HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/09/16 PUBLIC HEARING
August 9, 2016
Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman
Jillian Ryan Commissioner
Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner
Brent McFall County Manager
Beth Ayres-Oliver Assistant County Attorney
Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board
Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Commissioner Updates
Commissioner Chandler-Henry shared her experience with EcoFlight over the wilderness proposal area that
Senator Bennet and Representative Polis were carrying through congress. It was a great opportunity to see the
connection of wilderness in the area and the disturbance that various developments had made throughout the
county.
Chairman McQueeney spoke about a recent luncheon with the Women's Foundation. She thanked the staff
that took the time to join and the Women's Foundation for their efforts around girls and women in the valley.
Consent Agenda
1. First Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and CEC Solar#1113, LLC for Solar Interest
Purchase
John Gitchell, Environmental Health
2. Agreement between Eagle County and Inteconnect Inc.,DBA Inteconnex, for Software License,
Procurement, Installation and Maintenance of Matrix Security Services
Ron Siebert,Facilities
3. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and the State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Public Safety,
Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for Reimbursement of Emergency
Management Program Expense Funds
Barry Smith, Emergency Management
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for August 9, 2016, as presented.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Citizen Input
Chairman Jeanne McQueeney opened citizen input.
1
08/09/2016
Johanne Rock, Eagle resident spoke. She'd been following some of the issues and asked about the
proposals regarding sales tax increases. She supported the direction the commissioners were taking and thought it
was better to raise sales tax rather than property taxes. With regards to the housing issue, she thought the private
sector should take it on. A contribution by government was an appropriate avenue. As for the early childhood
issues, she thought it was important for the schools to participate in the solution. The sales tax proposal could
provide funding for staffing and daycare. She would be attending a school board meeting tomorrow and would be
asking them to use any reserves to solve the existing crisis,to keep asking the taxpayers to deal with all the issues
was inappropriate. She believed there were ways to solve the problems without spending more money on studies
and discussion.
Chairman McQueeney closed citizen input.
Work Session(s)
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Updates
Perry Will,Craig Wescoatt and Bill Andree,Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Operational Update—State Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline
Jone Bosworth,Human Services
Commissioner Updates
Health Care
Potential Ballot Issues Discussion
Dampier-Craver ADU Site Visit
861 Green Mountain Drive Scot Hunn,Planning
Missouri Heights
Above El Jebel, Colorado
Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission Interviews
El Jebel Community Center Scot Hunn,Planning
20 Eagle County Drive
El Jebel, Colorado
Planning Files
El Jebel Community Center
20 Eagle County Drive
El Jebel, Colorado
4. ZS-6195 Dampier-Craver Accessory Dwelling Unit Special Use Permit
Scot Hunn,Planning
Richard Davies,Engineering
Leroy and Susan Dampier, Sue Craver,Applicants
Angela Loughry, Confluence Architecture, Representative
2
08/09/2016
Note: Tabled from July 26,2016
Action:Review of a Special Use Permit to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU)
within an existing residential structure located in the Sopris Mesa Subdivision
Location: Sopris Mesa Subdivision, El Jebel area
File Number: ZS-6195 /Special Use Permit
Project Name: Dampier-Craver Accessory Dwelling Unit Special Use Permit
Location: 861 Green Mountain Drive; Lot 4 Sopris Mesa Subdivision
Owner: LeRoy and Susan Dampier; Sue Craver
Applicant: Same
Representative: Angela Loughry, Confluence Architecture
Staff Planner: Scot Hunn,AICP
Staff Engineer: Richard Davies,P.E.
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Request
The Applicant requests review of a Special Use Permit to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) within an
existing residential structure located in the Sopris Mesa Subdivision.
Lot 4 is a 2.5 acre parcel located the Agricultural Limited(AL)Zone District. The AL Zone District permits ADUs
via the Limited Review process on lots of 5 acres or greater. Limited reviews are processed administratively
(internally, with no public hearing). However, Lot 4 was approved and platted as part of a cluster subdivision; lots
within the subdivision contain less than five acres. For this reason, the proposed ADU requires a Special Use
Permit review rather than the more streamlined Limited Review process.
The Applicant proposes a minor addition to an existing residential structure that was originally constructed in 2001
to create a `mother-in-law' suite.
This addition also necessitates an Amended Final Plat application to amend the platted building envelope for Lot 4;
an Amended Final Plat application is being reviewed concurrent with this special use request. Amended Final Plats
are reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.Per the application,
"The proposed design transforms a current studio/work room at the far east end of the home into
an added garage bay and stretches the ADU addition to the east. The ADU is a single-story on the
ground level which allows for easy access and minimizes the height and volume of the addition.
The easternmost side is nestled into an existing berm minimizing impact on neighboring properties
and views. Parking is provided in front of the ADU on an existing gravel parking area."
The Applicant has provided site plans for the proposed addition showing(attached). The plans have been reviewed
and finally approved by the Aspen Mountain View Board of Directors and Design Review Board, and proper notice
has been provided via publication in a local newspaper, posting of the file information on the property, and the
provision of written notice to individual adjacent property owners.
Process Overview
The purpose of a Special Use Review is as follows:
3
08/09/2016
"Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses `After receipt
of the Staff Report, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for
a Special Use Permit. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the
application, the relevant support materials, the Staff Report, and the public testimony given at the
public hearing. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, by a majority
vote of the quorum present, shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners either to
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for a Special Use Permit based
on the standards in Section 5-250.B,Standards."
Standards associated with ADUs in the Agricultural Limited Zone District dictate:
• That ADUs are limited to one(1)per parcel and are capped at 850 square feet of habitable area.
• ADUs may be attached to the primary residential structure, or may be detached(located within or over
a detached garage or barn, for example).
• Parking must be provided on-site according to the number of bedrooms (1 bedroom or studios require
one space; two-bedroom units require two spaces).
• ADUs may not be sold or owned separately.
• ADUs must be designed to conform to dimensional limitations such as setbacks,height restrictions, and
lot coverage and floor area limitations.
Conformance to Special Use Permit Standards
Staff believes the proposal meets, or can meet as conditioned, all applicable standards for a Consolidated Special
Use Permit. Therefore, staff is recommending approval,with conditions.
The following matrix summarizes staff's suggested findings. A more detailed discussion regarding standards and
suggested conditions of approval follow in Section III - Staff Findings and Recommendation starting on page 4 of
this report.
Standard Conformance Discussion
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan: Yes The proposal was reviewed in context to the
The proposed Special Use shall be in Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Mid-
substantial conformance with the Eagle County Valley Area Community Plan and found to be in
Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans substantial compliance with a preponderance of
and any applicable ancillary County adopted applicable policies and goals. (See further
documents pertaining to natural resource discussion within Section III - Staff Findings
protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure and Recommendations starting on page 4).
management.
Compatibility: The Special Use is generally Yes Staff believes the proposal will be compatible
compatible with the existing and currently with surrounding uses as conditioned. (See
permissible future uses of adjacent land and further discussion within Section III - Staff
other substantially impacted lands, services, or Findings and Recommendations starting on page
infrastructure improvements. 4).
Zone District Standards: The proposed Yes The proposed uses have been planned to be
Special Use shall comply with the standards of compliant with zone district standards for
the zone district in which it is located and any residential, uses. (See further discussion within
standards applicable to the particular use, as Section III - Staff Findings and
identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Recommendations starting on page 4).
Applicable to Particular Residential,
Agricultural and Resource Uses; and Section 3-
330,Review Standards Applicable to Particular
Commercial and Industrial Uses.
4
08/09/2016
Design Minimizes Adverse Impact: The Yes The project has generally been designed to
design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts on adjacent lands and
reasonably avoid adverse impacts, staff believes the proposal, if properly
including visual impacts of the proposed use conditioned, meets or can meet this standard.
on adjacent lands including trash, traffic, (See further discussion within Section III - Staff
service delivery, parking and loading, odors, Findings and Recommendations starting on page
noise, glare, and vibration, or otherwise create 4).
a nuisance.
Design Minimizes Environmental Impact: Yes The application demonstrates that the proposed
The proposed Special Use shall minimize use will minimize potential environmental
environmental impacts and shall not cause impacts as conditioned and based on: 1) the
significant deterioration of water and air overall design of the project; 2)the scale; and 3)
resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, the location of the project relative to
and other natural resources. surrounding existing and future uses. (See
further discussion within Section III: - Staff
Findings and Recommendations starting on page
4).
Impact on Public Facilities: The proposed Yes Staff believes the site is or can be adequately
Special Use shall be adequately served by served by public facilities such as roads, police
public facilities and services, including roads, and fire protection, and emergency medical
pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater services.
facilities, parks, schools, police and fire
protection,and emergency medical services.
Site Development Standards: The proposed Yes The project is designed to adhere to appropriate
Special Use shall comply with the appropriate (applicable) standards from Article 4. (See
standards in Article 4, Site Development further discussion within Section III - Staff
Standards. Findings and Recommendations starting on page
4).
Other Provisions: The proposed Special Use Not No "other" provisions were deemed applicable
shall comply with all standards imposed on it Applicable for this particular special use request.
by all other applicable provisions of these Land
Use Regulations for use, layout, and general
development characteristics.
II. BACKGROUND:
Proposal Overview
The residence on Lot 4 was originally constructed in 2001. Current habitable space of the residence is
approximately 2,550 square feet. The proposed ADU would add 845 square feet of habitable space. There is no
limit on habitable square footage (floor area ratio) for primary residences within the Agricultural Limited (AL)
Zone District, however,ADUs within the AL Zone District are limited to 850 square feet.
Lot 4 was platted in 1998 as part of the Sopris Mesa Subdivision. Sopris Mesa Subdivision was created and
approved as a cluster subdivision within the AL Zone District, therefore several of the lots within the subdivision
were approved to be less than the normal five (5) acre minimum lot size (Lot 4 is 2.5 acres, for example). This
allowed for the creation or dedication of open space and the protection of valued agricultural lands generally in the
central portion of the subdivision.
The Eagle County Land Use Regulations allow for Accessory Dwelling Units via the Limited Review process (a
largely administrative review) in most residential zone districts in situations where parcels contain the minimum
5
08/09/2016
acreage required by the zone district. In this case, as described above, Lot 4 does not contain the minimum required
acreage within the AL Zone District. More specifically, because Lot 4 is part of a cluster subdivision, a special use
permit review is required for this proposal rather than a Limited Review.
III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION:
At their regular meeting of July 7, 2016, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission reviewed the
proposal and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions (with Kula, Gawrys, Markel, Ransford, and
Spickert voting in favor).
At issue for the Planning Commission were the following topics:
• One Commissioner (Ransford) inquired about the total number of ADUs in Missouri Heights and also
within all of Eagle County; staff indicated that the County does not have such data at this time.
• The same commissioner(Ransford) suggested that while he was in favor of the proposal, water usage is at
issue with ADUs, particularly with regard to the subject property and subdivision which shared water
rights.
o The Applicant clarified that their share equates to 66,000 gal. per six months; that their current
usage is approximately%2 of that allotment at 35,000 gallons for the past six-month period.
• Commissioners Kula and Spickert were in favor of the proposal but did suggest that final HOA (design
review committee) approval should be in place prior to the same proposal being considered by the Board of
County Commissioners, and that additional landscaping around the addition may alleviate any neighbor
concerns.
• Commissioner Markel stated support for the proposal because it provides housing but did encourage the
Applicant to seek alternative designs that lessen the overall impact to the site.
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of this application,with conditions.
Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned meets or exceeds all applicable standards for a Special Use Permit, as
well as those standards specific to Accessory Dwelling Units.
Special Use Standards
Specifically, the following excerpts from Section 5-250 B — Standards, ECLURs provide direction regarding the
intent and necessary findings for the approval of any Special Use Review, as well as the specific standards for
Accessory Dwelling Units:
1. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be in substantial
conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans and any
applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection,
affordable housing, or infrastructure management.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal is in substantial conformance with all applicable plans and adopted
policy documents. Specifically, the proposal was reviewed against relevant guiding policies, goals,
and recommended implementation strategies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the
Mid-Valley Area Community Plan related to general development, maintaining rural, residential
character and uses in the Missouri Heights Character Area, and the provision of local housing
options.
6
08/09/2016
2. Compatibility. The Special Use is generally compatible with the existing and currently
permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or
infrastructure improvements.
Staff Response:
The site is surrounded by similarly situated single-family structures and/or vacant lots. Importantly,
surrounding lot owners within the Sopris Mesa Subdivision enjoy similar uses `by right', as well as
the ability to apply for an Accessory Dwelling unit. Staff believes the proposed ADU will be
constructed in a manner consistent with scale and character of the existing residence on Lot 4, as
well as the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff suggests one
condition that requires the Applicant to work with the Aspen Mountain View Design Review
Committee to address any outstanding issues regarding design of the project or the building
envelope amendment.
3. Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the
zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as
identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural
and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and
Industrial Uses.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal is in substantial conformance with the standards outlined in Sections 3-
310 and 3-330. Specifically, the proposal has been found to be in compliance with the specific
standards for Accessory Dwelling Units in the Agricultural Limited Zone District, as follows:
A. Applicability: Lot 4 is permitted an ADU via the Special Use Permit process because the
parcel is non-conforming in size.
B. Number: The applicant proposes one ADU in addition to the primary residential uses; this
complies with the standard.
C. Size and Use: The AL Zone District allows for AD Us of up to 850 square feet; the proposed
unit will be 845 square feet and is intended to be subordinate to the primary residential use on
Lot 4.
D. Floor Area Calculation: The proposed unit complies with the limitations on square footage,
and floor area calculations have been reviewed to be in compliance with County methods for
calculation.
E. Location: The proposed ADU is located within (attached to) the existing primary residential
structure.
F. Parking: The proposed ADU includes one bedroom; one parking space has been provided on-
site.
G. Ownership: The property is under common ownership and the proposed ADU is not proposed
to be sold or condominiumized.
H. Wildfire Hazard: Staff believes the Applicant has or can meet any requirements for wildfire
hazard rating and mitigation as part of any building permit application process.
I. Access: legal access is provided via Pleasant Valley Ranch Road, a privately maintained road.
While details have been provided regarding the limited nature of vehicle trips to and from the
site by employees and delivery vehicles, staff suggests that additional details regarding the
7
08/09/2016
"maximum number of deliveries allowed per month"and the times of such deliveries could be
added to enhance the operations plan for the facility.
4. Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use shall
reasonably avoid adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands
including trash, traffic, service delivery,parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, or
otherwise create a nuisance.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned, meets this standard. Specifically, staff suggests that the
project has been designed specifically to minimize any adverse impacts to the subject property, the
surrounding area, residents and wildlife populations. The proposed use is in keeping with the intent
and purposes of the AL Zone District. Likewise, staff believes the proposed single-story addition
respects the character and scale of the existing residence on Lot 4, as well as the surrounding
residential neighborhood. Staff has identified no issues related to trash, traffic, service delivery,
parking or loading, odors, noise, glare or vibrations that may result from the use of an ADU on Lot
Any short-term potential impacts from construction of the ADU addition should be regulated via
the building permit application, issuance, and inspection process.
5. Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use shall minimize
environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources,
wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal substantially meets this standard.
6. Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by
public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater
facilities,parks, schools,police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. One condition has been added to address comments
forwarded by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District regarding fire apparatus access and turn-
around on the existing driveway.
7. Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the
appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. Specifically, parking has been designed to meet the
requirements of Article 4, and building permit plans for the addition to the existing residence will
comply with grading, drainage, erosion control, landscaping, and lighting standards.
8. Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it
by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general
development characteristics.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard; no"other"provisions have been identified.
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Section 5-250, E — Conditions and Restrictions on a Special Use Permit (ECLURs, p. 5-55) is pertinent to any
consideration of conditional approval,wherein:
8
08/09/2016
"The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may, in
approving any Special Use Permit, impose such restrictions and conditions on such approval, the
proposed use, and the premises to be developed or used pursuant to such approval, as it
determines are required by the general purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, and these Land Use Regulations, to
prevent or minimize adverse effects from the proposed development on surrounding land uses and
on the general health, safety, and welfare of the County. The County shall be authorized to set
limits on the length of any Final or Consolidated Special Use Permit that it issues and to obtain
assurances that the ongoing operation of the use will comply with all of the applicant's
representations and all conditions of approval, including, but not limited to, requiring an annual
compliance review. All conditions imposed in any Special Use Permit, with the exception of
conditions made applicable to such approval by the express terms of these Land Use Regulations,
shall be expressly set forth in the Special Use Permit."
V. SUGGESTED CONDITION(S) OF APPROVAL:
Staff is suggesting he following conditions be included in any motion to approve the request.
1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations
made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval.
2. The Applicant shall address requirements of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
with regard to final driveway design and construction.
VI. SITE DATA:
Lot 4 is located within the Sopris Mesa Subdivision north of El Jebel.
The site is bordered by a 45-acre single-family residential parcel to the north; by Green Mountain Drive to the
south; by Lot 5, Sopris Mesa Subdivision(vacant)to the west; and by Lot 3, Sopris Mesa Subdivision(vacant) to
the east.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
All lots within Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision as well as surrounding lands within Eagle County are zoned
Resource.
1
Land Use Zoning
North: Residential Resource(R)
South: Residential Agricultural Limited(AL)
, East: Residential Agricultural Limited(AL)
West: Residential Agricultural Limited(AL)
Existing Zoning: Agricultural Limited(AL)
Proposed Zoning: N/A
Current Development: Single-family residential
Site Conditions: Sage,grass;manicured landscaping;moderate slopes.
Total Land Area: ,,Acres 12.5 I Square feet:
Total Open Space N/A
Water:, Public: N/A Private: Well/Community System
sr,
Sever: Pu N/A Private: OWTS(Permit No.2014-00)
9
08/09/2016
IAccess: Green Mountain Drive
VII. REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Referral copies of this application were sent to fourteen (14) agencies for review on or about May 24, 2016. Staff
received no responses from any agencies regarding this request. However, attached please find correspondence
from Brooke Stott, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District regarding the proposed plans and driveway turn-around.
Also attached, please letters from the Aspen Mountain View Board of Directors and Design Review Board
regarding both preliminary and final approval of the proposed addition (ADU) and associated building envelope
amendment.
VIII. BoCC OPTIONS:
1. Approve File No. ZS-6195 with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that that,
as conditioned,the proposed use fully complies with all the standards for special use permit.
2. Deny File No. ZS-6195 if it is determined that the proposed use will not fully comply with all the standards
for special use permit.
3. Table File No. ZS-6195 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the request. Give specific
direction to the petitioner and staff.
IX. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
1. Application
2. Residential Plan Documents from Confluence Architecture
3. HOA Approval Letters
4. Referral Comments
Public Comment Lettersallowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with
the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design,
configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to
ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All
Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. "-ECLURs p. 5-51
Generally, accessory dwelling units are viewed to be compatible with existing or proposed single-family residential
properties and neighborhoods; the purpose of conducting site-specific review is to ensure that size requirements are
met, parking is provided, and on-site infrastructure (access, driveways, on-site wastewater treatment systems, and
water supply)are adequate.
Pursuant to the ECLURs (p. 5-52), the Planning Commission's role during the review of the Special Use Permit is
as follows:
Suggestion Motions:
PROPOSED MOTION: To approve special use permit request
•
I hereby move to approve File No. ZS'6195, incorporating staff's findings and staff's suggested conditions,
because the application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of a Special Use Permit.
PROPOSED MOTION: To deny special use permit request
I hereby move to deny File No. ZS-6195, because the proposal does not meet the standards for approval of a
Special Use Permit. [During deliberations, you will have already discussed which standards have not been
met].
10
08/09/2016
5. AFP-6194 Dampier-Craver Amended Final Plat
Richard Davies,Engineering
Leroy and Susan Dampier, Sue Craver,Applicants
Angela Loughry, Confluence Architecture, Representative
Note: Tabled from July 26,2016
Action:Review of an Amended Final Plat to revise the platted building envelope on Lot 4 for the Special
Use Permit. Special Use Permit is to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU)within an existing
residential structure located in the Sopris Mesa Subdivision.
Location: Sopris Mesa Subdivision, El Jebel Area
File Number: AFP-6194/Amended Final Plat
Project Name: Dampier-Craver Amended Building Envelope
Location: 861 Green Mountain Drive; Lot 4 Sopris Mesa Subdivision
Owner: LeRoy and Susan Dampier; Sue Craver
Applicant: Same
Representative: Angela Loughry, Confluence Architecture
Staff Planner: Scot Hunn,AICP
Staff Engineer: Richard Davies,P.E.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
I. SUMMARY:
The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to revise the platted building envelope for Lot 4 to accommodate a minor
addition to an existing residence. The 845 square foot addition is proposed as an Accessory Dwelling Unit. A
Special Use Permit(Eagle County File No. ZS-6195) for the ADU is being reviewed concurrent with this amended
final plat request.
A sign has been posted near the front of the property, and mailed notice of the proposal and hearing date has been
sent to the adjacent property owners. In response to public notification, staff received several emails and letter
regarding the project.
Staff Findings and Recommendation
Staff believes the proposed amendment is in keeping with 1) the intent of the original final plat, and 2) the
requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs).
Specifically, staff believes the Amended Final Plat meets each of the following, applicable criteria:
Adjacent property. Staff believes the proposed amendment will not adversely affect any neighboring
property. Specifically, staff reviewed the proposed envelope amendment relative to 1) its proximity to
building envelopes on adjacent and surrounding parcels; and 2) the potential for adverse impacts',to views
and/or privacy.
In reviewing the distances between the existing and proposed envelope on Lot 4 and those of surrounding
properties,the following was observed:
11
08/09/2016
rsl�,r a 'k: ,a.0 a✓5t^r y, , ,,sr p r ,� � ✓ "r L
�� �"�'�`E�''�"+J`�. ' `W 5, s ' 6,.��'" e zw , �7 sip :r v Y" ✓ "�` �f"s^`�✓°��€ f�+k „t � r rc F�
aE`�.✓„f3� � �" � z��t"i-t"fi`�` 'rs`� _�r � k��`"ra �s.'� t aTM`�n '�� '&"�'"�y, r, .="c' C „. 3��✓ar�.
k"!"Wt " .rv"'r raj :.✓r x ' s �m� i"r ,..N,:�xr` $"a ` `i, im*f r.'
�'✓ � r�.' k���``�..: '?� 4y�'"'�,�r �s. ����,rr'R.miwr�,�� r raY��✓"`"c ,.a �� ✓ � icy.
,,., _ .,., ✓ff.._.>� ....�':.�.ah.:4,a'�. `��J. �..�., ,.a4�.ra''.�4. .... .., .6�.�%�, "., �'�re"_,,.nrsa .. rY,r.»:,...t6f✓t': ✓,a.,.aw,>,��
Lot 4 to Lot 5(to 85' 100'
the west)
Lot 4 to Lot 3 (to 160' 135'
the east)
Lot 4 to Lot 18 180' 180' (no change)
(to the south)
Table 1: Distances between platted and proposed envelopes
As shown in Table 1 above, staff analyzed the distances between platted envelopes immediately
surrounding the subject property. The proposed envelope would shift(in its entirety) to the east by twenty-
five (25')to accommodate the proposed addition. Relative to adjacent properties located to the west and to
the south (across Green Meadow Drive), the proposed change either increases the distance (from 85' to
100' in the case of Lot 5) or represents no material change (in the case of Lot 18 to the south). In the case
of adjacent Lot 3, staff suggests that the proposed change would result in a reduction of 25', or a 15%
decrease in distance between the envelopes on Lots 3 and 4. Given the fact that Lot 3 is vacant, it is
difficult at best to ascertain how the proposed envelope amendment on Lot 4 will adversely impact any
future residence.
The average distance between envelopes across the entire Sopris Mesa Subdivision is approximately 158',
while the median distance is approximately 175' (measured from lot to lot, and not including distances
measured across Green Meadow Drive). The shortest distance is 35',while the longest distance is 350'.
Staff suggests that the existing residence on Lot 4 generally low-slung, with one and 2-story elements; the
proposed addition is one story and compliments the scale and mass of the existing structure (See attached
plans by Confluence Architecture). Further, while the Applicant is requesting to extend the building
envelope 25' to the east, the actual distance that is being proposed for the addition is approximately 10'
outside the existing building envelope.
Staff was unable to discern any view corridors (platted or otherwise) from adjacent properties across or
through Lot 4 that would be affected by the proposed addition or envelope amendment, and the proposal
has been approved by the Aspen Mountain View Home Owner's Association Board of Directors and
Design Review Board.
Likewise, while the subdivision declarations and covenants do set forth restrictions on the placement of
"above ground improvements" - to be within established building envelopes - staff suggests: 1) that such
private covenants do not preclude amendments, or variations, to envelopes; and 2) that Eagle County does
not enforce private covenants.
Additionally, staff has reviewed a "wildlife mitigation agreement" filed in conjunction with the
declarations and covenants for Sopris Mesa Subdivision. While this agreement specifically references the
presence and placement of envelopes "to avoid, to the extent practical, native habitats (of higher value to
wildlife)", staff suggests that the only platted wildlife movement corridor within the subdivision is located
to the west of Lot 4. The agreement also speaks to the intent of the subdivider to limit disturbance outside
of envelopes. Staff suggests that by virtue of the proposed amendment (moving the envelope in its entirety
to the east, and, importantly, maintaining the overall square footage of potential development area) this
proposal is in keeping with the goal of minimizing and otherwise containing impacts on habitat.
12
08/09/2016
Based, in part, on the above analysis staff believes the proposed amendment meets this standard. However,
two neighboring property owners(Lots 3 and 18)have submitted formal letters of objection to the proposed
amendment based on potential impacts on privacy, views, and wildlife (See attached emails and letters
from Craig Rogers and William Lukes).
Final Plat Consistency. Staff has reviewed the original Final Plat and finds that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the intent of the original plat.
Specifically, building envelopes were placed on the original final plat in 1998 as part of a "cluster
subdivision", where lots and envelopes were configured to cluster development in certain areas and where
large tracks of open space and sensitive areas (i.e. floodplains, wetlands) were therefore preserved. It
appears that, in general, envelopes in this instance were sited to provide ample distances between building
sites,while at the same time clustering development to minimize overall impact throughout the subdivision.
Staff believes the range of distances between envelopes within the Sopris Mesa Subdivision are reflective
of of these principles.
Such situation is similar to many subdivisions in Eagle County where envelopes have been platted to
generally direct development. What is also typical in most instances where subdivisions include platted
envelopes is a recognition that such envelopes may be adjusted as site-specific building plans are developed
for each lot; staff is unaware of any situations in Eagle County where building envelopes are entirely static.
Additionally, the original final plat for Sopris Mesa Subdivision does included a wildlife migration
corridor. The corridor is 600' wide, runs generally southeast to northwest, and does not border Lot 4; it is
located to the west of Lot 5 and is approximately 150' away from the existing envelope on Lot 4 Moving
the envelope on Lot 4 twenty-five feet to the east (or away from the corridor), then, could be construed to
reduce the impact of potential of future development on wildlife movements.
Therefore, staff believes that the proposal (to shift the platted envelope on Lot 4 25' to the east and, to a
large degree,to maintain such distances)is consistent with the intent of the original final plat.
Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The Applicant's surveyor has made all necessary revisions
and refinements to the plat document, as required by the Eagle County Surveyor, the Eagle County
Engineering Department and the Eagle County Planning Department. Furthermore, the plat has been
reviewed by the Eagle County Attorney's Office for compliance with legal requirements. The plat, as
signed by applicable parties is, therefore, consistent with the intent of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations.
II. SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
East: Residential/Agricultural Limited(AL)
West: Residential/Agricultural Limited(AL)
North: Residential/Resource(R)
South: Residential/Agricultural Limited(AL)
Existing Zoning: Agricultural Limited(AL)
Total Area: 2.5 Acres
Water: Private
Sewer: Private
Access: Green Meadow Drive
III. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
13
08/09/2016
Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3., Standards for Amended Final Plat, staff suggests the following findings can be
made:
a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners.
b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat.
c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has
determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other
applicable regulations,policies and guidelines.
d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply.
e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply.
DISCUSSION:
Mr.Narracci presented a PowerPoint slide show with the site plan,vicinity map and relevant documents.
The subdivision was a cluster subdivision allowing smaller lot sizes with clustering and preservation of common
areas. The ADU was normally an administrative approval,but because of the non-conforming lot size, it required
board approval and a special use. He reviewed the standards. There were two neighbors who have expressed
concern; Mr. Craig Rogers and Mr. William Lukes. Both men objected to the extension of the building envelope
by 25 feet to accomplish the ADU construction. There was a private neighborhood water system and based on
historical use the owners should have plenty of water for the addition. The Planning Commission suggested
additional landscaping but also other building possibilities. The proposed use was in keeping with neighborhood
properties and met other conditions. Staff recommended approval with conditions.
Angela Loughry with Confluence Architecture presented the plan for the addition. The needs of the family
were to provide a modified mother in law unit. The design stretched east to get as much solar gain as possible as
well as allowing views of Sopris Mountain.
Mr.Narracci stated that the proposal met the criteria for a special use permit.
There would be no net gain in the size of the envelope. The adjustment would change the distance between the
closest property line from 160 to 135 feet.
Ms. Loughry addressed the request for the building envelope amendment. There was a berm that existed to
mitigate any disturbances to the neighbors. She presented alternate design drawings. The applicant had considered
a total of five designs. They believed their design minimized the impacts as much as possible while maintaining
southern exposure for solar gain.
Chair McQueeney clarified the property line compared to the building envelope proposal.
Ms. Loughry stated that the difference would be ten feet in front and fifteen feet in the back.
Mr.Narracci stated that Mr. Luke's concern were that future expansion could occur over the current
proposed addition.
Chair McQueeney opened public comment.
Craig Rogers spoke to the board. He lived across the street and was representing himself and the adjacent
owner to the east. He pointed out that the extension outside of the current envelope has been represented as ten
feet. Mr. Lukes was an architect as well and believed the building extended 18 feet in the back. Mr. Rogers served
on the design review board and understood the drawings as well. They were both dismayed that they were not able
to attend and felt that there were misrepresentations. Sopris Mesa was developed in the late 1990s. Prior to him
purchasing his lot he was very aware of building envelopes. The project design did in fact have an adverse impact
to view corridors and wildlife corridors. From the west side of his home the views would look directly into the
addition. Mr. Luke's lot and the Dampier lot were the two smallest lots in the subdivision. He was not worried
about his driveway but was worried about the bedrooms. There were 84 property owners in the subdivision yet
14
08/09/2016
only nine of these owners lived mostly on other streets. The new homeowner president took it upon herself to push
the project through and approve the change. If the owners eliminated the garage bay,the addition would fit nicely
within the building envelope.
Commissioner Ryan asked Ms. Loughry about the different designs considered. Any of the designs would
impact the views from Mr.Roger's western rooms. She spoke about her client's hardships dealing with different
homeowner's design review boards. The requirements have changed due to changing authority.
Mr.Rogers stated that this was not atypical of the way these changes happen.
Commissioner Ryan wondered if one of the designs would have been a use by right.
Mr.Narracci stated that even an addition to the home within the building envelope would need a Special
Use Permit.
Mr. Rogers questioned the need for a ground level unit.
Ms. Ayers Oliver spoke about county land use regulations and clarified that Homeowners Association
(HOA)approval was not required for the county to approve a file. Only the standards for Special Use Permits
could apply and did not include hardships.
Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked about view corridors and wildlife corridors related to Special Use
Permits.
Chair McQueeney closed public comment.
Mr.Narracci showed an existing wildlife corridor established when the subdivision was first platted.
There were no platted view corridors in the county or in this development.
Chair McQueeney wondered about the discrepancy of the new building portion that would be inside the
new building envelope. The board had heard 15 and 18 feet.
Ms. Loughry indicated that the rear of the wall is 16 feet and then there was an 18"roof overhang.
Leroy Dampier, owner, indicated that the stake was on the southern corner.
Sue Craver spoke to the board and thanked Mr. Rogers., he clarified that Peter Dolan, owner of the lot
next to Mr. Rogers and Durelle Montgomery who also lived, %the sti eet were in agreement.
Mr.Narracci believed that all letters received were given to the board
Ms. Loughry believed there were two letters of support:',
Commissioner Chandler Henry asked about the fife departnlent'tonditions.
Mr.Narracci indicated that the applicant was amenable to working with the department to handle the
turnaround required.
Commissioner Chandler Henry spoke about the seven standards, which she felt were met except the design
minimizing adverse impact related to the neighboring property owner's concerns. She felt that the request met the
standards. She agreed with staff findings.
Commissioner Ryan agreed with Commissioner Chandler Henry and this was difficult as it affected
property rights for both. She weighed whose adverse impacts were greater,which was difficult. She believed that
it came down on the side of meeting the standards and she was supportive.
Chair McQueeney stated that the only objection was related to the final plat.
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve File No. ZS-6195, incorporating staffs findings and staff's
suggested conditions, because the application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of a Special
Use Permit.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Chair McQueeney asked about future building potential and whether that could be restricted in the future.
Mr.Narracci stated that there could be a plat note with that restriction or the building envelope could be
tightened up around the addition.
Chair McQueeney asked for the new envelope to be tightened up.
Commissioner Chandler—Henry also liked that option to tighten the building envelope.
Ms. Ayers—Oliver stated that this could become a condition,considering the need for three feet around the
house for fire code considerations.
15
08/09/2016
Commissioner Chandler Henry supported the change to the building permit.
Commissioner Ryan agreed.
Chair McQueeney concurred and didn't believe the wildlife corridor was platted.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Amended Final Plat for Sopris Mesa Subdivision
Lot 4 (Eagle County File No. AFP-6194), as presented, based on its conformance with applicable standards and
based on a review of staff findings and authorize the Chair to sign the plat.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
0
There being no further business 1 }t;; . + the meeting was adjourned until August 16,2016.
* . :
Attest: Imo[.^ . Si 1/4^u t—.Z n c°tOrtnop r( jLIA4
inman
Ih . ►�v
16
08/09/2016
