HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080109flyingdogMEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meetin~g~-,,January 9, 2008
THRU: Cindy Houb n~~;~"omm~ pity Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner*
RE: Flying Dog Ranch Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual
Submission and TDR Certification
REQUEST: The Applicant has submitted a "master plan" for his Woody Creek properties, which limits
development to the North Parcel (where existing residences are located) and the East Mesa Parcel
(currently undeveloped). The South and West Mesa Parcels will remain undeveloped, with the exception
of agricultural buildings. The Applicant initially submitted a land use application in July of 2003, and
has revised the application to address concerns raised in prior meetings (additional background provided
below).
The Applicant is currently requesting the following land use approvals:
• GMQS Exemption for pre-1978 parcels to establish one development right for the North Parcel and
one development right for the South Parcel.
• Special Review to transfer the development right from the South Parcel to the North Parcel to
legalize the straw bale house; to utilize one TDR for additional floor area on the North Parcel to
allow up to 15,000 square feet; and to utilize 3 TDRs for a new single family residence on the East
Mesa Parcel.
• 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a building envelope on the North
Parcel that encompasses all of the existing structures; to establish a building envelope on the East
Mesa Parcel for a new residence and agricultural buildings; to establish a building envelope on the
South Parcel that encompasses the existing agricultural buildings; and to establish a building
envelope on the West Mesa Parcel (Parcel 3) for agricultural buildings.
• GMQS Exemption for the historic Homestead Cabin on the North Parcel.
• 15 year vested rights.
As this application has been in process since 2003, it is being considered pursuant to the 1994 Land Use
Code, as amended.
The BOCC most recently considered the application on April 11, 2007, at which time the BOCC denied
development on the East Mesa Parcel, due to the encroachment of the driveway on slopes in excess of
30% (Resolution No. 035-2007). The BOCC then found that the denial constituted a taking and directed
staff to draft a takings remediation. The April 11, 2007 meeting minutes are attached for reference.
APPLICANT: George Stranahan
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis
LOCATION: 3069 Woody Creek Road
~y ~~y
ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned RS-20 and contains a total of 244 acres with 156 acres
north of Woody Creek Road and 88 acres south of Woody Creek Road
BACKGROUND: The Applicant submitted a land use application in 2003 that proposed to legalize
certain structures on the ranch and to preserve the majority of the ranch as part of his estate planning.
The Applicant proposed to designate an approximately 40 acre building envelope on the North Parcel
that encompasses the existing structures, and to preserve the balance of the ranch (204 acres) with
conservation easements. A maximum of 15,000 square feet of residential floor area was requested for the
four residential structures within the building envelope. This application also included a request to
certify TDRs from the Upper Lenado mining claims. Staff had denied the TDR request, since the parcels
were subject to a 1978 conservation easement, which staff determined had eliminated the development
rights on the parcels. The Applicant appealed the denial to the BOCC and asserted that the conservation
easement could be challenged, and, therefore, that the issuance of TDRs and deed restriction of the
parcels would solidify their non-developability. The BOCC tabled the appeal pending submission of a
land use application for the ranch.
The Applicant originally requested to rezone 204 acres of the ranch (South Parcel, East Mesa and West
Mesa) from RS-20 to "Transitional Rural/Remote" in order to preserve those acres and obtain TDRs.
However, the BOCC did not support the request, as "Transitional Rural/Remote" was not a zone district
in the Code. While the BOCC supported the Applicant's intent of preserving the agricultural lands, the
pl-OpoSGU rezorllllg WaS r1Vl l':o11J1UG1GU lV UG 1116 apps Vprla LG rlle V110.r11s111. 1 S11J legILGJL ll0.J Uv~.ll
withdrawn.
At the meeting on January 14, 2004, the BOCC expressed the concern that without the proposed rezoning
to conserve the majority of the ranch, the application would simply legalize the existing development on the
ranch, and would not provide any guarantees that the remainder of the ranch would remain undeveloped.
Therefore, the BOCC requested that staff and the Applicant work together to identify ways to preserve
the ranch. The best alternative was determined to be to create a separate development parcel on the East
Mesa, which could be sold to establish the Applicant's desired "ranch operating endowment" and would
then allow the Applicant to commit to preserve the remainder of the ranch, including the South Parcel.
The BOCC tabled the application on March 10, 2004 to allow the Applicant to amend the application to
include a request for development on the East Mesa, including an "internal transfer" of TDRs from the
Lenado Parcels to the East Mesa Parcel.
In addition,. the Applicant originally proposed a Code Amendment to transfer density between separate
parcels, subject to Special Review, in order to utilize the development right from the South Parcel to
legalize the Straw Bale house on the North Parcel. This code amendment was "picked up" by another
Applicant while this application was on hold, and was adopted by the BOCC pursuant to Ordinance No.
032-2005.
The BOCC approved a lot line adjustment between the Flying Dog Ranch and the Circle R Ranch,
pursuant to Resolution No. 038-2005, which cleaned up the lot line to coincide with Woody Creek Road.
The lot line adjustment plat was recorded in Plat Book 79 at Pages 71-74.
At the April 11, 2007 meeting, the BOCC continued to express concerns regarding the appropriateness of
issuing TDRs from the Lenado mining claims. Since then, the Applicant has been working with Open
Space and Trails and the Aspen Valley Land Trust and is no longer requesting certification of TDRs
from the Lenado parcels. The Applicant is proposing to enter into a contract with the County to obtain
two TDRs in exchange for the fee interest in the Lenado mining claims and a conservation easement on
the South Parcel (Parcel 4). This contract will be presented to the BOCC for approval on first reading on
January 9, 2008.
ISSUES:
East Mesa Parcel.• The BOCC agreed to cap the size of the residence to 10,750 square feet (refer to
condition #4). The BOCC approved "Driveway Alternative #2"; condition 6F suggests that the
Applicant provide a wildlife underpass on the East Mesa driveway to lessen impacts on wildlife
movement, if practicable.
Vested Rights: The Applicant is requesting a 15 year vested right, which is consistent with the vested
rights granted to the adjacent Craig Ranch. The BOCC has not previously discussed this request.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC continue the application to January 23, 2008,
for final adoption concurrent with approval of the contract related to the Lenado mining claims and the
conservation easement on the South Parcel (Parcel 4).
Attachments
A. 4/11/07 BOCC minutes
Ms. Wolff is a professional planner with a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University of Pennsylvania and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Ms. Wolff has
worked for the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department for 15'/z years, and as a Planner/Senior Planner within that department for 12 years. In her planning position, Ms. Wolff
has reviewed numerous land use applications pursuant to the Pi[kin Counry Land Use Code.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO GRANTING APPROVAL TO GEORGE STRANAHAN FOR THE FLYING DOG
RANCH 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND
GMQS EXEMPTION, DESIGNATING THE HISTORIC RESOURCES TO THE PITKIN
COUNTY HISTORIC INVENTORY, AND REMEDIATING THE TAKING FOR THE EAST
MESA PARCEL (PARCEL 2)
Resolution No. -2007
RECITALS
1) George Stranahan, hereafter "Applicant", has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado, hereafter "BOCC", to approve a plan to preserve a portion of the ranch and to
legalize certain structures on the ranch. The Applicant is requesting the following land use
approvals:
A) GMQS Exemption for pre-1978 parcels to establish one development right for the North Parcel
(Parcel 1) and one development right for the South Parcel (Parcel 4).
B) Special Review to transfer the development right from the South Parcel to the North Parcel to
legalize the straw bale house; to utilize one TDR for additional floor area on the North Parcel to
allow up to 15,000 square feet; and to utilize 3 TDRs for a new single family residence on the
East Mesa Parcel (Parcel 21.
C) 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a building envelope on the North
Parcel that encompasses all of the existing structures; to establish a building envelope on the East
Mesa Parcel for a new residence and agricultural buildings; to establish a building envelope on
the South Parcel that encompasses the existing agricultural buildings; and to establish a building
envelope on the West Mesa Parcel (Parcel 3) for agricultural buildings.
D) GMQS Exemption for the historic Homestead Cabin on the North Parcel.
E) 15 year vested rights.
2) The property is located at 3069 Woody Creek Road and is described as Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4, Flying
Dog Ranch Subdivision Exemption Plat, recorded in Plat Book 85 at pages 91-92.
3) The property is zoned RS-20/PUD and is comprised of two separate parcels that contain 244 acres:
156 acres north of Woody Creek Road and 88 acres south of Woody Creek Road. Parcel 3 is
encumbered by a conservation easement to the benefit of the Aspen Valley Land Trust, recorded as
Reception # 545022.
4) The Applicant submitted a complete application prior to July 6, 2006, therefore, the application is
being considered pursuant to the 1994 Land Use Code, as amended.
5) The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered portions of the proposed application
(not including the request for the East Mesa Parcel) at regularly scheduled meetings on September 9 and
October 14, 2003, and recommended approval by a vote of 3-0.
6) The BOCC considered portions of the proposed application at duly noticed public hearings on January
14 and March 10, 2004, at which times evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the
application. The BOCC considered the entire application, including the request for the East Mesa
Parcel at duly noticed public hearings on April 11, 2007 and January 9 and 23, 2008, at which times
evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the application.
Resolution No. _-2008
Page 2
7) The BOCC denied the East Mesa Parcel 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission, special review
and GMQS exemption at a duly noticed public hearing on April 11, 2007, pursuant to Resolution No.
035-2007. The BOCC found that that the driveway to the building envelope will encroach on slopes
in excess of 30%. Pursuant to sub-section 3-80-OSO.C.1.c.ii of the Land Use Code, development is
prohibited on slopes in excess of 30%. The proposed improvements do not comply with the
exemption to the 30% slope prohibition for existing roads and driveways (sub-section 3-80-
OSO.C.1.c.ii.d of the Code) because the existing roads do not serve existing residential uses.
8) The Applicant requested a takings determination pursuant to Sections 3-290, 4-150 and 5-220 of the
Land Use Code at the hearing on April 11, 2007 to determine whether the denial of the East Mesa
Parcel constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation.
9} The BOCC determined that a taking had occurred pursuant to Sections 3-290 and 4-150 of the Code,
based on the following findings:
A) None of the driveway alternatives can avoid slopes in excess of 30%;
B) The proposed building envelope is the best possible location on the property for development;
and
C) The denial constitutes a taking of all reasonable use and economic return from the subject
property.
10) The BOCC considered the remediation at regular meetings on January 9 and 23, 2008, at which time
the conditions of approval were accepted along with the conditions of approval for the other elements
of the application.
11) The BOCC finds that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code, as follows:
A} The transfer of the fathering parcel growth management development right from the South Parcel
to the North Parcel to legalize the straw bale house encourages clustering and preservation of
open space and agricultural lands by utilizing the development right in a previously developed
area;
B) The proposed building envelope on the North Parcel and the agricultural building envelopes on
the South Parcel and the West Mesa Parcel avoid 1041 hazard areas or are located such that
hazards can be mitigated; and
C) The historic resources are eligible for designation to the Pitkin County Historic Inventory.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that the denial of the East Mesa
Parcel 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review and GMQS Exemption constitutes
a taking pursuant to Sections 3-290 and 4-150 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the BOCC that it hereby designates the historic cabin on the
Flying Dog Ranch North Parcel to the Pitkin County Historic Inventory.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby remediate the taking for the
East Mesa Parcel and grant approval for the Flying Dog Ranch (including the East Mesa Parcel, North
Parcel, South Parcel and West Mesa Parcel) 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission, special review,
Resolution No. _-2008
Page 3
and GMQS exemption by granting approval, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the
land and be binding on all successors in interest:
1) The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings
or hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by
other conditions.
2) Within 120 days of the date of this approval and prior to submission of any building or other
development permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County
Attorney and Community Development a 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan(s) in accordance with Land
Use Code Section 5-70-040, which shall depict the building and development envelopes. The above
referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. The mylar copy of
the site plan must be signed by the owner prior to submittal for recording. The Applicant shall amend
the site plan as follows prior to recordation:
A) Designate two separate building envelopes on the North Parcel: one within approximately 150 feet
of Woody Creek Road that includes the historic cabin and ranch manager house and one that
contains the area beyond 150 feet that is shown within the proposed envelope. A note shall be
included on the site plan that specifies that new structures or expansion of existing structures within
the envelope closest to the road that are visible from Woody Creek Road shall be subject to scenic
review.
Rl Amenrj the Riiilr#ino Fnvalnrie nn the Nnrth PamPl to rnm lv with the rPrniirPr~ 7(1' cPthank frpm the
high water line of Collins Creek.
C) Amend the building envelope on the East Mesa Parcel to be 50' from the toe of the slope to the
east.
3) Concurrent with recordation of the 1041 site plan(s), the Applicant shall:
A) Record a deed restriction in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, which memorializes the
extinguishment of the fathering parcel development right on the South Parcel and the transfer of
the development right from the South Parcel to the North Parcel to legalize the straw bale house.
B) Record a covenant in a form acceptable to the County Attorney in which the Applicant agrees to
maintain, rehabilitate and/or expand the historic cabin in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
4) The North Parcel shall be limited to up to 3 residential structures, excluding the historic homestead
cabin, and up to a maximum of 15,000 square feet of floor area, of which 14,459 square feet are
existing and 541 square feet are available through use of one TDR. The Applicant may allocate the
15,000 square feet among the approved residential and accessory structures within the building
envelope, with no one structure to exceed 10,000 square feet of floor area. The Applicant may
reconstruct, expand or relocate the existing structures within the approved building envelope.
Agricultural buildings and the historic Homestead Cabin shall be excluded from the 15,000 square
foot maximum floor area. Floor area shall be calculated based on the definition in effect at the time
of building permit application. At building permit application for any additional floor area in excess
of 14,459 square feet, the Applicant shall surrender one TDR Certificate, in order to develop an
additional 541 square feet of floor area. The "leftover" floor area from the TDR shall be
extinguished.
5) The East Mesa Parcel shall be limited to a maximum of 10,750 square feet of floor area. At building
permit application for the new residence, the Applicant shall surrender three TDR Certificates and a
Resolution No, _-2008
Page 4
copy of the deed(s) evidencing the Applicant's acquisition of the Certificates, in order to develop
10,750 square feet of floor area.
6) Prior to issuance of any building permits for redevelopment on the North Parcel, the building site
shall be evaluated by a qualified professional engineer or geologist to determine if mitigation of the
debris flow hazard is necessary.
7) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the new residence on the East Mesa Parcel, the
Applicant shall:
A) Provide proof of an adequate water supply (in terms of quantity and availability) for domestic and
fire protection purposes, and for irrigation purposes, if applicable, to the Environmental Health and
Natural Resources Department.
B) Obtain an on-site wastewater disposal system permit from the Environmental Health and Natural
Resources Department. The system must be designed by a registered professional engineer.
C) Obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from the Community Development Department, if necessary.
D) Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer.
E) Pay the applicable road and housing impact fees.
F) Obtain adrvveway/access permit from the Planning Engineer to construct "Driveway Alternative
#2" to the residence as generally shown on Attachment C. If practicable, the Applicant shall
provide a wildlife underpass to lessen impacts on wildlife movement.
G) Submit a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. The
Plan shall address employee traffic and parking, construction vehicles, staging and deliveries.
H) Record an amended site plan that reduces the size of the building envelope to two acres, which
area shall encompass all of the disturbance associated with the construction of the residence. If
needed, the area removed from the building envelope may be designated a "development
envelope" for well and on-site wastewater disposal system purposes only.
8) Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the
comers of the building and/or development envelopes and install construction fencing around the
perimeter of the envelopes. The fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is
issued for the residence.
9) All lighting shall comply with applicable regulations in the Land Use Code.
10) The Applicant shall comply with the County's Weed Management Plan.
11) The development on the East Mesa Parcel shall comply with the codes and requirements of the Aspen
Fire Protection District, including but not limited to adequate area for turning around of fire equipment,
approved fire sprinkler systems and adequate water supply (minimum 20,000 gallons). Redevelopment
of the buildings on the North Parcel shall be subject to the County and/or Fire Department requirements
in place at that time.
12) No development, including grading, excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, vegetation
removal or disturbance, utility or driveway extension, wells and on-site wastewater disposal systems
shall occur outside of the approved building or development envelopes, except as associated with
continued agricultural or ranching uses or activities.
13) All areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated with native shrubs and grasses to limit water
consumption and additional runoff within one growing season of the project's completion.
Resolution No. _-2008
Page 5
14) The Applicant shall comply with the following wildfire mitigation standards:
A) New or replacement roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering or a Class A
assembly. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited. Roofs with less than a 3: 12 pitch
are not permitted unless they comply with the following:
i) All roof coverings shall be noncombustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly.
ii) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the
roof.
iii) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above
the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited.
iv) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum
slope of 1:48.
v) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the
Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application.
B) Vents shalt be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh '/4 inch maximum.
C) Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
D) Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris.
E) All flammable materials and frewood/wood piles shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum
of 15 feet away from any structure.
Fl Cwimmina nnnlc nr nnndc shall be a~.~.eccihle to I'71'P. T~enartmc nt vPhic'1P.c_
~ ..b t, ., ...., ... r,.. r
G) Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris.
H) Wood fences shall not connect to the structure.
n Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container,
J) Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the
structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above-ground tank. Any
wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire-
resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls.
K) Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound approved ABC fire extinguisher placed in a
visible and accessible location.
L) Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible and
installed on anon-combustible post.
M) New utility lines shall be placed underground within the driveway or approved envelopes.
15) The Applicant shall comply with the following to mitigate impacts on wildlife:
A) Dogs shall be kenneled. Construction workers shall be prohibited from bringing dogs on-site.
B) Silt fences shall be installed according to the County standard between any construction and any
body of permanent or ephemeral water body during all phases of construction (See Pitkin County
Asset Management Plan for silt fence standard).
C) Mesh fencing is prohibited. Wood fencing shall employ three rails or Less, be the round or split
rail type, shall not exceed 48 inches in height above ground level and 12 inches in width (top
view), and shall have at least 18 inches between two of the rails. Wire fencing shall consist of no
more than 3 strands of smooth wire and shall not exceed 42 inches in height. Existing fencing
shall be brought into compliance.
D) Native vegetation shall be maintained outside the development and building envelopes, except as
related to agricultural uses.
E} Install and use approved bear-proof trash containers as required by the County's Wildlife
Protection Ordinance.
Resolution No. _-2D08
Page 6
F) Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs should be avoided in any landscaping due to the high level of
black bear activity in this area.
G) Any areas disturbed outside the development and building envelopes for other than agricultural
uses shall be revegetated with native plants according to a revegetation plan submitted by the
applicant and approved by the County.
H) Hay shall be fenced with 8' mesh game proof fencing.
I) The Applicant shall plant a vegetative screen along the east side of the building envelope on the
East Mesa Parcel. The screen shall be comprised of trees of significant height (12' or greater) to
screen activity around the home from the hillside. The plan for the vegetative screen shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of a
building permit for the residence.
J} If a caretaker unit is approved in the future on the East Mesa Parcel, it shall be attached to the
main residence, above a detached garage, or located within the agricultural building envelope.
16) East Mesa Parcel Agricultural Property Tax Classification -Uses. The primary purpose of
ownership and use of the East Mesa Parcel is for residential purposes. All improvements and uses of
lands within the parcel are associated with residential use of the property. Any activities occurring
on the property, or uses of the property that would cause the property to be classified as agricultural
lands pursuant to Title 39, Colorado Revised Statutes, are prohibited as of the date of issuance of a
building permit for the residence on the East Mesa Parcel.
1 7) FailiirP to rnmt»,ly with Chace ~nn~litinng of arinrp~~al ghall reg,~;lt ~n re5'oCat:^r; of the anr~rOVa~S and
rr rra
permits for the Flying Dog Ranch.
18) Statutory vested rights for the approvals contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County
Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use
Code, § 4-140 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on
2010.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the
11 ~' day of February, 2007.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the day of , 2008.
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the
Aspen Times Weekly on the _ day of , 2008.
Resolution No. _-2008
Page 7
ATTEST:
Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houben ~
Community Development Director
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By
Jack Hatfield, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely
County Attorney
P071-03
PID #264323100001
Chairman Owsley called the question. Motion passed 5 to 0.
LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS:
SMUGGLER RESULT 1041 HAZARD REVIEW. CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION AND MODIFICATION OF
COUNTY ROAD MAINTENANCE CLASSIFICATION -MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 10. 2007
STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR PLANNER
Lance Clarke explained to the board the reason for the continuation. He said
that the applicant is going #o be selling these properties to the City of Aspen and
they are now under contract. Once it was determined that the applicant was not
going to go forward with the land use application and instead, sell the property, it
was to everyone's advantage that the land use application be kept alive until the
sale,
There was no public comment on this item.
Commissioner Richards moved to continue the Smuggler Result 1041
Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay Review, GMQS
Exemption and Modification of County Road Maintenance Classification to
October 10, 2007. Commissioner Kay-Clapper seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5 to 0.
STURZ EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS -WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
This item has been withdrawn by the applicant.
LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS:
RESOLUTION DENYING THE FLYING DOG RANCH EAST MESA PARCEL
HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION SPECIAL REVIEW AND
GMQS EXEMPTION (continued from March 14, 2007) -MOTION TO DENY
AND FIND A TAKING WITH A CONTINUATION DATE OF MAY 23 2007 FOR
THE REMEDIATION PLAN
STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF. SENIOR PLANNER
Applicant: George Stranahan
• Applicant's Representatives: Jim Cur#is
• Summary of Request: Applicant has submitted. a "master plan"
for his Woody Creek properties, which limits development to the North
Parcel (where existing residences are located) and the East Mesa Parcel
(currently undeveloped). The South and West Parcels will remain
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2007
undeveloped, with the exception of agricultural buildings. In addition, the
Upper Lenado Mining Claims would remain undeveloped with four TDR's
issued for use on the North and East Mesa Parcels, and two TDR's
extinguished. The applicant initially submitted a land use application in
July of 2003, and has revised the application to address concerns raised
in prior meetings {additional background provided in staffs memorandum).
The applicant is currently requesting the following land use approvals:
/ GMQS Exemption for pre-1978 parcels to establish one
development right for the North Parcel and one development right
for the South Parcel.
/ Special Review to transfer the development right from the South
Parcel to the North Parcel to legalize the straw bale house; to utilize
one TDR for additional floor area on the North Parcel to allow up to
15,000 square feet; and to utilize 3 TDRs for a new single family
residence up to 10,750 square feet on the East Mesa Parcel.
/ 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a
building envelope on the North Parcel that encompasses alE of the
existing structures; to establish building envelopes on the East
Mesa Parcel for a new residence and agricultural buildings; and to
establish a building envelope on the South Parce) that
encompasses the existing agricultural buildings.
/ GMQS Exemption for the historic Homestead Cabin on the North
Parcel.
/ Certification of 6 TDRs from the Upper Lenado Mining Claims in
order to obtain TDRs - 3 to be used on the East Mesa Parcel, one
to be used on the North Parcel and 2 to be extinguished.
/ 15 year vested rights
As this application has been in process since 2003, it is being considered
pursuant to the 1994 Land Use Code, as amended.
Ms. Wolff proceeded with her presentation as outlined in her staff memorandum,
including the extensive history of this area.
Staff recommends that the BOCC deny the 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual
Submission, GMQS Exemption and Special Review for the East Mesa Parcel, as
the Code prohibits development on slopes in excess of 30%.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2Q07
As the East Mesa Parce! is an integral part of the applicant's "Master Plan" far his
properties, staff recommends that the BOCC continue the appeal and the
remainder of the application and wait until a taking determination is made on the
East Mesa Parcel to take action. Staff has prepared an initial set of conditions
that can be found on page 9 of staffs memorandum to the board.
Questions from the board were answered to their satisfaction by Ms. Wolff.
Mr. Curtis announced that the board was moving along a lot faster than he had
anticipated and that he told Mr. Stranahan to arrive at 1 PM. He did agree,
however, to proceed with his presentation at this time.
Mr. Curtis addressed those items shown in the amended Master Plan and Land
Use Application on this item, dated November 14, 2006, that is attached to the
meeting packet material. This application amends the prior Flying Dog Ranch
Master Plan & Land Use Application submitted July 04, 2003. The amended
application incorporates the Board of County Commissioners' comments from
their public hearing held on January 14, and March 10 of 2004.
Mr. Curtis explained that Mr. Stranahan is putting a proposal to the board to
subdivide the eastern portion of this property to fund an endowment that would
maintain much of the ranch as open space and allow his family to remain on the
site.
Questions were asked of Mr. Curtis and Mr. Stranahan by the board and were
answered to the board's satisfaction.
Commissioner Kay-Clapper moved to enter Executive Session at 1:27 PM.
Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 to Q.
The board returned from Executive Session and reconvened the meeting at
1:48 PM.
Commissioner Kay-Clapper said that she thinks there are two big issues before
the board can move forward. One is taking TDRs off an already conserved
property and the other is the access to the new home-site. All three driveways
that were proposed by the applicant cross slopes in excess of 30 degrees,
violating the old Land Use Code under which the initial application was made.
Commissioner Kay-Clapper and Commissioner Farris both like Alternative #2
proposed road. The new road construction would be located in a "natural draw"
which would basically hide the road from view. The new construction would still
require significant road cuts, retaining walls and vegetation disturbance, but this
work would be hidden from public view.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS b REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2007
Commissioner Farris said that she thinks the proposed road Alternative #2
impacts the slopes much less than either Alternative 1 or 3, This would be her
preference. She said that it uses the beginning of the current farm access road
and goes up a little farther and uses more of the flat area and cuts through fewer
slopes.
Commissioner Kay-Clapper agrees with Commissioner Farris.
Chairman Owsley's concern with this Alternative #2 proposed road is the wildlife
impact.
Commissioner Kay-Clapper moved to deny the Flying Dog Ranch East
Mesa Parcel Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review, and
GMQS Exemption based upon the driveway access to the East Parcel and
its slope issues. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion.
Chairman Owsley opened the hearing to public comment. There-being
none, he closed the public hearing and called the motion to deny. Motion
to deny passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Hatfield voting nay.
Commissioner Farris then moved that the denial constitutes a taking of
property rights associated with the applicant. Commissioner Richards
seconded the motion. Motion to find a taking passed 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Hatfield voting nay.
The board now discussed the remediation of the taking by allowing
development under certain conditions -STAFF DIRECTION:
1 Look into possible ways #o mitigate the wildlife impacts of the
driveway, which would need massive retaining walls and pass through a
low area animals might use for cover.
2 Look into TDR use coming off of the Lenado mining claims and
whether or not the board finds it appropriate because of the existing
Conservation Easement and the nature of that easement. The board would
like to know how the South Parcel, which contains a riparian zone, is going
to be preserved and protected from agricultural uses. And, the quality of
the creek needs to be maintained.
3 The Commissioners agreed to cap the size of the new home at 10,750
square feet, but did not continue discussion on how to preserve 120-acres
of ranch property for continued agriculture or open space to accommodate
the applicant's request for more time to do his research. The applicant
wants to ensure that he can experiment with bio-fuel crops like sunflowers
or switch grass on some of the land. The decision on the limitation of the
cabin size was that it stay as-is.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 20U7
4 Chairman Owsley questioned the letter from Fire Marshal, Ed Van
Walraven regarding the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all
structures regardless of size. This requirement was made clear by the
board that it refers to the potential new residence on the East Mesa, but
exempts any agricultural buildings that would go there. And, if there is a
change to any of the structures within the North those will come under the
then current recommendations of the Fire Department.
5 The issue of historic irrigation water uses and ownership issues on
the South and West Parcels. The applicant will retain the historic uses of
the water for those two parcels and there will be a commitment that they
cannot be sold off the property.
7 The public trail access that had been discussed on this property will
not be pursued.
Commissioner Farris moved to continue until May 23, 2007 with the
remediation plan. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion
passed 5 to 0.
LAND USE ACTIONS:
STURZ MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (APPLICANT
REQUESTS TABLING FOR SIX (fi~MONTHS) -MOTION TO TABLE FOR S[X
~6) MONTHS
STAFF: MIKE KRAEMER. STAFF PLANNER
At the same time as the Sturz Extension of Vested Rights withdrawal,
Commissioner Kay-Clapper moved to also table the Sturz Minor
Amendment to a Development Permit for six (fi) months. Commissioner
Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 to 0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASHCROFT SKI
TOURING AREA AF-SKI-MASTER PLAN TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO
CONSTRUCT ON-SITE HOUSING UNITS AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT
WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISION OF OFF-SITE HOUSING -MOTION TO
EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO CONSTRUCT ON-SITE HOUSING UNITS TO
DECEMBER 31 AND TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION TO SIXTY DAYS ON
HOW TO REPLACE THE 1 9 FTEs (Decision made to separate these items
into two Resolutions)
STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR PLANNER
• Applicant: John Wilcox
Applicant's Representative: None
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2007