Monday, 15 March 2010 19:28

Board Members in Attendance:  Kathy DeWolfe, Frieda Wallison, John Clark, Ken Smith, Tim McFlynn, James Brundige, Brad Zanin, Patsy Batchelder, Steve Child, Michael Kinsley, Kate McBride, Rick Heede, Holly McLain

On Phone: Emily Smith (Jan Martin tried to call in)
Guests: Sue Helm, Chelsea Brundige, Sherri Spykerman, Janine Troutman

The meeting was called to order by Tim at 7:10pm

I.    Executive Session
Motion: John moved to go into Executive Session to discuss Snowmass Creek water issues.
Kate seconded the motion; all approved.

II.    Approval of Meeting Minutes
Motion: Ken moved to approve the minutes from February. Patsy seconded. All approved.

III.    Treasurer’s Report
Brad reported the Caucus collected $2,200 for Mike Sanchez. We have a balance of $110,477.

IV.    Land Use – Steve
Jacobson, Lot 5, Lazy O. Site Plan Review and CDU
Steve reported that according to Alan Richman, their architect is working on getting drawings to us.
They received 2,500 extra sq. ft. during their GMQS, which gives them permission to build to 8,250.
A minimum of 500 square ft. was to be below grade. The home will be built of natural materials.
They will plant native plants sensitive to the area. Since the Caucus recommendation is not due until April 21, Steve recommended we wait until the April Caucus meeting before sending a letter, since we should be able to look at some plans by then.

Troutman Activity Envelope Review, Chateau Way, Shield O Mesa
Mike Kraemer sent Steve an e-mail stating the applicant had resolved the issues of concern expressed
in the Caucus letter regarding this application. The County was having a second meeting on the application, which was being deferred by Jim True until they received our new comments.
The Troutmans also came to the Caucus meeting to plead their case and spoke to Steve before the executive session began, but could not stay to speak with the entire group.
Janine told Steve she had granted the easement through her property, and that the property line dispute is between her land and the Hale property.
Motion: Steve moved we approve the activity envelope, since the issues of concern had been resolved. James seconded the motion, and all approved.
Kathy will send an e-mail to Mike Kramer informing him of our decision.

Hydroelectric Project
Steve reported that Capitol Creek residents received grant money to do a feasibility study for a hydroelectric project. At a neighborhood meeting, every ditch on Capitol Creek was represented, except Lazy O. But Steve was in touch with them on the issue. Flux Farm in Carbondale gave the money. Pitco will allow up to 500 kilowatts to be generated. There are lots of steps to go through this process, involving the DOW, Water Court, Pitco. They want to produce enough electricity for 190 homes. They will need a 369’ fall on the preferred alternative. Timeframe to begin in best case scenario is summer of 2011.

V.    Complaints
Several residents have asked about procedures for addressing issues of importance to them with the County, such as how to process complaints and/or code enforcement. The following were responses to these questions from Lance Clarke, Asst. Director of Community Development, Pitkin County (920-5452 / This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ):

1) Enforcement Issues.
All code enforcement issues/inquiries/complaints should be directed to the County Code Enforcement Officer, Carrington Brown. 429-2814. He will consult with Community Development or other depts. as necessary in his investigation/enforcement. 

2) Story Pole Requirement for Land Use Applications.
Community Development requires story poles for “ridgeline” properties if we feel there is a chance the ridgeline may be broken by proposed development. We do not require story poles as a matter of course for any other purpose. For non–ridgeline development in an approved envelope that intends to meet height limits we will not generally require story poles. If the caucus wishes an applicant to put up story poles in order to gauge impact of a proposal on adjoining private properties or something, perhaps the caucus could make that a requirement of its own review of applications.

3) Blinding Glare from Fixed Solar Panels.
Comm. Dev. is now embarking on a comprehensive “solar” code amendment, and has met with Caucus representatives to receive their input.

4) Procedure, timeline and requirements for amending our Master Plan, if that becomes advisable with regard to solar and other issues.
Caucus Master Plans can be amended with approval at a public hearing before the P&Z.  The Caucus needs to follow its own bylaws with regard to plan amendments and then submit any proposed amendment in writing to Ellen and we will schedule it before the P&Z.

VI.    Renewable Energy
The Renewable Energy committee gave its input at meeting on March 3rd between the County and the other Caucuses. The County was just asking for information and wanted community feedback.


The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.