No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/13/19 PUBLIC HEARING August 13, 2019 Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Matt Scherr Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Kelley Collier Deputy County Manager Beth Oliver Deputy County Attorney Holly Strablizky Assistant County Attorney 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 provided an update on the process that the State of Colorado was embarking on though the Colorado Water Conservation Board related to demand management. The concern was the Colorado River was over allocated with its water use. There were a variety of work groups set up by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the work group that she sat on was the Economics and Local Government group. The idea behind demand management was that it would be temporary,voluntary, and compensated. The concern was the owners of the water were agriculture producers, so any meaningful demand management would likely be on the backs of agriculture. Information was available on the Water Conservation Board website. There would be a meeting next week on the August 20 in Glenwood Springs. Commissioner Scherr reminded everyone that school would be starting and to be aware of children swarming the streets. He encouraged everyone to be on the lookout for kids that don't know any better about traffic laws and to obey the bus stop and slowing requirements. Chairman McQueeney spoke about a group she sat on called Counties and Commissioners Acting Together (CCAT). The group had a brief meeting with Governor Polis to talk about legislative priorities for next year. The Governor shared that he would be focusing on affordable housing and childcare which aligned with what the county was working on. Additional funds were put into the Division of Local Affairs(DOLA)to assist with the building of childcare programs. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll stated that there was an Aging Well speaking series tomorrow at CMC, and the topic was elder law and preparing for the future. He gave a shout out to Carly Rietmann and her team for their work. Consent Agenda 1. Agreement between Eagle County and the Federal Aviation Administration for the Construction of the De- Ice Pad Mandi Nolan, Projects Management 2. Temporary Construction Easement for Bull Run Mid-Block Crossing Rickie Davies, Engineering 1 08/13/2019 3. Approval of the Minutes for the Board of County Commissioner Meetings for July 2, July 9, July 15, and July 16, 2019 Kathy Scriver, Clerk&Recorder's Office 4. Resolution 2019-057 Approving the Two Year Extension of the Fields Sketch Subdivision Sean Hanagan, Planning Commissioner Scherr moved to approve the Consent Agenda for August 13, 2019, as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Constituent Input Chairman McQueeney opened and closed constituent input, as there was none. Business Items 1. Resolution 2019-058 Regarding Building Board of Appeals -Clint Janssen Christina Andrews, Community Development Executive Summary: Clint Janssen would like to continue his term with Building Board of Appeals for another five years. Vance Gobossi, Chief Building Official stated that the resolution appointed Clint Janssen to his second term to the Building Board of Appeals. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution regarding the Building Board of Appeals —Clint Janssen. Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Resolution 2019-059 Ratifying the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Authorizing the Use of Open Space Funds for the Acquisition and Permanent Protection of the Ridgway Property and Authorizing any Commissioner to Sign Documents in Connection with Such Acquisition Holly Strablizky, Open Space Executive Summary: Resolution approves and ratifies the purchase and sale agreement for the purchase of the Ridgway property; authorizes the use of open space funds for the purchase; and allows any commissioner to sign documents in connection with the purchase with approval from the attorney's office. Diane Mauriello, Open Space Manager introduced Charlie Ridgway, the property owner and Jim Daus, Executive Director, Eagle Valley Land Trust(EVLT). Ms. Mauriello presented a PowerPoint and overview of the request. The Ridgway's were interested in selling approximately 129 acres of their overall property which was about 231 acres. The Open Space program had been working with the Land Trust for making a GOCO application. The land bordered the Brush Creek Valley Ranch. The current zoning was Resource. The Ridgway's would retain their current residence and the barn would be leased back to Mr. Ridgway for his equipment. The purchase price was$2,225,000. There would be a few adjustments made as they go through the due diligence period. The cabin on the property would be appraised, and the county would determine whether it would be a future one-acre subdivision. The request from the Open Space fund was$1,575,000. The funding partners included: the Eagle Ranch Wildlife Committee ($200,000),the Town 2 08/13/2019 of Eagle($10,000), GOCO request(pending for$700,000) and the Eagle Valley Land Trust($5,000). They would also be approaching the Habitat Partnership Program(wildlife grant pool) was still pending. She presented the Open Space criteria and indicated that the staff and Open Space Advisory Committee's recommendations were high. She reviewed the criteria considered by the Open Space Committee. There had been a lot of support for the project in addition to the funding entities. The management and maintenance of the property would be by the county. There were two resolutions before the board today, one was ratifying the purchase and sale agreement,the second was supporting the grant application. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if the property would be under the same conservation easement as the Brush Creek Valley Ranch. Ms. Mauriello stated that the exiting conservation easement would be amended. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if there were any fund raising efforts available to the public. Jim Daus stated that the EVLT would be launching fundraising efforts. Rosie Sherwood, Brush Creek Road resident thanked the board for their support. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution Ratifying the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Authorizing the Use of Open Space Funds for the Acquisition and Permanent Protection of the Ridgway Property and Authorizing any Commissioner to Sign Documents in Connection with Such Acquisition.. Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. Resolution 2019-060 Supporting the Grant Application for a Great Outdoors Colorado Open Space Grant for the Acquisition of the Ridgway Property Diane Mauriello, Open Space Executive Summary: Resolution supports Eagle Valley Land Trust in its effort to apply for a grant in the amount of$700,000 from Great Outdoors Colorado for the purchase of the Ridgway property. Commissioner Scherr moved to support the Grant Application for a Great Outdoors Colorado Open Space Grant for the Acquisition of the Ridgway Property. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Work Session - Eagle County Room 1. Mountain Recreation Facilities Update 3:30- Site Tour- Warner Workforce Housing-Eagle Vail 1. Site Tour of ZS-7559 Warner Workforce Housing Special Use 5:30-Planning File-Eagle County Room 1. ZS-7559 Warner Workforce Housing Special Use Executive Summary: Proposed is the conversion of the Warner Professional Building#2 from office space into shared employee housing to incorporate 30 single family rooms, 5 double rooms, and a caretaker unit along with shared kitchens, living areas, bathrooms, and laundry in the Eagle-Vail PUD. Adam Palmer opened the file, filling in for Cliff Simonton who started the file before leaving the county. 3 08/13/2019 Ms. Oliver stated that this was a request for a Special Use Permit in the Eagle-Vail community. The board would have to make an interpretation of the PUD guide to determine whether a boarding house could be approved or even reviewed through the Special Use process. Secondly,the board would need to determine whether or not the use met the definition of a boarding house. There was not a definition of a boarding house in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations or the PUD guile. The board would be asked to make a finding as to whether or not they had determined that the proposed meets the definition of a boarding house at the end of the hearing and after public comment. Then if the board says "yes,"the board would address the Special Use. Rick Pylman with Plyman and Associations, Inc. introduced the Bob Warner, building owner/applicant, Sarah Baker, legal counsel, and Bob Ladd, architect. Mr. Palmer stated that the applicant proposed the conversion of the Warner Professional Building#2 into shared workforce housing. The project would include 30 single rooms and 5 double rooms. Occupants would share common amenities such as a large community room, lobby, kitchen, bathrooms, and laundry facilities. A manager would reside in an apartment within the building. The property lies within the Eagle-Vail PUD and requires a special use review for the proposed use. There would be 48 total parking spaces to be shared between building 1 and building 2. Part of the review of the application was to define `boarding house' as it was not defined in the Eagle-Vail PUD nor was it defined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Mr. Palmer presented some examples of historic boarding housing and similar types of housing in Eagle. Bob Warner introduced himself and spoke about his 52 years in Eagle County and the number of business he'd been involved in during that time. He believed that repurposing an old building made sense rather than tearing it down and rebuilding a new one. He believed that the ways people lived and worked had changed over the years and affordable housing was hard to find. Mr. Pylman stated that there were four areas within the Eagle-Vail PUD that allowed for commercial uses. The definition of a `Commercial Lot' did not include boarding house. The building was used for commercial uses over the years. There were all kinds of uses that could occur on the property. The boarding house was a viable form of housing. It would be 100%workforce housing. They proposed a 70%AMI on the single room units and 80%AMI on the double room units. There were no free market rooms. There were no short term rentals allowed. This was a private sector project. There would a maximum of 42 people residing in the building. The applicant made a lot of changes to the site plan in response to staff input and public comment. They redesigned the parking, added bike storage, relocated trash enclosures and were willing to add fencing if it was preferred by the neighbors. The Larkspur access would remain gated. Bob Ladd spoke about the design. The number of parking spaces did not comply with the Eagle County land use regulations and the applicant was requesting a variance.They wanted to provide an outdoor space and additional landscaping. There was a 12 ft. landscape buffer from adjacent properties so the plan was changed again to accommodate the set back. The exterior design would eliminate the front stairs and cream stucco sections. The community center was near the front entrance and the manager unit would be near the rear. Each unit could be turned into ADA accessible units if needed. The rooms would include a bed, small sink, closet, and refrigerator. This was a 42 year old building and part of the proposal would be to create a structure that was up to code and energy efficient. Mr. Pylman stated that the applicant had worked with Eagle County staff to revise the application from initial submittal to specially address concerns raised by staff and the Eagle-Vail property owners association. The applicant believed the application was compatible with the existing neighborhood. The Eagle-Vail Fire Station was currently being used as a similar use in the same neighborhood. The rules and regulations would enhance the compatibility with the neighborhood and were fully enforceable. The master lease requirements would prohibit weekend use,there were limitations on outdoor activity, the housing was tied to employers, no pets would be allowed.The property had other allowable uses that could generate far more traffic. There were a total of 54 parking spaces, one parking space per room.There would be hang tags or stickers for residents, limit on visitor parking and they had an enforceable parking plan. Fear of who people/tenants would be was not a basis for denial. The Telluride Boarding House was a popular housing option. Housing needs in the county were a priority. Units that have been long-term rental housing were being changed to more lucrative short term rentals. If the board chose to put conditions on an approval,the applicant was in full support. Sarah Baker spoke about some of the issues raised by the community. The Eagle-Vail Property Owners Association requested denial of the application due to compatibility issues. The applicant was asked to delay the approval and consideration of this project until the future use of the adjacent building was known. The argument was that the boarding house did not meet the needs of the community. She spoke about the criteria that the board was required to consider. Some of the comments submitted by the residents indicated that the area was primarily owner occupied, long term rentals. Her research indicated that there were over one hundred short term rentals on VBO. The applicant had rules and regulations enforceable by the county.There would be no short term rentals. There would be an onsite property manager, noise mitigation, visual mitigation, no odor impact, and no glare/vibration impact. The Planning Commission recognized for this to be a successful project it needed to be a desirable place for the residents to live. There was a balancing act needed to provide for a quality of life for the residents of this project. 4 08/13/2019 Bob Ladd stated that if they were to destroy the existing buildings they would have a building footprint of 11,372 square feet, and there could be a building that could allow for 400 occupants and 100 parking spaces. Ms. Oliver clarified that there was not a deed restriction for this type of project. Commissioner Chandler-Henry disclosed that she and her husband owned Brush Creek Electric and in about 2005 they purchased a unit in the Eagle River Commercial Center which was owned by Mr. Warner,the applicant. She received no benefit from the applicant and this would not affect her decision on the file Mr. Palmer explained that based on the purpose statement in Section 4.e of the Eagle-Vail PUD, staff had determined that the `boarding house' was allowable through special use review. Staff determined that the proposed use fit within the generally accepted plain language definitions of a boarding house. The proposal exceeded the affordable housing guidelines. The design minimized adverse impact as the Warner Professional building would be renovated to accommodate the proposed use and plans included a more aesthetic exterior façade. Traffic was not anticipated to increase substantially over the existing use of the building. The close proximity of the property to public transportation would likely contribute to reduction of vehicle trips. Water use for the project was anticipated to increase approximately 3500 gallons per day over historic uses. The applicant had obtained a conditional ability to serve letter from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District(ERWSD), and a formal ability to serve letter from the ERWSD. Staff had reviewed and analyzed the proposal with the standards for a Special Use Permit. As conditioned,the application was deemed to be in compliance with the required standards of a Special Use as required by the Eagle-Vail PUD and articulated in Section 5-250 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Staff recommended approval with conditions of the Special Use request. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked the applicant to address snow storage. Mr. Pylman stated that they exceeded the area of snow storage. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about using the business parking near building#1 for overflow parking. Mr. Pylman stated that they had not discussed that possibility. Commissioner Scherr asked about the traffic volume. Rickie Davies, Senior Staff Engineer stated that because of the uses being proposed,the traffic study chart indicated fewer trips. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if a right turn lane should be considered. Mr. Davies stated that he didn't believe a turn lane was necessary. Chairman McQueeney asked if the emergency exit would be a solution. Mr. Pylman stated that they did not believe the emergency exit was a good solution. Commissioner Scherr asked about the requirement for a waste container. Mr. Pylman stated that Honeywagon had been helpful on the sizing on dumpsters. Ms. Oliver stated that code enforcement would oversee the trash size requirements. Chairman McQueeney asked about the time frame in terms of public outreach and public comment. She asked about the efforts made in terms of public engagement. Mr. Pylman stated that they held a meeting at the Eagle-Vail Pavilion. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about interior storage for skis and such. Mr. Pylman stated that there would be additional storage indoors. Chairman McQueeney spoke about the issue of creating a transient community. She wondered if the applicant would consider annual leases. Mr. Pylman believed the timeframe was in line with the needs of the resorts. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked the applicants thought process linking the employer with the tenants. Mr. Pylman stated that they believed this was a verifiable system that insured that they weren't seeking a transient use. Mr. Palmer stated that longer leases would be allowed.The intent of the master lease was that employers could offer and address the transient and trust component. Commissioner Chandler-Henry spoke about the challenge of creating a community there. She believed it was an intriguing idea and a possible way to have entry into Eagle County to become a productive, working member. She wondered about the property manager as facilitating social opportunities, for young people who may not have friends. Would the manager organize community gatherings or would they just manage the property? Mr. Pylman stated he hadn't thought about it. He believed it depended how the leasing went.He believed it was a good opportunity for a manager to know what resources existed. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the construction timeline. Mr. Warner stated that they were two years behind the mark. He hoped to clean out the interior and once the building permit was issued be ready by next spring. Chairman McQueeney stated that she had no doubt that this could be a good building. She wanted to make certain that the applicant knew the permit could be revoked. Chairman McQueeney opened public comment. 5 08/13/2019 Hazel Kreuz of 362 Larkspur Lane spoke. When asking members of her community if they had been contacted, she was told that they had not. She believed that a rental term of less than 30 days was transient. She believed there were numerous inconsistencies in the proposal. She believed there were a lot of details that still needed to be discussed. She mentioned the construction plan and believed it still needed to be heard. She asked that the board listen to the residents and assist in get things resolved. She was willing to give up her time to bring the community together with the applicant and find solutions before the project moved forward. Cindy Krieg of 301 Larkspur Lane spoke. She wished to better understand the use by right and the special use permit process. She believed that those who had submitted letters were a part of the local workforce. Her concerns were primarily location and density. She believed the proposal would increase traffic significantly. She asked about the neighboring business in building#1 and whether the building would expand this use if purchased by Mr. Warner. Eric Krieg of 301 Larkspur Lane stated that he had never been contacted by Mr. Warner or a member of his team. Wendell Porterfield, Eagle-Vail Property Owners Association(EVPOA) attorney spoke. He stated that there was no definition of a`boarding house' in the county regulations. None of the definitions had a commonality. He believed the use of the language was important. The definition of commercial use in the Eagle-Vail PUD guide defined commercial uses as those meeting the daily or convenient shopping needs of the neighborhood residents in the immediate area. He did not see that `boarding house' was mentioned in the list of uses or that it would provide for the limited range of commercial uses. In summary, the applicant was trying to shoe horn a project on a lot that it was not designed for and in a community that had some concerns. He believed there were issues that needed to be resolved and the board should not be setting a precedent. Judd Watts,EVPOA, president spoke. The boarding house was a more profitable idea and a financial opportunity. He spoke on behalf of the Eagle-Vail community and believed the community had been respectful. The Eagle-Vail community had a burning desire to be heard. Much of the sentiment landed around the maintenance of this building. He appreciated the amount of work done by all parties and the consideration by the board. Darlynne Littman spoke. She owned two properties in Eagle-Vail. She spoke about effects of increased drug use in Eagle-Vail and how she picked up litter at the bus stop on a regular basis. She believed they were a common interest community, and a covenant community doesn't work unless the covenants were enforced. She believed that the covenants were important and they were not permitted to do short term rentals. There was about 15%of the Eagle-Vail properties used for short term rentals, and it was her understanding that this was not permitted. She rented one of her houses to three local workers. She believed that there was no mitigation that would make this legal in Eagle-Vail. Laura Larson spoke. She currently lived on Larkspur Lane and grew up in the area. Given the history of this building today, she wondered about its future maintenance. She believed there could be loud music, parties, sex, drugs, alcohol, mental health issues, and petty crime. She was surprised by the small size of the community room and it seemed like the size of the rooms were consistent with very small dorm rooms. The proposed use attracted short term workers that had no interest in the community. Darlene Daugherty of 331 Larkspur Lane spoke. She lived directly behind the building and the proposed use would be very impactful on her and her neighbors. She had not seen any presentations on the proposed windows, lighting, or any type of design for the back of the building. She had five windows facing the building. She saw no room for planting of trees. She believed that the lights from the building would be 24-hours a day because this was short term workforce housing and the tenants would be working in restaurants, housing, or hospitals. Rick Mueller, Eagle County resident spoke. He was shocked when he read the boarding house terminology in the paper. He believed that a boarding house terminology was misunderstood. The boarding house was a take- off of co-living and We-Work. Five years ago We-Work started, and they were now one of the largest owners of commercial real estate in the United States. There was simply a fear of the unknown. He'd been studying this for a while and believed it was a new style of living. Workforce housing was desperately needed. He'd known the applicant for a while and the applicant had done a good job on other projects in the valley. He believed that taking an old building and repurposing it was a good idea. He expressed support for the project. Shannon Daniels of 193 Larkspur Lane spoke. Homestake Peak was a school in the area and there was already a traffic issue. She was concerned with the safety of the children in the area. The traffic problem needed to be acknowledged. She worked at the Warner Building and the building was dilapidated. Brad Kreuz spoke. He expressed a problem with the way the project was presented. There were no flyers or canvasing. He agreed that there was a need for workforce housing, but the proposed rental rates were not affordable. Chairman McQueeney closed public comment. Chairman McQueeney directed staff to pull up the list of the uses by right and the uses by special use. She also asked about the construction noise issues and if they were identified in the code. Ms. Oliver stated that any construction noise issues would be addressed in the building permit process. 6 08/13/2019 Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the time the public had to comment and asked when the staff report was available to the public. Mr. Palmer stated that there were statutory requirements for posting, and it was staff's goal to get as much information out as possible. He empathized with the concerns. The current staff report was a revision of a prior staff report reviewed by the Planning Commission. He reviewed the list of uses by right and stated that all the uses were not defined. Ms. Oliver stated that the PUD guide was for the zoning for Eagle-Vail subdivision. Each of the uses allowed by right did not require further approval and they would simply be required to go through the building permit process. The purpose of special review allowed the board to review the proposed uses that were not compatible with the used by right but that the board could find were compatible through considering the standards for approval. The county looks at the PUD guide because that's the zoning for the property. Chairman McQueeney asked Ms. Oliver to explain the county's role in relationship to private covenants. Ms. Oliver stated that the regulations clearly say that the county was not responsible for monitoring or enforcing private convents. Commissioner Scherr indicated that the design review board would need to approve the landscaping and fencing. Ms. Oliver stated that she would recommend adding a condition stating that the applicant agreed to additional fencing and landscaping as a buffer. If there were changes to the exterior building or the parking lot,the building owners of building#1 and#2 would need to agree on the changes. Ms. Baker stated that there was a vote and a letter submitted by the owner of building#1 indicating support of the application. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the design of the rear of the building. Mr.Plyman stated that they were very careful about the window placement. There was no exterior lighting in the back of the building. Ms. Baker stated that the applicant was only asking for the approval to extend to building#2. The proposed rental rates were the maximum amounts that could be charged. Ms. Oliver stated that in terms of the PUD guild. The goal was to find harmony to the language. Without a specific intent in a document or regulation, a general statement could not nullify a specific provision. In looking at the general purpose statement,the purpose of the commercial lot was to provide for a range of commercial uses. There were a lot of uses allowed by special review that arguably don't meet the shopping needs but could be found compatible through the special use permit process. The board could reasonably find that a boarding house could be approved through a special use permit process. Chairman McQueeney stated that the first task before the board was whether the uses proposal met the special use process then the board would determine whether or not this proposal met the definition of a boarding house and consider the standards. Commissioner Scherr stated that he had sensitivity to how the public process worked. The board did not consider a motive, the board simply considered the standards. Commissioner Chandler-Henry reassured the public that all the letters had been read and the input had been considered. She believed that the list of special uses was specific and listed boarding houses. There was no question that the board could consider this as a special use in the PUD guide. She believed the definition of boarding house was clearly a co-living situation. She believed it met both of the definitions. Chairman McQueeney stated that when you look at the list of uses and uses by special uses,this would be a fit and was something the board could consider. The commissioners were in agreement that they could issue a finding,that this was something that could be considered by special use and met the definition of a boarding house. Chairman McQueeney believed that the proposal had improved over time and a lot had changed. Commissioner Scherr spoke about the pre-existing, non-conforming structure. The board could not consider the existing setback. Ms. Oliver stated that the applicant was not expanding into the setback. Commissioner Chandler-Henry weighed in on the eight standards and was prepared to agree with staff's findings that as conditioned,the plan met the standards and was consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the conditions listed. The proposal met the zone district standards. The design minimized adverse impacts with the parking reductions which required a variance in parking. Commissioner Scherr stated that he agreed with Commissioner Chandler-Henry. He asked about the variance in parking. Ms. Oliver stated that the variance could be part of the approval and a separate motion was not necessary. Chairman McQueeney believed this was a tricky file but believed there was a way to not adversely impact the neighbors and balance it with the community. The application met the standards for a special use permit. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed this made a small dent in the affordable housing market but what was unique was that it was a private developer. Ms. Baker suggested that the Community Development Director be able to make the final determination regarding the fencing. 7 08/13/2019 Commissioner Scherr moved to approve Warner Workforce Housing File No. ZS-7559, incorporating staff findings, and conditions because the application as conditioned fully complies with standards for approval of a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before .,:--!-=: d,the meeting was adjourned until August 20, 2019. c EA LE co •, 6 . ,t- 4 :Ad ,k Attest:W-4-4.44-1• (.)V/712.14,4_, _ , , Clerk to the Board Chairman cer)L 0 a 1)k' 411 8 08/13/2019