Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitco.ost.min.reg.12182001 ~, . Minutes OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2001 Courthouse Conference Room Board Members Present: Tom Cardamone, John Starr, Hawk Greenway, Bill Fales Others Present: Dale Will, Barb Hogan, Hilary Smith, Ellen Sassano, John Ely Bill Fales called the meeting to order at approximately 10:15 a.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board voted unanimously to move into Executive Session at 10: 15 a.m., in accordance with CRS 24-6-402( 4)(a), for the purpose of discussing personnel. The Board went out of Executive Session at 10:30 a.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of December 6, 2001 Regular Session and Executive Session for the OSTB meeting and the OSTBIBOCC meeting were approved as amended. STAFF COMMENTS . Land Steward Job Description The Board discussed the draft job description for the Land Steward position. Bill expressed nervousness about empowering this position too much, noting that the description read as if the Land steward was in charge of "all facets" of public outreach and other functions. Bill wanted it clarified that this position was not in charge of such tasks, but is under supervision of the OST Director. The same concern was expressed for other aspects such as seeking outside funding. Tom suggested prefacing the "Sunnnary of Functions" with a statement such as "All functions are under the supervision of the Open Space Director". John noted that the percentages needed to be corrected and that the statement "must be able to lift 50 pounds regularly" could be considered as discriminatory. The Board postponed the rest of the conversation until after the rezoning discussion. Proposed Rezoning Ellen Sassano and John Ely were present to discuss the proposed restructuring with the OSTB. Ellen stated that the overarching intent of the proposed rezoning is to implement recommendations of several master plans. The most recent of these plans specifies urban growth boundaries (UGB) in which development should be concentrated and the desire to keep rural areas rural. Bill commented that the maps that were at the public meeting the other day included a portion of his property in the Carbondale UGB. Ellen replied that the maps were very rough and that they are still figuring out what makes sense for zone locations. Ellen said that the resources being conserved by the RC zone were wildlife habitat, agricultural lands, large tracts of open lands and rural character. John Ely added that the proposed zone will be a transition between Rural and Remote and residential lots, and that its location would be an . issue of neighborhood character. John Ely clarified that the issue was if the proposed zoning was a 1 . . . good idea. If so, then it can be determined where the zoning should go. John Starr felt that the issue should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Hawk asked about the effect that this will have on the OST program and if the program will be mandated to purchase easements. John Ely replied that acquisitions cannot be mandated. He said that the rezoning will effect property values. Ellen described the specifics of the rezoning, noting that things are changing as public input is being considered. Currently, the proposal contains incentives for large landowners (200 acres or more) to do a land plan that clusters development to 15% of the property and preserves 85% through a deed restriction or conservation easement. This option allows the landowner two residential developments of 5750 sq. ft., two TDRs for sale off site, and for agricultural operations 2500 sq. ft. of commercial space for use that augments the agricultural operation and one ranch manager's unit. Landowners that do not put to put their land in a conservation land plan are limited to 2000 sq. ft. per 35-acre tract which includes residential space and accessory buildings. Ellen said that the R-35 zone, which is residential subdivisions such as Sopris Mountain Ranch, would be permitted one 5750 sq. ft. resident per 35-acre tract, with the ability to increase up to 7500,10000, or 12500 sq. ft. with the purchase ofTDRs. John Ely clarified that for now, TDRs still increased square footage by increments of2500. Ellen said that staff was going to analyze the numbers ofTDRs and TDR receiving sites that this proposal will create. She added that, to date, there have been many more TDR receiver sites created through land use approvals that certification ofTDRs, and that the supply ofTDRs from Rural and Remote is dwindling. John Starr asked if conservation easements are mandated by this proposal and questioned if there would be any tax benefit for an easement on land that is restricted by zoning. Ellen responded that landowners could deed restrict the 85% of the property rather than place a conservation easement on their land. Ely noted that determining the value of a conservation easement was the dilemma. He said the option to place a conservation easement was included to "soften the blow", enabling landowners to convey an easement before submitting the land plan. The Board and Dale recommended consulting Steven Smalls and Bill Hutton to get a sense of how the IRS would react to easement values for RC- zoned properties. Dale added that conservation easements are not just added incentive for the landowner, but they also cement the conservation of the property in the event that zoning changes later on. Ellen emphasized that this proposal is still evolving as public input is received and noted that one point of criticism is in regard to properties of less that 200 acres. Currently, these properties are restricted to the 2000 sq. ft. per 35-acre tract. However, this may be one area that is reconsidered. Other aspects of the proposed rezoning were discussed. Ely responded to questions and noted that the prohibition against common interest communities was a restriction on time-share properties, and added that the County cannot restrict against various vehicles of ownership, such as communes, trusts, partnerships, land condominiums, etc. Ely emphasized that this proposal is all subject to change at this point and quoted Joe Krabacher (of Planning and Zoning) saying that this proposal is how the County is trying to deal with State law. 2 . . . Bill pointed out that developing a land plan is an expensive process and that meeting these requirements could force the need for additional development in order for a landowner to get his money back. Ellen said that this is the sort of feedback staff needs and requested that Bill come meet with staff. Hawk asked if Rural and Remote was getting modified by this proposal. Ely said not substantially. Hawk asked if the OSTB could get a look at the maps, and added that it would be a good exercise for the OSTB to look at these maps with magic markers in hand to see what properties the program should be pursuing. The other board members and staff agreed and Ellen said that she would get a copy of maps for the OSTB once they are cleaned up (the maps, not the OSTB). The Board discussed other strategies for conserving agricultural lands, including subsidies and leasing ag land. John Starr felt that these strategies could be a discussion for the next meeting's agenda. The OSTB asked John Ely for an opinion of if program funds could be used to protect land outside of Pitkin County. John said that he would look into the matter. The Board thanked John and Ellen as they departed. Land Steward Job Description Tom asked if this position would be enforcing Title IX regulations. The issue was discussed along with the role of the sheriffs office and the position of ranger/naturalist. Dale informed the Board that he is working on getting the form of a summons approved so that the sheriff s office can begin addressing the squatters on OST property. Board members were in agreement that the Ranger/Naturalist position should be revisited after the effectiveness of the sheriffs office is determined and after the Land Steward is hired. The Board agreed that it should be noted in the Land Steward job description that this position has enforcement capabilities. Hawk informed the Board that he will be applying for the job. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board voted unanimously to move into Executive Session at 12:15 p.m., in accordance with CRS 24-6-402( 4)(a), for the purpose of discussing acquisitions. The Board adjourned Executive Session at 1 :00 p.m. ADJOURN The OSTB meeting was adjourned at approximately 1 :05 p.m. Approved Attest 3