Monday, 19 October 2009 20:41
Board Members in Attendance: Michael Kinsley, Kathy DeWolfe, Jan Martin, Holly McLain,
John Clark, Steve Child, Ken Smith, Tim McFlynn, Barb Sullan, Kate McBride
On Phone: Emily Smith, Frieda Wallison
Guests: Pit Gills, Duncan McGreagor
The meeting was called to order by Tim at 7:10pm
I. Approval of Sept. 21 Meeting Minutes.
Motion: Michael moved to approve the minutes; John seconded. All approved.
II. Treasurer’s Report.
Postponed until the next meeting.
III. Fundraising Report.
Holly reported we raised $14,000 from the party at Danis’ home and have commitments to bring that total to $37,000. Chelsea Brundige did a great job presenting info on the efforts to protect Snowmass Creek, and is also putting a letter together for the website.
IV. Additional Agenda Items.
- Visual impacts of solar panels. Impacts of wind collection devices.
- Info on the Code provision prohibiting commercial agricultural use.
- Possible support of Wilderness Workshop’s Hidden Gems Campaign
V. Executive Session By-Law.
Frieda drafted new language for the By-Laws to enable the Caucus to meet in executive session. Tim asked the County Attorney for an opinion on whether Caucuses are subject to Open Meeting statutes. They are not. Given that information, the language in the By-Laws can be simplified. As Frieda was not present when this agenda item was brought up, we will discuss at the next meeting during her presence.
VI. Caucus Board of Directors.
Motion: Jan moved we seat the new directors in the meeting following the election; Holly seconded the motion. All approved. Tim would like to receive any nominations for officers or hear from those interested in running via e-mail before the Nov. meeting. Current officers will serve in their positions until their successors are appointed. We need a Treasurer as Amy has resigned.
VII. Land Use Applications. Steve.
Bradtke GMQS Competition and Activity Envelope
11.76 acres, unimproved, on Old Pond Way, Shield O Mesa
Comments due: Friday, November 6, 2009
The request is for approval for an Activity Envelope with designated allowable square footage to facilitate an easier sale of the property. The applicant would like approval for a 6,187 s.f. home (extra s.f. from GMQS competition) with 30% sub-grade. The height will be limited to 19.6 feet (28 feet is allowed). He will be giving some benefits in exchange for these development rights, such as: a turn-around area for emergency service vehicles off Old Pond Way; he will join the HOA prior to the issuance of a building permit; and will prepare a covenant to restrict open space areas on the parcel from development. The area is rated extreme to moderate fire hazard, there is a seasonal wetland/pond, and elk winter range.
Steve recommended approving the activity envelope, vested rights (3 years), and construction of a home of 5,750 s.f. The Caucus Master Plan “strongly supports the existing house size limitation of 5,750 s.f.”, unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. All of the 7 homes in the immediate vicinity of this parcel are below 5,750 s.f. The Shield O HOA had not reviewed the application as of our meeting.
The Caucus voted unanimously to accept Steve’s recommendation.
Stahl Activity Envelope, Site Plan Review and Scenic Review with Vested Rights
0151 Alexander Ave., Little Elk Creek
Comments due by Wednesday, November 18, 2009
This property is a tear-down which is being redeveloped. Habitat for Humanity has taken what they wanted and the contractor (Ken Smith) has tried to donate/recycle as much of the materials as possible. There will be a large geothermal bed and active and passive solar features. Their product selection is green. A booklet of the design of the home with site plans was circulated to the Board. The Little Elk Creek HOA has approved the application.
Steve felt they are doing everything right. It will be aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sustainable.
The Caucus voted unanimously to approve the application, with one abstention.
Gills Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review
8500 Snowmass Creek Road, 547 acres
Comments due by Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Mr. Gills purchased the property last year, hoping to raise cattle, and qualify the property for an agricultural (ag) tax exemption. In the process of replacing remnants of a barb wire fence with a DOW approved wooden fence, the ranch manager placed the fencing within the 100’ setback from Snowmass Creek, and removed vegetation. A Notice of Violation was issued in June requiring Mr. Gills to remedy the situation before any further development on the property. The applicant is applying for a revised 1041 Plat to memorialize the fencing as an allowed use on the property. There is also an existing covenant against commercial ag use on this property as it is classified as residential, that he would like removed.
Tim stated the Caucus function is to review land use applications, not to weigh in on violations/disputes in the Caucus area, which comprises 30,000 acres. The Board members unanimously agreed to remain silent on the fence violation issue.
Michael reviewed for the Caucus, the reasons behind ag tax exemptions. Ag operations are given exemptions because 1) the state wants to encourage ag operations, and, 2) ag operations across the board generate less tax expenses because, being in outlying areas, they typically don’t use as many public services.
Kathy mentioned since 2006, the County has tightened the criteria for qualifying as an ag operation, due to abuse by some landowners who were keeping a token few farm animals, and claiming the exemption, though they were not making a living off ranching or farming. There are tighter criteria the County now uses, such as prior historical use, and ratio of income earned through the ag operation, though in reading the Code, Kathy thought it was vague.
Motion: Holly moved that the Caucus support changing the status of the parcel from residential to ag, because in our Master Plan, we support ag operations. Barb seconded the motion, and all approved.
There will be no comment from the Caucus on the issue of whether Mr. Gills should receive an ag exemption for tax purposes.
Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit and Caretaker Unit
300 Shield O Road, unimproved lot
Comments due by Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The applicant would like to build a 3,000 s.f. house, detached garage and detached 575 s.f. caretaker dwelling unit (CDU). The building envelope would be amended and expanded to allow for this construction. The property is very steep, with the majority on slopes of over 30%.
Steve commented that there was no site plan included with the application. He would like to do a site visit with the planner to investigate the encroachment onto the +30% grade slopes, the proximity to the neighboring property, and to look at the possibility of putting three separate buildings on the constrained property. The Shield O HOA had not formally reviewed the application, but one of their officers had similar comments.
Motion: John moved to request a site plan and site visit from the land use planner. If we don’t receive this by the deadline, it should be extended. Kate seconded the motion. All approved.
VIII. Water Committee
The Water Committee unanimously approved a proposal for a Collaborative Water Resources Study and appointments will be made with principals at the Town of Snowmass Village, the Water District, and Aspen Skiing Company. Chelsea Brundige agreed to go to all three organizations to advocate support, and Michael, Tim and John will attend these meetings on behalf of the Board. After we get reactions to whether we have partners, we’ll get to the point of who should be hired to do the study, what it should cost, and then get the best bid.
IX. Code Provision Committee
Holly and Frieda went to the last meeting with the County, and the Committee has also requested a work session with the Commissioners. The County is trying to come up with a good barn definition. Jan is trying to get the Emma and Woody Creek Caucuses to join in with us on our recent recommendations for changing the Codes. Tim suggested Jan request a BOCC work session on ag code provisions and involve ranchers and larger landowners from around the County, including the Crystal and Frying Pan.
John Clark and others noted that the purpose or merit of the agricultural exemption are not at issue, since the County lacks the power to modify or abolish it. The two issues raised by the current version of the Land Use Code which should be addressed by the Caucus are: 1) Should the code contain a “Prohibition of Commercial Agricultural Activity,” and 2) Is it appropriate or lawful for the County Commissioners to refuse approval of a land use application to which an applicant is entitled unless the applicant furnishes a “covenant prohibiting commercial agricultural activity” when that covenant is not required by any law or regulation and is required only as a means of depriving the applicant of an agricultural exemption to which the applicant is entitled by law?
