Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.06192000 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2000 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING 51h Reading Growth Management Legislation in City Council Chambers ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED JULY 129 2000 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 199 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Shellie Roy Harper called the special meeting to order at 5:12 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Shellie Roy Harper, Mick Ireland, Leslie Lamont, Dorothea Farris and Patti Clapper COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: County Attorney John Ely, Assistant County Attorney Marcella Larsen Chilson, Director of Community Development Cindy Houben, Deputy Director of Community Development Lance Clarke and County Manager Suzanne Konchan FIFTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE (#23-2000) APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE ADOPTING A NEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION,ARTICLE IX, ADOPTING THE ASPEN AREA URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, ADOPTING/AMENDING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS IN SECTION 8-1,AND REPEALING FORMER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE NON-METRO RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM AND LIFTING THE TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM—MOTION TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED,AND SET CONFIRMATORY HEARING TO JULY 1292000 Cindy Houben explained what happened at last Tuesday's Planning and Zoning Commissioner meeting. The P&Z's recommendation stated that they were against adopting the Growth Management legislation and that they (the P&Z) continue to study to achieve the goal of growth management. There were several reasons for this recommendation. Some of them were: 1 change in the proposed way to measure floor area 2 concern regarding unit measurement being changed to square footage measurement in growth management BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 3 Transferable Development Rights (hereinafter referred to as TDRs)—not a wide enough market available and that there is an expressed need to increase that market with an agricultural overlay 4 concern that clustering had been taken out of the legislation 5 no multi year awards available 6 process seemed harder rather than more simple 7 a desire to continue to work on the legislation Ms. Chilson began going over the changes in the legislation, most of them clarifications. She would emphasize suggested changes for tonight while asking the Board if the changes already made is what they intended. During the discussion of these changes, various audience members asked specific questions regarding certain legislation. Unless those questions lead to motions by the Board for changes,they were all answered satisfactorily by staff. Section 9-100-020, Paragraph B.l.b., Vesting and Applicability Exemptions, Site Specific Development Plans Approved Prior to June 19,2000,within the statutory vesting period as set forth in Section 4-140—the Board had decided previously that they did not want these regulations to apply to site specific development plan approvals within their vesting period. The question about what that meant in terms of allowable square footage or floor area has been raised repeatedly. This inserted paragraph attempts to clarify that. It reads "if no floor area was specified in the development permit for the site specific development plan, the property may be developed with the uses/structures approved by the development permit up to the floor area permitted in the underlying zone district. Growth Management shall be applicable to any new structures which were not approved through the site specific development plan". This was the Board's intention. Section 9-110-041, Incentives For Deed Restricted Dwelling Units—One issue not contained in the current language is the possible exemption for public sector owned deed restricted rental units. After discussion it was decided to insert this item. Commissioner Ireland moved to allow public sector rental units to be exempt from the Growth Management Quota System. Commissioner Lamont seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. In this same Section, 9-110-041, Chairperson Harper said that originally the deed restricted category 1-4 would be deducted from the total number of allotments. She wanted to know if that was in the new language? Ms. Chilson said no, it has been deleted. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING NNE 19,2000 She would like to get to a point where on-site units could be a bonus as far as the square footage. Chairperson Harper said she would like the Board to later look at how the Town of Snowmass Village is exempting 2/3 of the square footage on CDUs. Commissioner Farris asked the Board members if there was any interest in increasing the size of a caretaker dwelling unit to 1000 square feet with special review? Saying yes, Chairperson Harper was the only one to respond to Commissioner Farris's question. This prompted Commissioner Ireland to give direction to staff to create this as part of an agricultural overlay. He thinks a larger CDU is appropriate where you have a situation where someone is going to be living on site, managing a ranch or a large property and may have a family. He doesn't think it's appropriate to create 1500 square footage everywhere. He's willing to look at that as part of the "ag" overlay. The Board agreed to the staff direction. Ms. Chilson said that the 3`d paragraph of this section entitled Two Accessory Dwelling Units has been stricken and will not be included. Section 9-110-043,Incentive for Preservation of Historic Structures, Paragraph G—Calculation of Floor Area - Ms. Chilson said it makes clear that the 5750 square footage exemption provided is measured INCLUDING all residential structures. And, when the parcel is LESS THAN twenty (20) acres in size, the agricultural buildings will be included. Section 9-110-043, Incentive for Preservation of Historic Structures, Paragraph H—Total Floor Area Reserved—if a property owner chose to develop BELOW 5750 square footage, they would be entitled to the full 5750 square footage at any point in time that they chose to exercise that right. Commissioner Lamont questioned Paragraph A of the same Section 9-110-043. By going back to June 12, 1978, she said, we may have historic structures on parcels that have since been reconfigured. It seems to her that this would be a discouragement to preserving that as far as structure. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Lamont's question. Commissioner Ireland said the Board should allow some flexibility and suggested that the section stay the same but that staff create a list of historic structures. And, if you're on that list your configuration doesn't matter. Ms. Chilson suggested the addition of a provision that she has used in other places, such as Section 9-110-052, Paragraph DA entitled Fathering Parcel Retains Exemption even if Reconfigured after June 12, 1978. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 She would like to insert that provision, as well, in Section 9-110-043. Commissioner Ireland agreed. He said this would insure that there is no less than one. There are circumstances where there may be more than one, but there's never less than one. Commissioner Ireland moved to modify the language in Section 9-110-043 to make it consistent with Paragraph D. 4 in Section 9-110-052. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lamont moved to insert the wording"one step special review to the BOCC" in Section 9-110-043, Paragraph D, Original Location of Historic Structure Required. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Chilson said the way she understands the conversation has gone is that you either have an historic structure on a parcel that was configured after 1978 that can be reconfigured and you don't lose the exemption, but you only have one OR if you have more than one historic structure, you have the possibility of having additional units if they are on the Pitkin County Inventory. Commissioner Ireland directed staff to create an historic inventory list and if you are on that list you may be eligible for more than one. There was Board consensus on this direction. Section 9-110-051, Exemption for One Large-Sized Single-Family Dwelling Unit for Board Approved Subdivisions and Pre-1978 Parcels, Paragraph A. 4 and 5 —These paragraphs are new and give more clarity. Section 9-110-052, Exemption for Residential Remodels, Smaller Additions and Replacement Units, Paragraph C, One Time Exemption for Smaller Additions — Paragraph C.6, Additions Available to Certain Non-Conforming Structures has an error in the strike out"and garages". It should read "the one-time exemption for smaller additions may be allowed to properties improved with sub-grade space AND/OR GARAGE which is made non-conforming by virtue of the floor area definition etc., etc." Commissioner Ireland moved to approve the insertion of"AND/OR GARAGE" AND get rid of the deletion "AND GARAGE" for Paragraph C. 6 of Section 9-110- 052. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. The Board directed staff to come back and prepare a code amendment regarding the Aspen Area Urban Growth Boundary Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in connection with the above paragraph C. 6 in Section 9-110-052. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 A discussion began based upon a question posed by Paul Taddune. He asked what the difference was between the Urban Growth Boundary and Starwood? Commissioner Clapper would like the Board to reconsider bringing back the 999 square footage exemption for sub-grade County-wide. Supposedly the 999 square footage requires less lighting, less heat, etc. per Ms. Houben. Ms. Chilson asked for a consensus of the Board on the County-wide 999 square footage exemption for sub-grade. Chairperson Harper wants to exempt garages, not basements. Commissioner Farris said when they came up with the 5750 there was a reason for that. She could be talked into it with a good argument, she supposed, but she's really not excited about it. A discussion among the Board ended with Commissioner Lamont saying she was not willing to re-open the 999 countywide. But she is realizing that there are several neighborhoods surrounding Aspen that have very specific floor areas and those floor areas are small by definition already. Ms. Chilson said it seems like the Board has several different options. You could have two different floor area definitions (not floor area ratio). One for rural area and one for the Urban Growth Boundary Commissioner Lamont moved that existing neighborhoods within the Urban Growth Boundary currently abiding by Floor Area Ratio definitions (for example Pitkin Green, Mountain Valley, Red Mountain)would now continue to use the same calculation to determine what their allowable Floor Area would be. But, basements and garages would continue to be exempt. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. NOTE: This is within the Urban Growth Boundary ONLY, not Metro area. Chairperson Harper called the question. The motion passed four to one with Commissioner Clapper voting nay as she had a concern for not allowing the 999 square footage for basements. Section 9-110-055, Exemption for Existing CDU or EDU Improvements—Ms. Chilson informed the Board that she added a provision in Paragraph C regarding the elimination of the EDU exemption based upon the Telluride case. It requires that the EDU deed restriction be in a form approved by the County Attorney and compliant with Section 38-12-301 of the Colorado Statutes. Another discussion began based upon a question from Paul Taddune regarding Transferable Development Rights, hereinafter referred to as TDRs. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 Ms. Chilson explained that there is an exemption up to 5750 and above 5750 up to 15,000 square feet you would move in 2500 square foot increments through the use of TDRs. At 15,000 square feet, you would use TDRs up to 20,000 square feet in 5000 square foot increments. This is how this is set up now. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 6:50 PM THE BOARD RECONVENED AT 7:16 PM. Section 9-120-031, General Standards and Criteria for Competition and Scoring—Cindy Houben explained this section to the Board and audience. It has already been incorporated into the legislation and will remain unless the Board objects. 1 It was recommended by staff that the overall score be lowered to 48, versus the 57, in order to meet threshold overall. There still remain individual threshold levels in each one of the scoring areas. Staff felt that 48 was fairer to have than 57 yet they still think one has to meet all the goals. 2 Staff also tried to combine some of the criteria into one category versus several. 3 Staff changed the multiplier in consistency with the Land Use goals. 4 Regarding Paragraph B, Method of Scoring, Ms. Houben clarified that there are two types of scoring systems. One is for new subdivisions and post 1978 35+acre parcels which will be scored once a year(scoring would be performed considering all structures) and the other is for additional FAR which will be scored twice a year(scoring would be performed considering the entire structure). Ms. Houben said she, Commissioner Lamont and Ms. Chilson spoke earlier about what Ms. Chilson thinks is not clear. A point that a lot of the private sector planners had is that if someone had already been approved in a Growth Management subdivision, that when they scored them for additional square footage that the entire subdivision would be considered in terms of what had been granted in that subdivision process. Ms. Chilson suggests that the Board may want to add that to Paragraph B, Method of Scoring in Section 9-120-031. Commissioner Lamont moved to add to Paragraph B, Section 9-120-031, Method of Scoring,the following provision. When scored for additional square footage, the entire subdivision shall be considered in terms of what has been contributed and what has been granted in that subdivision process. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Penny Carruth had a concern over this addition. She thought it unfair that the individual owner had no control if the subdivision they were in didn't score well originally. She BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING NNE 19,2000 cited the fact that Starwood owners would get better marks than the owner from Brush Creek. She doesn't think that burden should be carried by the individual homeowner. Commissioner Ireland said, "isn't that exactly what you want to do"? The point is you give the advantage to that subdivision or that unit that's going to put less stress on the public. Section 9-120-021, General Standards and Criteria for Allotment, Paragraph E,Annual Report Calculating Number of Allotments Available for Competition—It was suggested that the wording in the last sentence be grammatically corrected for more clarification. Commissioner Lamont moved to change the last sentence in paragraph E to read "The annual report shall include both a list of the incentives/exemptions and a list of allotments awarded through competition in the prior year". Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Section 9-120-022,Annual Residential Allotment Ceilings, Paragraph B, Additional Floor Area—Commissioner Clapper asked for clarification as to how the Frying Pan Valley and Crystal River Valley can compete at the same time in the rural area? A discussion ensued on Commissioner Clapper's request. Commissioner Farris moved to add the following wording to Section 9-120-022, Paragraph B. Those in the Crystal River and Frying Pan areas may compete in the rural area, if necessary, during the second round. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. An additional change for clarification was also discussed for Paragraph B in this same section. Commissioner Ireland moved to clarify Paragraph B by specifying "additional floor area for EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL" to the first sentence. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. Brooke Peterson said he wasn't sure if the words "existing development APPROVAL" encompasses everything that's an existing development. He suggested, instead, that the Board say for existing or approved development. Joe Wells said someone with expired statutory vested rights might be interpreted as not being in existing approval. Commissioner Ireland amended his motion and Chairperson Harper her second to change the wording on the above motion to read "additional floor area for BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL MEETING NNE 19,2000 EXISTING OR APPROVED DEVELOPMENT" to the first sentence of Paragraph B. Section 9-120-036,Bonus Points, Paragraph D.1 Conversion of Existing Free Market Housing—Brooke Peterson earlier pointed out to the Board that Paragraph D.1 had the same sentence written in twice - Ms. Chilson reminded the Board that at the May 25'h meeting, they voted to have a second sentence added to this that read"any applicant who commits to convert existing free market housing located within the RURAL AREA to deed restricted sale housing pursuant to Section 3-130-020 shall be awarded two (2)points. Commissioner Ireland moved to amend Section 9-120-036, Paragraph D. 1 by changing the wording in the second sentence of that paragraph to read "any applicant who commits to convert existing free market housing located within the RURAL AREA to deed restricted sale housing pursuant to Section 3-130-020 shall be awarded two (2) points. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. A discussion developed regarding Section 9-120-033, Effect on the Environment and Resource Conservation,Paragraph B,Water Resources— Chairperson Harper explained to the audience the addition of a number 3 in Paragraph B, Water Resources, that she would like to insert. She would like number 3 in that paragraph to read ""extent to which it improves the impacts". She added that there are many instances, particularly in "ag" lands but also in other properties, where a person might actually get two (2) points because they improved an existing situation rather than maintain it. Commissioner Ireland said he knows what Commissioner Harper is trying to get at. This began a discussion, however, with Ms. Chilson on the exact wording of the suggested motion. After the discussion was concluded, it was decided to change the definition of the scoring in this section for a Score of 1 and a Score of 2. Commissioner Ireland moved to amend Section 90-120-033, scoring a score of two (2) to incorporate the idea that it indicates an improved or enhanced environmental result OR, at the minimum, an applicant's complete mitigation of impacts. To get a two (2)you have to have an improved or enhanced environmental affect. A score of one (1)would basically be the sentence that now appears next to the score of two (2) and then what now appears next to the score of one (1)would be stricken. Chairperson Harper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Harper went on with another suggested change for Section 90-120-033, Paragraphs D and E. She spoke of number 5 in Paragraph D which reads "reuse of existing construction materials on-site". She thinks one of the most effective ways for BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 construction management is to eliminate a lot of truck traffic, by re-using materials on- site. After discussion, it was decided that this addition would be better as additional sentence number 4 under E in this section. Commissioner Clapper moved to add sentence 4 to Paragraph E of Section 90-120- 033 which would read "minimize construction and material waste (i.e. reduce, recycle and reuse). Chairperson Harper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Chilson asked for a definition of"material waste". Commissioner Ireland described material waste as materials left over as an end product that can't be used, are not recycled, and have to be disposed of. THIS ENDED THE CHANGES MADE TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION FOR TONIGHT. Chairperson Harper opened the hearing to public comment. John B. Wood and Paul Taddune, both speaking on behalf of the Starwood Homeowner's Association, brought up again for the Board the dilemma of Ellie Brickham. Her retirement is invested in a vacant lot in Starwood. The argument brought forward by both Mr. Wood and Mr. Taddune was that it would be hard for her to tell a prospective buyer if they could get approval for more than 5750 square feet depending upon availability of TDRs and allotments. Mr. Taddune said Ms. Brickham would be so down zoned that she will probably have to come up with $1,000,000.00 herself in order to sell her lot. Mr. Wood thinks there needs to be a better way for dealing with growth impacts. Mr. Taddune believes the TDR program needs to be re-evaluated. Owen Minney is a boat builder who lives in Emma. He disagrees with the designation of historic structures on his property. They may be old,he said, but not historic. He told the Board that neither the State nor National Historic Registry call the buildings on his property "historic". He wants to know what the legislation is going to do to his property and what he wants to do with his property? And, will he have his property rights or is the BOCC going to take them away from him? Mr. Minney added that he has been through the County process twice and has spent over $200,000.00. He said there were talks of historic overlays, but it never happened. Sunny Vann had concerns regarding the applicability date of growth management legislation in the Crystal River Valley and the Frying Pan Valley. He said the Board is now imposing house size limitations and growth management competition requirements BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 in the Crystal River Valley and the Frying Pan Valley. Without debating whether that is appropriate or not, the one thing that the Board has done, according to Mr. Vann, is to go back and say the effective date of those regulations will be 1978. Basically, he continued, the Board is telling those people that the Board made a mistake in 1978 by not including them but we're going to adopt this legislation today and back date to the date when the growth management was adopted in the Metro and Non-Metro areas. To go back now and say that any of those parcels, not just the people who abuse the process, but anyone who created a parcel after 1978, consistent with State statutes, no longer enjoys a development right. He believes it to be a punishment to everyone in those valleys. He would like the Board to reconsider the applicability date of the growth management legislation for the Crystal and Frying Pan areas. Robert Oxenberg said he and many others were furious in the beginning and then saw how well intentioned the Board was and how much work they put into this. Mr. Oxenberg stated that of the roughly 13,500 people in Pitkin County, 25% to 33% (depending on whether you go by two people per unit or 2.5 people per unit) have assisted housing. Therefore, he said, before the citizens are asked in the fall to vote for an affordable housing tax, what is it the County wants? Do they want 100% of who lives here to have affordable housing and those with 2"d homes to not have it? He thinks there needs to be more thinking put into this legislation. Local attorney, Leonard Oates, spoke on behalf of Carroll Drive Properties with regard to TDR allocations. He reminded the Board that when the TDR legislation was adopted in 1994, it was after the County imposed a cap of 15,000 square feet on the maximum building size you could have. He then recounted the various values of TDRs depending on how they were used. Mr. Oates feels the BOCC has now re-characterized and significantly diluted TDR use. On behalf of the Ulrich family, who own land in the Crystal River Valley, he agrees with Sunny Vann's comments. Mike Maple ask the Board to look at the tapes from the Given Institute meetings to see what the Board originally wanted to accomplish. What we have now, he said, is worlds apart. Is the result worth the price, he asked? He believes the Board is disincentivizing affordable housing. He is afraid this valley will end up like Vail with all the housing looking the same. Mr. Maple also is upset with the current inventory of TDRs as he believes they are quite limited and those that are available are very expensive. As Mr. Maple was speaking with some borrowed time from Penny Carruth, he submitted a letter to the Board, from her, revealing a certain scenario and asking the Board how it BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 SPECIAL MEETING NNE 19,2000 would be scored under the new Growth Management legislation. Said letter is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "A". Rocky Tschappert had additional comments related to Mr. Oates concerns over TDRs. He purchased a series of TDRs to protect his property. Not just to develop, but to protect it in case there would be development in the future and a down zoning would have taken place where the FAR was lowered. He questioned the latest information about the TDR values as he believed them to all be 5000 square feet. Sven Alstrom feels the Board's action is premature. He would like them to think this through a little longer as he believes it to be further constriction on typical land use control. He asked what constricting Starwood lots really does? Mr. Alstrom asked why the Board can't broaden this? A discussion began among the Board and staff regarding the questions raised about the applicability date for the Crystal River and Frying Pan areas. The question has been raised on whether it is fair or appropriate to apply these regulations to thirty-five (35) acre parcels created after 1978 and before the enactment of these regulations. Ms. Chilson suggested to the Board that if they wanted to consider changing the date which applies to these thirty-five (35) acre parcels in the Crystal and Frying Pan, they could consider the date of the Moratorium as the effective date, which is January 10, 2000. Commissioner Farris moved that throughout the document, the Crystal River and the Frying Pan date be amended to read "prior to January 10, 2000". Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Farris began another discussion among the Board based upon Mr. Tschappert's questions on the TDR program. Ms. Chilson said the point is that the Board is not changing any of the TDR provisions right now. Nothing the Board is doing today effects the TDR provisions. Commissioner Ireland went over all motions made and approved this evening. Afterward, the Board began to give their final comments. Chairperson Harper has been frustrated by the short time frame the Board has had to deal with this legislation. To create an incentive-based growth management program will take time, she believes. She thinks there is a lot of fear of not knowing what will be happening. She does not like the allotment section and feels she cannot support that section of the legislation. Commissioner Farris said the statistics are cloudy at best, but the Board is making an attempt to try something new. She admitted that this is a complicated process, but it has worked for twenty (20)years. We look better than Vail, she said. She believes the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 199 2000 scoring has incentives. She thinks the Board has addressed their goals and she will support this legislation. Commissioner Lamont thanked everyone who participated in this process She said this legislation is no longer about affordable housing. It is about eliminating exemptions from growth management. She thinks the work that was done regarding the Scoring under growth management is more reflective of their goals in the rural area of the County versus the Metro area of the County. She thinks the Board has accomplished a lot of what they started out with in January. She believes this gets us where we need to be today. Land use is an evolving science and you can never say you're done, she concluded. Regarding the questions raised on the TDR program, she believes the Board does need to look into the square footage for TDRs in the near future. She feels the historic inventory is completed but needs to be fine-tuned. She will support the package in total. Commissioner Clapper also thanked staff, P&Z and the public who have helped to answer many of her questions regarding this legislation. She believes the listening process from both the public and the Board was a very positive thing, in general, for this community. Commissioner Clapper had two primary concerns when this began. One was that the Board address all aspects of growth and the other was the issue of GMQS. She admits there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. She is hesitant to pass a piece of legislation that has, she feels, so many outstanding issues. Therefore, she is not comfortable in moving forward at this time. Commissioner Ireland reminded everyone of Bob Child's reference to the "7t" generation theme". Basically, it states that each generation should make their changes based, not only on themselves, but on the next seven(7) generations. His platform has always been to manage growth, create housing and protect the environment. The way he tests this legislation is whether or not, over the next seven(7) generations, or not it addresses those three criteria. Based upon information from the State of Colorado, Pitkin County, from 1993-1997, went from 2049 to 2727 jobs in construction that have been reported to the State of Colorado and the on the books (does not include jobs paid by cash). That represents a growth on an annual basis of a little more than 9% a year. This means, he continued, that the construction industry will double in eight(8) years. In that four-year period (1993- 1997) 28%, more than 1 in 4 of every job created, was a job in construction. The second homeowner rate in Summit County is 62% according to the Northwest Council of Governments. They don't have growth control, he stated. Grand County is 64% and Jackson County is 50%. Pitkin County, where there is growth control, is 40%. The next statistics Commissioner Ireland shared were on resort cities in Colorado and the percent increase in home market value from 1992 to 1998. Of the following cities of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 Winter Park, Crested Butte, Steamboat, Telluride, Silverthorn, Breckenridge and Aspen, Silverthorn had the highest and fastest increase in home values and Aspen had the least. Based upon the Department of Local Affairs, the estimated number of jobs in Pitkin County in the next twenty (20) years, he added, is expected to show an additional 12,000 jobs (on the books). Commuters will go from 9,000 to 16,900.00 according to the statistics. Commissioner Ireland stated that what the Board did years ago for rural and remote works. He said our valley is headed for an unprecedented boom in the second home industry. The time to act is now. Chairperson Harper wanted to vote on the legislation with certain sections taken out that she did not want to approve. Commissioner Ireland moved to adopt the Ordinance (#23-2000), as amended, pursuant to Title 30, Article 15, Section 405 of the Colorado Revised State statutes which allows for the immediate effect of this Ordinance by recognizing an immediate need for the preservation of public health and safety for this community and rescind the Moratorium and therefore the Board finds that the record has been more than ample to show the need for the original action taken by the Board on January 10,2000,which established the Moratorium. During the course of the discussion of that Moratorium and this legislation it has also been established the beneficial and also detrimental effects of that Moratorium. By taking an action to immediately effect this legislation, allowing the Board, therefore, to lift the Moratorium simultaneously, the Board is thereby serving the public and the community preserving public health and safety. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Commissioner Ireland and Commissioner Farris WITHDREW the motion and second above, respectively. Chairperson Harper moved to delete Section 9-120-010 through Section 9-120-023 from the growth management legislation. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion FAILED four to one. Chairperson Harper voted aye. Commissioners Ireland, Lamont, Clapper and Farris voted nay. Chairperson Harper then moved to adopt the legislation WITHOUT Sections 9-120- 022 through 9-120-023 AND TO APPROVE THIS WITH the square footage that the Town of Snowmass Village ultimately adopted which was 5,500 square feet livable and 600 square feet for garage pursuant to Title 30,Article 15, Section 405 of the Colorado Revised State statutes which allows for the immediate effect of this Ordinance by recognizing an immediate need for the preservation of public health and safety for this community and rescind the Moratorium and therefore the Board finds that the record has been more than ample to show the need for the original action taken by the Board on January 10,2000,which established the Moratorium.. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion FAILED three to two. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 Chairperson Harper and Commissioner Ireland voted aye. Commissioners Farris, Lamont and Clapper voted nay. Commissioner Lamont moved to adopt the Ordinance (#23-2000), as amended, pursuant to Title 30,Article 15, Section 405 of the Colorado Revised State statutes which allows for the immediate effect of this Ordinance by recognizing an immediate need for the preservation of public health and safety for this community and rescind the Moratorium and therefore the Board finds that the record has been more than ample to show the need for the original action taken by the Board on January 10,2000,which established the Moratorium and to set the confirmatory reading to July 12,2000. During the course of the discussion of that Moratorium and this legislation it has also been established the beneficial and also detrimental effects of that Moratorium. By taking an action to immediately effect this legislation, allowing the Board, therefore, to lift the Moratorium simultaneously, the Board is thereby serving the public and the community preserving public health and safety. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Chairperson Harper called the question. Motion passed three to two. Commissioners Ireland, Farris and Lamont voted aye. Commissioners Clapper and Harper voted nay. NOTE: Chairperson Harper and Commissioner Clapper although voting against the growth management legislation, are in support of the lifting of the Moratorium. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Clapper moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 PM. Commissioner Lamont seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 19,2000 Respectfully submitted, Ly Pee Dean Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Shellie Roy Harper Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners ww/g/minutes/2000/06 1 92 000 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15 SPECIAL MEETING DUNE 19,2000 I t Exhibit i June 8, 2000 To: BOCC P & Z Fellow members of Task Force From: Penney Evans Carruth RE: Scoring under new GM legislation As a citizen, I am trying to understand this scoring system so I can explain it to myself, much less to anyone else I know. So for fun ... and I do mean fun ... I am offering a scenario. Hopefully, you will smile along the way at my naivetd, and at the same time understand that I am really trying to be forthright. Here's the scenario: I own a home in Brush Creek. It has 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, a 500sf below grade apartment (which I rent for$500/mo.), and a two-car garage. Under the new measurements, it is 5,046sf. I want to add 2,500sf because my business is e.commerce oriented and I can work out of my home, my tenant is getting married and needs more storage, and we have one child and are expecting twins. I have read the new code, and decide to go through GM because TDR's are hard to get and really expensive because you have to bid for them. Latest quote is $I80.000- $200,000 (if you can find one). The challenge is for you to score this scenario based on the criteria as they are written in the code. So, see attached page 20 or Section 9-120-031 of the new code as my story is trying to follow that format. Public and Private Services: • Water Service: It is what it is ... a community system under review. • Sewer: I submit a plan to replace my existing septic system with a new one based on the latest green technology. • Storm drainage: My lot is on a hairpin turn so the storm drainage in past years has caused some erosion. But I want to win, so I submit a plan to redo the culvert at my expense. • Fire protection and road system: I have very little say in these two areas. 1 Effect on Environment and Conservation: • Air Pollution: I sign an affidavit that I drive an electric car, and that we have a carpool with all other Brush Creek Homeowners to take our kids to the school bus. • Water resources: I have a 500sf garden with greenhouse cover(feeding our family with food we grow ourselves is important to us). Thanks to my new septic system, I am using recycled water to irrigate. • Hazards/natural vegetation: I submit a gardening plan to show I plant only indigenous species to Brush Creek, and food to eat. • Energy/water: My addition has the most efficient fixtures and systems money can buy today. I cannot afford to retrofit my existing house. • Conservation through construction management: My plan is attached to my application, but my contractor tells me that the only way it would be more efficient and conservation oriented is if I did all the work myself and never left the premises. Wildlife Protection: • Avoidance: My plan shows a trash bin, which is bear proof and armed with a buzzer to scare approaching beasts. A human will have to disarm to take out the trash. • Canine: We are not happy about this, but I sign an affidavit that I will never, ever get another dog after this one dies. The dog is eight, and trained to an invisible fence. • Restoration of native habitat: I haven't destroyed any. • Reduction of human influence: Can't win on this one ... I am having twins. Consistency with Land Use Goals: • Open space: I am keeping the new addition within the existing footprint by adding over the garage, and by enclosing our deck ... so in what category do you I score ... is it open space? • Ag land preservation: Zero, nothing from me on that one. • Visual impacts: Although I lose my view, my plan is to plant three trees to screen view of my house for about 30 seconds from Highway 82 if someone happens to be looking my direction. • Density: I am trying to build what is allowed under these new regs. Any flexibility I had before is gone, because I have to compete. • Intensity: I have no idea what this means. • Clustering: Can't win on this one ... one house with a dwelling unit is one house with a dwelling unit. 2 Bonus points: • Land Preservation: See all the efforts described above. • Creative: Maybe '/z point ... ? (Smile here). • Mitigation of Employment generation: My wife/husband signs an affidavit to quite his/her job so we have no need for help at home. We will give up a career so that we don't employ daycare (even on a part-time basis) to meet this criteria. Multipliers: • Unfortunately, we have no idea how this works. We already have tremendous cost in figuring out the additional costs we have for implementing all this. For example, our septic system is only 5 years old; however, we understand we can add the recycling feature, but we have to pay for an entirely new system. Does that affect the multiplier? In speaking with these nice people, they tell me that the emotional and financial cost of going through this process is extreme. They have not hired a planner to help as they thought this is one cost they could avoid. However, had they hired someone, the additional cost is unknown at this time because none of the planners have had to do deal with the subjectivity implied in the system. A few days ago, I asked for a "Fact Sheet" about the scoring system. Although all the other"Fact Sheets" have left out many details, especially how the new legislation will impact the property owner, they have been helpful. I received an email, via Nan Sundeen, from Marcella Larsen, which said, "I don't believe scoring would make a good fact sheet. The legislation is self explanatory." If so, this is the best this property owner could make of it. In addition, this scenario raises many questions. • Chance of success: The homeowner is competing against an unknown enemy (perhaps a neighbor?). Even someone trying to beat the Lakers has better odds. • Relevancy: Are the criteria truly relevant to the single home/lot owner? Aren't the criteria imposing burdens on the individual, which are as great ... perhaps greater ... than those imposed on the developer for large projects? Don't they suggest huge compromises in lifestyle, which are not in the purview of any government, much less one in the United States? • Cost: In order to compete, the property owner will agree to inordinate expense in order to fulfill a dream (perhaps a private property right?) And, if he/she chooses, additional expense will be incurred through hiring a lawyer and a planner to see the plan through the process. • Time: To plan around a competition, which is scheduled on a bi-annual basis, is a true interference to the personal life of any individual. Is the sacrifice of the individual, for the goals of growth management as prescribed by this BOCC, really worth it? Can the community achieve these goals in a way that is less intrusive and expensive (in financial terms and in human terms)? • Bribery/barter: Even though bargaining may not be the intent, anyone going through growth management is going to ante up whatever *hey can to win. Thus, 3 one neighbor can afford to buy and deed restrict a free-market unit to get a bonus point, the other can only offer to quit a job. • Fairness: All of these criteria are applied throughout Pitkin County. And while, there are now three areas which are distinct and do not compete with each other, is the competition fair within each area? How can points for Ag Land Preservation work in Brush Creek or Starwood? How can paved roads get more points in rural neighbors where gravel roads are there by choice? • Do you know how many owners/properties will be "caught"by the new legislation? Is that number larger enough to warrant the procedures? • Category 1-4 housing now counts against the total square footage allotment. Correct? If so, what do you make of the plight of my Brush Creek applicant who doesn't win the competition because the County has built the lion's share of the allotted square footage? How can the Brush Creek applicant compete fairly against a County project? Here are some suggestions: • Revision of building codes. If you consider the above criteria, you will see that many of them are solved by more "green" and efficient building requirements. • Increase the exempt square footage of 5,750 sf for new construction and replacement, and increase the exempt square footage of 1,000 sf for remodels. Suggest: 7,000sf and 2500sf. if you use the all-inclusive method. • Reduce the down-zoning effect. It may prove costly to the County as a result of an exodus of the "middle class" who live here, an exodus of the second homeowner who are benefactors to the community, and litigation from people who believe their property rights have been denied. • TDR's: This plan needs lots of work. Holders of TDR's have disappeared altogether. If you owned one, under the current climate, would you sell? If they are worth something today, imagine what they will be worth tomorrow? Furthermore, many of the holders of TDR's committed to the program for reasons different from selling to someone who could add 5,000sf to a new or existing home. And finally, without affordable and available TDR's , the rest of the growth management sections are truly problematic for the individual, the community, and the government. • Postpone reason #1: Be sure you can implement this new legislation with fair criteria, TDR's, and the necessary staff who can work in a knowledgeable, efficient, and objective way. Since the GM criteria asks the individual to mitigate employee generation, it would be good to know if the County is accountable on this point. • Postpone reason#2: This is a very complicated piece of legislation, and it should be circulated to the professionals who will work it, and to the general public for several weeks. The rush to meet the July 10`h deadline is unfair to people who can't come to meetings scheduled at midday, and who don't have the background to analyze the impacts to them personally, as well as the impacts to their community. If you agree that this final draft is the way to go, let the public know through a public relations campaign. 4 p F Recognizing I am only one mind working on this now that we have the full document, I am sure many others have equally valid comments. Also recognizing that huge amounts of time have been spent at this (not only by elected and appointed officials and by staff, but also by citizens), we owe it to ourselves to take a deep breath and be sure that this is truly what we want ... what we want for today, and for the future of our community. Please send your scoring results to me via email or fax(925-7027). I will then tabulate the results, and send them back. Thanks for considering all this. Sincerely, 5