farris moved to approve second reading of the Ordinance with an amendment to Recital No. G changing the expiration date from 120 to 180 days and an amendment to Section 3-310-074.1 changing the word "visually" to "visual". Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE CONSENT ACTIONS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 RESOLUTION FINDING A TAKING AND REMEDIATING THE TAKING FOR THE BAKER LITTLE TEXAS PROPERTY (LOT 12) - MOTION TO APPROVE- STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE. ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Applicant: Bill Baker Applicant's Representative: Kim Raymond Applicant's Request: The applicant requested a takings determination, pursuant to Section 4-150 of the Pitkin County Land Use code, as a result of the Community Development Director's denial of the Baker 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission. The Board found a takings on July 27,2005 and directed staff to prepare a resolution remediating the takings. DIAZ APPEAL - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN Commissioner Farris moved approval of the items on this portion of the agenda. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: FIRST READING - ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING THE LAND USE CODE'S DEFINITIONS OF FLOOR AREA AND YARD - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON SEPTEMBER 14.2005 - STAFF PERSON: JOANNA SCHAFFNER. ZONING OFFICER Joanna Schaffner gave a presentation on this item as summarized in her memorandum contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing and brought the matter back to the board. Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of first reading of the Ordinance and set for second reading and public hearing on September 14,2005. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING - ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-110-051(A} OF THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE. GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON ANY PARCEL WHICH WAS LEGALLY CREATED BEFORE JUNE 12.1978 -(TAGERT LAKES) MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED - STAFF PERSON: SUZANNE WOLFF Applicant: Tagert Lakes Family Trust BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 Applicant's Representative: Glenn Horn and Gideon Kaufman Applicant's Request: A proposal to amend the Land Use Code ("Code") provision regarding the growth management exemption for pre-1978 parcels to allow the transfer of a development right to an adjacent parcel in order to encourage clustering, preservation of open space, agricultural lands and/or wildlife habitat areas, and to take advantage of a site's unique natural resources and scenic features, and avoid or mitigate any hazardous areas Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this matter as summarized in her memorandum contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Ordinance with a request that language be added, acceptable to the County Attorney, which clarifies that the allowable density on the receiving parcel will not be exceeded by moving the development right. Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MORROWIWINGO JUNCTION RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD DETAILED SUBMISSION AND FINAL PLAT - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 28.2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Applicant: Robert T. Morrow Representative: Mitch Haas, Planning Consultant; Jodi Edwards, Esq., Legal Counsel Applicant's Request: Subdivision of the property into six lots and one tract: 5 free market single family residential lots; one lot to contain employee housing, agricultural buildings and common uses; and a tract to be dedicated to Pitkin County Open space for a limited use trailhead. Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this application specifically as to the issues associated with this application as summarized in her memorandum contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Mitch Haas, Planning Consultant for the applicant, gave an overview of their application. A copy of the full application is contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Mr. Haas proceed with the issues as follows: . Development of Lot 5/Access: He said staff recommends limiting Lot 5 because the access has a revocable permit. He explained that the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 property does exist today and they have had a license for its use, including residential use, for ten years. The access exists and the access will be maintained whether or not there it's a residential lot or approved that way. In the unlikely event that the license would be revoked they believe they could work out a new access license with RFT A. He said it is important that the real risk in approving Lot 5 is on the applicant and not on the county. They would be willing to provide some sort of hold harmless agreement so the county is never at risk with regard to approving this lot. He explained that Pitkin County Title said they would issue a title policy and they have provided that. He said they would be willing to assume the risk and they are willing to assume the risk that if this lot were to be purchased by anyone subject to that it would follow with the title and they would hold the county harmless. So if they are willing to assume that risk they feel that the county should be willing to let them take that risk. Jodi Edwards, Attorney for the applicant, proceeded to address the issues as follows: . 4,000 square foot limitation: He said he does not know where this came from. He explained that the board has substantial studies, data and background material for the 5,750 square foot limitation. There is no background or support for randomly pulling 4,000 square feet out of the air and saying this particular parcel should be limited to 4,000 square feet. . Lot 5 Development Right: He referred to Resolution 193-2002, condition No. 3(g), the board says that the applicant should designate which two lots have the development rights. And they hereby designate Lot 5 as having one of them. . Alternate Access: He referred to a letter from Renee Black, RFT A counsel, dated September 9,2003, which says "although the standard license issued may allow RFT A technically to revoke at anytime for any reason, the reality is that RFT A is a government entity, governed by a Board of Directors. All our board members are elected in our various member jurisdictions. If the Board decided to revoke all crossing licenses on the corridor, it would probably result in multiple recall elections throughout the Roaring Fork valley. Selectively revoking a license would expose RFT A to potential civil liability among other complications. In addition, if rail traffic is resumed, consolidation of crossings would be the much more likely scenario than revocation. Moreover, resumption of rail traffic on the corridor would take a large amount of money and a long planning process. So it is unlikely that any revocation would proceed without RFT A providing an alternative accesses. And it is likely that the notice given would be years ahead of time." BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 Mr. Edwards referred to a letter from Jennifer Long, a next door neighbor to Lot 5, which she says that RFT A has also said that in the event of an access license is revoked, they will work with the landowner to relocate the access possibly by combining it with another existing access. A copy of Ms. Long's letter is contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. He pointed out that in this case, due to the location and terrain features of Lot 5, the only semi-viable relocation option, in the event of a future transportation corridor, would be to have vehicles drive along a newly constructed road along the south side of the tracks from Hoaglund Road to Lot 5 (a distance of 2,000 feet) and an additional impact on the back yards of six families already bummed out by a new train. He said the point is, in the highly unlikely event that they need alternate access, there is a physical possibility. He said in his mind, they have legal access. He explained that the code has 13 references to access and all these references refer to "adequate legal access" and he submits they have adequate legal access; they have a license agreement that says they have access; RFT A has granted them the right to cross their property. He further said that the county has approved other development applications in where the county allowed the creation of new lots across the railroad. He proceeded to list these subdivisions as the Sterling, Fox Trot, R&O Murray, Schlumberger and Pitkin Iron River Woods. He summarized by saying that Lot 5 is a valuable piece of this property because it is on the river. He said it helps Bob Morrow be able to make all these other concessions e.g. dedicating over an acre to open space, etc. Mitch Haas continued with reviewing the issues as follows: . Setbacks: He said they thought the setback issue was resolved at conceptual submission. With respect to Lot 5, they have requested that the side and the front setbacks be approved at 20 feet for both sides and they would put landscaping in to create a buffer between the residential use of their parcel and the adjacent properties. . FAR Limit: He submitted a handout, which compares their proposed lot square footage to a typical 5,000 square foot home in the Aspen West End. A copy of this handout is attached to the end of the BOCC packet for this meeting, under additional exhibits. He said his point is that the lot would fit a 5,700 square foot building. However, if they come to the point that they realize that they can't accommodate the house and the sewer, etc. then the house size will shrink. After a discussion it was the consensus of the majority of the commission members that access is a serious problem. They requested the applicant to bring forward an amended site plan for relocation of Lot 5. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 Commissioner Owsley said that he could support the applicant's request regarding the access to Lot 5, but the applicant would have to comply with the current setback regulations. Mr. Haas continued with his review of the issues as follows: . Employee Housing Deed Restrictions: He requested that the employee housing units be Category 4 single family detached units. To be sold (first sale) to their employees i.e. on-site ranch manager, etc. If a tenant or an owner moves out of the unit that they get 60 days to put the replacement employee in the site before it goes to the general lottery. To make the upgrades to the units within 90 days of recordation of the final plat. It was the consensus of commission members that these requests would be acceptable. . Agricultural Tax Classification: He asked for a clarification that they would be allowed to irrigate the land outside of the building envelopes. It was the consensus of commission members that irrigation would be allowed. . TDR's: He requested that they be able to split a 5,000 square foot TDR to two lots. John Ely, County Attorney, said there is no provision in the code to allow for splitting of TDR's. . Wells outside of building envelopes. He requested that they be able to drill wells outside the building envelope if necessary. It was the consensus of commission members that this request should be allowed. . Vesting Property Rights: He requested that they receive a 20 year vesting period. Commissioner Farris requested that when there are conservation easements, etc., which are to be given to open space that those easements are recorded within a certain time or else the approvals are vacated. It was agreed that a condition be added to state that the final plat shall be required within 180 days of final approval. Staff was asked to bring this condition back at the next hearing on this application. With respect to the 20 years vesting period it was the consensus of commission members that this issue to should be deferred to the next hearing. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 Commissioner Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Syd Smock, a resident of Holland Hills commented that he and his wife are in favor of the application and in speaking to his neighbors there is not anyone who is not very much in favor of the project. Michael Agello asked for a clarification with regard to the issue of water rights associated with the property. Mr. Haas responded that they have well permits for domestic water and irrigation rights from both ditches. Suzanne Wolff noted that staff received a letter from Jennifer Long, which is contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue this matter to September 28, 2005 to allow the applicant the opportunity to bring back an amended site plan. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. SHAPIRO APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATION REGARDING BARNETT FAMILY TRUST - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 14. 2005- STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE. ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR After a brief discussion, it was agreed that because of a recent accident sustained by John Lassalette, the Shapiros attorney, that this matter should be continued pending him being able to participate. Commissioner Farris moved to continue this matter to September 14,2005. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING - ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE ADDING SECTION 3-330-010. APPROVAL LIMITATIONS FOR PROPERTIES CURRENTLY IN REVIEW OF PRIOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 28.2005 - STAFF PERSONS: JOHN ELY. COUNTY ATTORNEY AND CINDY HOUBEN. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Commissioner Farris moved to continue this item to September 28, 2005. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE ACTIONS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 SECOND READING - ORDINANCE REZONING A PORTION OF THE COMPASS PROPERTY FROM PUBLIC (PUB) TO RES-20/PUD - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 14.2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO COMPASS FOR LIFELONG LEARNING FOR THE COMPASS AND ASPEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL PUB (PUBLIC) MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS: AND SPECIAL REVIEW. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW. CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND GMQS EXEMPTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 14.2005 -STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Commissioner Clapper left the meeting at this time to attend a meeting on behalf of the county Applicant: COMPASS Applicant's Representative: Jim Curtis Applicant's Request: Request to amend the 1995 Master Plan to allow an expansion of the educational facilities on the COMPASS property. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into three parcels, pursuant to the State's 35 acre subdivision exemption. One parcel will accommodate the school and two will accommodate residential development and will be sold to crate an endowment for the school. The two residential parcels will be rezoned to RS-20, and the Applicant is requesting special review approvals for the parcels as TDR receiver sites in order to develop up to 7,500 square feet of floor area on each parcel. Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation regarding the outstanding issues associated with this application as summarized in her memorandum contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. A discussion ensued with regard to Condition No. D 2. d. It was agreed by the board and Mr. Curtis, that the language should be amended to read that the deed restricted housing on-site would be located in an existing structure. Jim Curtis, representing the applicant, said he accepts all of staff's recommended conditions of approval. He explained that the only unresolved matter before the board tonight is the issue of the public trail. He proceeded to review a site plan of the area reflecting BLM, private and the applicant's property. He said the two functional problems that he would like to express relative to a public trail, is he does not think there is a logical 1 0 foot public easement up the hillside for a trail. Secondly, for a public trail to be functional, he thinks one would have to assume that at least some type of foot path would need to be cut in to identify the trail easement. He said first he does not know physically where it would go, and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 secondly, who would pay the cost for this foot path, which would delineate a public trail. He explained that the second issue he would like to point out is that with a public trail there needs to be some place identified for public parking for two to four cars. He said the proposed area, identified for public parking, would have a real impact on the lots. He explained that the second area, which might be used for public parking, could take place in the existing school parking lot. The issue there is that the school's first priority, in addition to education, is the safety of the kids. Secondly, he said he thinks there is an inconsistency in the logic of the board in that he went back and looked at both the Division of Wildlife and Jonathon Lowsky's wildlife referral letters and both letters did indicate the land above Claudell ditch was sensitive wildlife land and therefore, that was the rational to prohibit dogs on the two home sites. He said those are the points he would like to make and as an applicant, they would prefer to not to have a public trail based on the reasons he has outlined. Commission members expressed a concern that access to public lands is being jeopardized by more and more luxury homes being built in the area. It was the consensus that the applicant should provide an easement. A discussion ensued with regard to suggested alternatives for a trail easement. Commissioners Ireland and Owsley requested that the applicant's provide a trail easement. Commissioners Hatfield and Farris didn't think it would be necessary. Therefore, it was agreed that this issue should be continued pending Commissioner Clapper's presence. A discussion ensued with respect to the issue of vested property rights. Mr. Curtis requested that the vesting for the residential parcels be extended to five-years. He explained that as a non-profit they can be fairly slow in making decisions and making things happen. He said once the approvals are in place someone might need more time to begin construction of their home. Commissioner Farris offered a proposal for a 1 O-year vesting for everything up there if the applicant would identify and dedicate a route to the public lands. There was no commitment from the applicant with respect to this proposal. It was the consensus of commission members that the vesting period could be extended to a five-year period. Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue this application to September 14,2005 to allow Commissioner Clapper having the opportunity to discuss the trail issue. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - VESTED RIGHTS WITH SGS-RANCH. LLC FOR ASPEN VALLEY RANCH - MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED - THIS APPROVAL WAS COMBINED IN THE RESOLUTION. WHICH WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 10. 2005 - RESOLUTION 112-2005 Applicant: River Valley Ranch Applicant's Representatives: Glenn Horn, Planning Consultant, Dave Myler, Legal Counsel Dave Myler, representing the applicant, via speaker phone, explained that their objective in proposing this development agreement, limited to the issue of vested rights, is to secure the vested rights protection for the elements of the approval. They don't believe that in doing so they are undermining or limiting in any way the board's legislative prerogative. He said there are a significant amount of public benefits that are accruing from this project not the least of, which is the fact that they are locking, indefinitely in perpetuity, several hundred acres of land for wildlife, open space and agricultural purposes so it didn't seem to them to be terribly unreasonable that when you are doing that, that the elements of the project that are necessary for them to achieve the economic objectives that make all that preservation possible, be protected for a period of 20 years and that they specify those elements of the code that they would like to remain in effect. Glenn Horn proceeded to review the land use code standards that they are requesting be vested. A copy of the list prepared by the applicant is attached to the end of the BOCC packet for this meeting, under additional exhibits. He explained that the benefits for the public include a comprehensive plan for the property, commitment to open space and preserving all of the valuable open space lands to speak of, and then going beyond what is required in the code, there is a commitment to dedicate a trail through the property up Red Canyon that links up with the entire trail system up above, which will be accessible to the Rio Grande Trail, there is also a commitment on the part of this applicant, to commit to a housing impact fee before there was one adopted, and a commitment to make payments to RFT A. He said all in all there are a lot of commitments here on the part of this applicant, particularly tying up this property in the long term for open space trails and the development proposed. So in return for that they are looking for 20-year vesting and calling out those elements of the code they want to lock in given the rules in effect at this time. John Ely, County Attorney, said he cannot accept the draft at this time so the board is left with this task. He said in looking at the proposed development agreement, which is in Suzanne's packet he would recommend in Paragraph 2 b that all the language be deleted after the first sentence, which specifically gets to the enumeration of the items that are on Glenn's list. He explained that it is a fairly undebated and completely accepted principal of law that a local BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 government cannot, through agreement or contract or any other mechanism, give away its ability to legislate. He said he cannot and he doesn't think anybody can, sitting here today, suppose what a future board would do. The ability of the county to act as a government is preserved in the law. And he thinks in a attempt to give that away, in any kind of situation, is simply illegal. The proposed language here even admits that in so many words in the very end of paragraph 2(b). He thinks on this property and any other property he thinks we should be consistent when we extend vested rights to do so within the confines and parameters of the state statute that allow the government to act the way its suppose to act and preserve rights for the property owner the way they are recognized in the statute. Mr. Myler responded that he does not believe that entering into this agreement, in any way, results in the county giving away its ability to legislate. Commissioner Ireland said the list seems to be comprised of two sets of topics. One set deals with the financial engine e.g. house size, height, TDR's and the ability to build and develop things. And another set seems to be to him, falls in the health/safety welfare category, which are steep slopes and floodplain hazards and that sort of thing. And then other items that he does not know what to make of like parking requirements, pets and domestic animals. But when he looks at this list he does not think he could agree to wave issues relating to health/safety and welfare. He does not think he could create a vesting or want to create a vesting that says a future board does not have the ability to designate properly on scientific evidence to correct floodplain, the actual wildlife habitat areas, the existence of historical archeological resources or wetlands. On the other hand, he can understand the financial engine arguments as something we might or that we have historically allowed people to have some protection because that is why they are doing the deal and why they are here. He said he thinks if we vested anything, under the terms of the development agreement, we would have to have an understanding in writing that the applicant understands that this is a good faith commitment on the part of the county and that we can't guarantee a legal attack from the third party. Commissioner Hatfield said part of this list he can agree with because it is about what was approved. However, things change about wildlife, wetlands, streams, etc. Additionally, he is torn about the scenic view planes, which he thinks needs further discussion. With respect to John's opinion regarding the legality of restricting a further board, he thinks we can commit, as our board, what we think should be in place, which are the things in his mind that he mentioned. The other items he cannot agree with. Commissioner Owsley said he has trouble making a distinction between giving them the vesting and interfering with our legislation abilities. But he thinks in terms of the community, vesting is appropriate with the exception of some health and safety issues, which can be picked out of the list. He said he thinks we BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 should pick out the health and safety issues and allow vesting in all the other areas. Commissioner Farris said she agrees with the 20 year vesting with taking out the issues that would be changed with new information. Additionally, she would like to add a condition of approval that the granting of any conservation easements must be recorded within a certain period of time so that there is assurance on both sides. Glenn Horn advised the board not to get into a situation where it has property owners that are concerned about what may change in the future and because of that they are starting to build on a basis of fear out of how the rules might change. So he thinks a development agreement will help in that people won't build when they really don't want to because they are afraid about losing something. Secondly, Item c on page two spells out that things related to health/safety would always pierce whatever this development agreement is as drafted. Commissioner Ireland explained that the board needs to eliminate potential conflicts between (b) and (c) and he thinks that is best done by omitting things that it is not going to agree to vest. He further said that before the board goes forward the board needs to know from the applicant, whether he needs all these things or if the applicant willing to talk about them. Dave Mylar responded that there are more items on this list that are more important to them than others and he thinks they would be open to eliminating items where the county was just simply not comfortable. Glenn Horn said the following items are the most important to the applicant: . A. Floor Area Entitlements via TDR's . B. GMQS Exemptions Granted in Approval Resolution . 2. Maximum floor area and floor area definition . 4. Building height . 10. 1041 Environmental hazard areas including: a. Floodplain hazards b. Historic and archaeological resource areas c. Wildlife habitat areas BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 d. Wetlands Commissioner Ireland said that he can agree with these standards with the exception of the 1041 environmental hazard areas. He thinks flood plane, wildlife habitat and wetlands go directly to the heart of what the board does in terms of protecting health/safety welfare in this community. Commissioner Farris said she is okay with Items A, Band 2, 3 and 4 of the list but she has a problem with the 1041 hazard standards. Commissioners Owsley and Hatfield agreed. Glenn Horn said he has greater concern about changes to the stream setbacks than he does significant changes to the 1041 regulations. Spencer Angel said he would be willing to drop the 1041 hazard review standards from the list. It was the consensus of commission members that the following standards could be vested: . No. A. Floor Area Entitlements Via TDR's . No. B. GMQS Exemptions granted in approval resolution . Item 2. Maximum floor are and floor area definition . Item 3. Minimum and maximum lot size . Item 4. Building height . Item No.5 Amended to include stream setbacks relative to Lot 4. . Item No.6. Grading and placing of fill . Item No.7. Preservation or creation of scenic view planes. Glenn Horn said he would be willing to take Items 11 through 14 off the table for discussion. Additionally, Lots 8 and 9 are very critical to them as well with respect to the stream setbacks. It was agreed that Lots 4, 8 and 9 would be vested for stream setbacks. A discussion ensued with respect to C. 1. Allowed and prohibited uses. It was agreed that this should be eliminated from the list. A discussion ensued with respect to the vesting period. It was agreed that the development agreement shall be vested for a 15-year period. Glenn Horn said that would be acceptable to the applicant. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 Commissioner Farris moved to direct staff to amend the resolution incorporating Items A, B, 2, 3, 4 a limited 5, 6 and 7 with a 15 year vesting period. Additionally, that all easements be recorded with 180 days. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Clapper not present. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 PM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 Respectfully submitted, Jeanette Jones Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Patti Kay-Clapper, Chairman Board of County Commissioners g\bocc\mi n utes\2005\mi n. reg. 08242005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2005 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room WEDNESDAY~ JULY 27~ 2005 1:30 PM Appointment Procedures 2:00 PM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of July 5 Work Session and July 13 Regular Meeting 2. Resolution Approving Highlands Villas Homeowners Request for Indoor Pets, Maureen Dobson 3. Abatement Hearings, Carol Foote CONSENT ACTIONS- 1st Readings~ Set for Public Hearing on 8/10: 4. Resolution Approving Intergovernmental Agreement with Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, Debbie Quinn 5. Ordinance Approving Contract for Sale of Transferable Development Rights, Debbie Quinn CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING - 2"d Readin~,~ 1. Res°lution Approving Expenditure of Funds ~cnerated Through Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, Tony Fusaro 2. Adoption of Resolution to Affirm Certain Aircraft Operating Restrictions at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, Jim Elwood, Dave Ulane 3. Ordinance Repealing and Re-Enacting Title 10 of the Pitkin County Code, Jim Elwood, Dave Ulanc 4. Resolution Providing Supplemental Appropriations to tl~c 2005 Budget for Carryover Projects and Other 2005 Projects Approved to Date, Debt Nelson 5. Resolution Providing Supplemental Appropriations to the 2005 Budget from Additional Revenues Collected in 2004, Debe Nelson LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Watson Divide Ranch Special review to Establish a TDR Receiver Site and to Exceed 15,000 sq. ft of Residential Floor Area (PN 6/26/05), E. Louthis 2. Bennett Special Review (PN 9/11/04) (cont'd from 7/13/05), S. Wolff 3. 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 6/22/05), S. Wolff 4. Mountain Valley Cabin LLC 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay & Exemption of Non-conforming Structure (PN 6/26/05), S. Wolff 5. Aspen Valley Ranch Rczoning, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review & GM Exemption, 1st Reading (PN 6/26/05), S. Wolff LAND USE ACTIONS 6. Baker Appeal of 1041 Denial, L. Clarke 7. Code Amendment - Visually Constrained Lots, 1st Reading, J. Ely BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN (A dinner break is scheduled from 6:00 to 6:45 pm.) APPROVED AUGUST 10, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR JULY 27, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Clapper called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:00 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Clapper, Mick Ireland, Michael Owsley, Jack Hatfield and Dorothea Farris COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES: Clerk and Recorder ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None PROCLAMATIONS: None PUBLIC COMMENT: Ray Poigman appeared before the board to comment on the Red Wine Point Management Plan that the Open Space and Trails Board is working on. He explained that he attended the Open Space and Trails Board meeting last week and pointed out what he thought were many flaws in the plan. He said that if the Crystal River Caucus is to review this plan it would like assurance that the information in the plan is based on accurate information. A copy of his letter to Hilary Smith, regarding this issue, is attached to the end of the BOCC packet for this meeting, under additional exhibits. Mr. Poigman urged the board to send the plan back to the Open Space and Trails Board for revisions. Chairperson Clapper and Dale Will, Open Space and Trails Director, asked Mr. Poigman if the caucus good list the areas of the plan that it feels are inaccurate or that members have concerns about. Linda Goldstein commented that she thought the down zoning of Smuggler Mountain was on the agenda tonight. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 Ms. Goldstein was told that the down zoning had been approved and suggested that she contact Jeanette Jones, in the clerk's office, for the public record associated with this matter. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioners gave comments on current local and state issues and sports events. CONSENT ACTIONS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 13 AND WORK SESSION OF JULY 5, 2005 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JEANETTE JONES, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR STEPHEN AND SUSAN MERRITT BAIRD, TRUSTEES - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY COUNTY TREASURER RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAX REFUND FOR SNOWMASS CONFERENCE CENTER, LLC - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: CAROL FOOTE, DEPUTY COUNTY TREASURER Commissioner Hatfield requested that the Highlands Villas application be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion purposes. He moved to approve the remaining items on this portion of the agenda. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Farris not present for this portion of the meeting. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR HIGHLANDS VILLAS SECTION 7.9, RESTRICTIONS ON ANIMALS - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER After a discussion, Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Resolution with the following amendments: · The regulation shall be subject to the approval of the Homeowners Association according to their by-laws · Only indoor pets are allowed. No dogs or other outdoor animals of any kind shall be kept or harbored on site. · The reference to APCHA be deleted in the Now Therefore be it Resolved clause. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Farris not present for this portion of the meeting. CONSENT ACTIONS - FIRST READINGS, SET FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AUGUST 10, 2005: FIRST READING - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PITKIN COUNTY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BASALT AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON AUGUST 10, 2005- STAFF PERSON: DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER FIRST READING - ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 10, 2005 - STAFF PERSON: DEBBIE QUINN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of this portion of the agenda. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Farris not present for this portion of the meeting. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS - SECOND READINGS: SECOND READING - RESOLUTION APPROVING EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS GENERATED THROUGH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: TONY FUSARO, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2005 BUDGET FOR 2004 CARRYOVER PROJECTS AND OTHER 2005 PROJECTS APPROVED TO DATE - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DEBE NELSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2005 BUDGET FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUES COLLECTED IN 2004 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DEBE NELSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of this portion of the agenda. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea voles. Commissioner Farris not present for this portion of the meeting. SECOND READING - RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM CERTAIN AIRCRAFT OPERATING RESTRICTIONS AT THE ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JIM ELWOOD, AIRPORT DIRECTOR SECOND READING - ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING TITLE 10 - AIRPORT REGULATIONS OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JIM ELWOOD, AIRPORT DIRECTOR Commissioner Clapper moved approval of second reading of these two items. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Farris not present for this portion of the meeting. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: Commissioner Farris entered the meeting. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WATSON DIVIDE RANCH, INC., SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION TO EXCEED 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA WITH A TRANSFERABLE DEVELOMENT RIGHT - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS Applicant: Watson Divide Ranch, Inc. Applicant's Representative: Joe Wells Applicant's Request: Special Review approval and a GMQS Exemption in order to utilize a TDR to develop in excess of 15,000 square feet of floor area within the RS-30 PUD zone district. · 1,928 square feet: Existing crawlspace to be converted to subgrade space for additional living area · 51 square feet: internal courtyard garage entryway to be enclosed. · 406 square feet: External (south facing) trellis over an existing deck area. · 2,385 total square feet Joe Wells, representing the applicant, proceeded with a presentation as summarized in staff's memorandum contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Commissioner Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Larry, a resident of Shield 0 Mesa, expressed a concern with respect to the impact to the elk habitat. Additionally, he said he thinks the craters (ponds) are out of character for this pristine area. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 Mr. Wells explained that the ponds are to be utilized to store water to continue to irrigate the agricultural lands due to the fact that not all water rights were transferred. He explained that the ponds were developed to not impact wildlife and were excavated as per the wildlife expert's recommendations. Ms. Harris expressed a concern that the driveway is not in a safe place. Additionally, a concern that additional square footage would have the potential of requiring more people to service the home. After a discussion it was the consensus of commission members that the TDR would preserve land in the back country and that the additional square footage would not increase the bulk of the house, but rather, would be used for subgrade space only. Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Resolution as written. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BENNETT SPECIAL REVIEW - MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this matter as summarized in her memorandum to the board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment she closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the board. Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Resolution with the following amendments: Condition No. 5 A - delete the language referring to as-builts and add the most restrictive numbers and determine the existing floor area (5750 minus 359) (referencing how these numbers were arrived at). Add a recital No. 7 to read: The Board finds that if the applicant complies with the deed restriction condition in Paragraph 5 (a) below to convert 893 square feet of the existing floor area to agricultural uses, the applicant will have 359 square feet of floor area remaining under the maximum of 5750 square feet because there currently exists 6284 square feet of gross floor area. Condition No. 3 amended to add language, which states: All existing structures, with the exception of the barn, shall be included in the 5750 square feet. · A deed restriction, with an attached map, shall be recorded on the property showing the structure, which must be used for agricultural BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 purposes. Prior to issuance of a building permit staff will confirm the new use is in place as represented by the applicant. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment, she closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the board. Commissioner Farris moved approval of the resolution approving the Bennett application as amended. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION DENYING THE SMUGGLER RESULT 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A TDR RECEIVER SITE - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Dave Myler, Attorney for the parties interested in purchasing the subject property, explained to the board that they are still in the process of discussing options with the Aspen Open Space and Trails Board. He requested that the board consider continuing this matter to another meeting to allow him time to continue discussions on an alternative process. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment, she entertained a motion to continue the public hearing to September 13. Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue the application to September 13, 2005. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY CABIN LLC 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE - MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Applicant: Mountain Valley Cabin LLC Applicant's Representative: Sunny Vann Applicant's Request: approval of a building envelope within which to replace an existing cabin with a new cabin containing approximately 926 square feet in the same location as the existing cabin. Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this application as summarized in her memorandum to the Board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 Sonny Vann, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the application as summarized in his letter associated with this application contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. He said the conditions in the resolution are acceptable as drafted with two clarifications as follows: Condition No. 10 to state the size of the actual approval, which they are getting, which is 226 square feet. Additionally, to reserve the difference of the square footage (5750-926) for the use on the main residence providing it does not exceed 5750 square feet. It was agreed that this amendment would be acceptable. There being no further public comment, Chairperson Clapper closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the board. Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Resolution approving the Mountain Valley Cabin application as amended. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment she closed the public hearing and called the question. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING - ORDINANCE REZONING A PORTION OF THE ASPEN VALLEY RANCH FROM RS-20 TO RURAL/REMOTE - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON AUGUST 10, 2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN VALLEY RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND GMQS EXEMPTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO AUGUST 10, 2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Applicant: SGS Ranch LLC Applicant's Representatives: Glenn Horn and Dave Myler Applicant's Request: A proposal to develop eight new single family residences on parcels ranging from approximately 35 to 79 acres, to create a new 35+ acre parcel around the existing ranch house and a 35+ acre agricultural facilities parcel that encompasses the existing agricultural buildings and affordable housing units. A request for a total of 96,750 square feet of floor area for the development, with no more than three of the residences containing in excess of 10,750 and up to 13,250 square feet of floor area with the following approvals: · Rezoning of 245 acres of ranch to Rural/Remote; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 · 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish building envelopes; · GMQS Exemption and Special Review to establish the parcels as TDR receiver sites (for initial development rights and additional floor area); · Amendment to the H2J Riding Arena application to locate the approved riding arena within the agricultural facilities parcel. Dave Myler, representing the applicant, gave an overview of their application, which is included in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Glen Horn, consulting land use planner, representing the applicant, proceeded with a review of the site plans proposed with in their application. Commissioner Ireland asked the applicants to explain their proposal for the deed restriction on the employee housing units. Mr. Myler addressed this issue by explaining that the deed restriction that was recorded in 1992 was not your typical deed restriction primarily because the eight units that existed at the time, were not required to be restricted as mitigation, but were required to be restricted to avoid being torn down because they were being used for replacement credits. The current owner of the property, as well as Mary Jane Garth, as the previous owner, had the right to remove those buildings at any time without any other consequences. He said they have no intention of doing that and they are not planning to rip down their tenant's houses anytime soon, if at all. They do however, want to preserve the right of replacement, perhaps, and continue with the right to remove them if they see fit. With respect to the specific restrictions to the deed restriction that were proposed by Suzanne, Mr. Myler said they suggest that they use an RIO type concept but not have a maximum rent and instead have occupant qualifications that would apply to category housing, e.g. full time employment, and a Category 3 income limitation. With respect to the resale issue, he said he does not know that he wants to preserve the option of condominiumizing and selling the units because he thinks there might be more problems than it's worth. But if they were to sale, they were proposing an RIO restriction on the units. He said he thinks he wants to have the association maintain control of those units, rent them to, on a first priority basis, the people who are either working for the association or working for the owners of the homes in the development, and thereafter they would be available for rental to any qualified employee. With respect to occupancy limits, they would prefer not to have one person per bedroom. Otherwise, they are happy with a new deed restriction that tracks with the realities of this project and takes into account the history behind these particular units. Commissioner Ireland expressed a concern that one, he's not sure that the applicant can covenant against condominimizing and secondly, a concern about BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 not having a cap on the rent. He said he would like staff to work on language in the event that the units are condominimized regarding the category sale price. It was agreed that this issue will be brought back at second reading for further discussion. Mr. Myler said they can live with category units. With respect to the maintenance of the roads to two of the Aspen Valley Downs lots, Mr. Myler said he and Herb Klein, attorney for the Aspen Valley Downs Subdivision, will work out a formula for doing that. If there are damages to the road during construction they would commit to taking care of the costs associated with the damage. With respect to house size, Mr. Myler said they would like some flexibility to customize some of the lots for some of the buyers who are interested in moving out there. He said they would work with staff on the formula and commit to fix the size at the time of the initial sale. With respect to the house size on Lots 6 and 7, he said they will agree that these will not be the larger homes. With respect to the RFTA contribution, Mr. Myler said when they filed the original application it included subdivision approval, which triggered the RFTA contribution fee. Since that time, they have revised the application to eliminate the need for subdivision approval and it was their impression that the RFTA would not be applicable to them. However, they are agreeing to make a $10,000 donation to the improvement of the Rio Grande Trail. Commissioner Farris said because of the size of the development she would hope that the development would pay the required fee to RFTA. It was the consensus of other commission members that the applicants should come back at second reading with a better proposal for transit mitigation. With respect to the code amendment that would allow cash in lieu of TDR's he said they threw this on the table to see if there was any interest in pursuing it. He said this legislation would avoid the importation of TDR's, which is something that the caucus would prefer not to do, but it would allow them to pay into a fund that could be used to buy open space for TDR's in lieu of actually going out and buying a TDR and extinguishing it. He said if there is any interest in discussing this matter they will come back at the next meeting prepared to do so. If not, they will pull it off the table. It was the consensus of commission members, with the exception of Commissioner Hatfield, that they would like to discuss this matter at a future meeting. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 Mr. Myler continued with the subject of vested rights. He said they initially asked for 30 years, but the Planning Commission asked for 20 years and they could live with that with certain language in the development agreement about things that are critical to them that they are getting approval for, and that they would like to have preserved for the vesting period; beyond house size. It was agreed that this issue will be further discussed at the next meeting on the application. Suzanne Wolff clarified that eight employee units have been talked about on the ranch however, there are only seven existing units today. With respect to the RFTA fee, she wants to make it clear that there is no requirement for this fee. With respect to the covenants and the development agreement she said the county attorney has agreed to review these documents prior to the next meeting. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Herb Klein, representing the Aspen Valley Downs Homeowners Association, said he and members of the homeowners association has met with the applicants and are in agreement with respect to the road issue. Additionally, he asked that the board keep the building envelopes where they are shown on the proposal because those were the envelopes that were shown to the members of the association and some of their concerns of view plains and privacy issues were taken into account by the applicant in selection of those sites. Staff submitted a letter from Howard Vagneur with respect to his concerns with respect to the proposal. A copy of this letter is attached to the end of the BOCC packet for this meeting, under additional exhibits. Mr. Myler said they would take Mr. Vagneur's comments into consideration and respond to him with their response. Chairperson Clapper said she would entertain a motion for first reading on the ordinance and to continue the resolution to the next meeting. Commissioner Farris moved approval of first reading of the Ordinance on first reading and set for second reading and continued public hearing on August 10, 2005. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Farris moved to continue the Resolution on the Aspen Valley Ranch application to August 10, 2005. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE ACTIONS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 BAKER APPEAL OF 1041 DENIAL - MOTION TO FIND A TAKINGS - STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR- APPLICANT: Bill Baker APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond APPLICANT'S REQUEST: A takings determination, pursuant to Section 4-150 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, as a result of the Community Development Director's denial of the Baker 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission, which the applicant contends leaves the property without a reasonable economic use. Lance Clarke gave a presentation on this appeal as summarized in his memorandum contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Kim Raymond, representing the applicant, said they met with the Nancy MacKenzie, with the Environmental Health Department and from her standpoint, she said she prefers to have the septic system on the lower bench for health reasons and for the separation of the septic system from the well, which is 132 feet. So if they could put the septic system below then they have just enough space to get to the far end of the lot to put the well, which Mr. Baker agreed he would drill for his residence. She said the proposal is to work with an adjoining neighbor to hand dig the trench for both septic systems, which would result in a minimal disturbance to that steep slope. Additionally, she stated that no matter what the size of the house is proposed for the site, there is not room on the property for the well, the house and the septic system. After a discussion it was the consensus of staff and the majority of the board that there would be no where else on the property to place the septic system. Commissioner Farris moved that a takings has occurred with direction to staff to come back with a Resolution of remediation. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes with one nay vote by Commissioner Ireland with a comment that he believes there are other options. FIRST READING - ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3-310, ADDING SECTION 3- 310-070, VISUALLY CONSTRAINED SITE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON AUGUST 24, 2005 - STAFF PERSON: JOHN ELY, COUNTY ATTORNEY John Ely, County Attorney, gave a presentation on this proposed legislation. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of first reading of the Ordinance with an amendment that the sunlight clause be changed to read 120 days and set for second reading on August 24, 2005. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haffield moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005 ~/eanette Jones,' Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Patti Clapper, Board of County Commissioners g\bocc~rn inutes~2OO5~min, reg. 07272005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2005