No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/23/2024 PUBLIC HEARING July 23, 2024 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Jill Klosterman Chief Financial Officer Beth Oliver County Attorney Matt Peterson 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: Constituent Input Chairman Scherr opened and closed constituent input, as there was none. Commissioner Updates Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that it was Fair and Rodeo week. She encouraged everyone to plan to see the 4 H exhibits and livestock at the Eagle River Center. The rodeo starts on Wednesday night. She thanked all the community sponsors. Commissioner McQueeney stated there was still a lot to see if you could not get a rodeo ticket. There was good fair food and a carnival. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll stated that several items were on the agenda related to the transition of the ECO Transit system to CORE. He was proud of Eagle County staff's work in making this transition happen and believed it was best for Eagle County. It had been a complex process. Consent Agenda 1.Agreement for Lease of Water Rights Between Eagle County and Kolorado River Ranch LLC- 1 CFS of County-Owned Water in the Wilson and Doll Ditch Peter Suneson, Open Space and Natural Resources 2. Treasurer and Public Trustee Quarterly Reports Teak Simonton and Anissa Berge,Treasurer and Public Trustee 1 07/23/2024 Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda for July 23,2024 as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Business Item(s) 1. Lease Agreement for the Gypsum Maintenance Service Center for the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority Abby Dallmann,Administration Executive Summary: This is an agreement for leased spaces at the Maintenance Service Center in Gypsum for the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. Abby Dallmann, Eagle County Administration Project Manager,presented a few slides outlining the transition. Staff took a functional team approach,beginning with the CORE leadership team. It had been hands-on since late February. The success of both organizations was dependent on the collaboration. The leadership team was responsible for making key decisions collaboratively. The critical transition date they were shooting for was August 4,2024. The goal was to have no canceled routes, increase communication on the benefits of Core Transit, and increase ridership. She believed the transition would be smooth. The items on the agenda today covered the lease agreement for the Gypsum Maintenance Service Center, agreements with the town of Avon for the Bus Shelters, easement for the Dotsero Mobile Home Park, and an amended fleet maintenance agreement. The Eagle County fleet maintenance would continue to provide preventative maintenance for half of the CORE Transit fleet. Upcoming items included bus fleet bill of sale, asset transfer, IT service agreement,Leadville Bus Barn,ECHD master leases,reassignments of 3 IT contracts, and Summit Stage parking reassignment. More will likely come in the next few months as they continue to roll through the process. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered if ECO Transit would remain an entity. Jill Klosterman, Chief Financial Officer, stated that ECO Transit was part of Eagle County Government, so it would still be referred to. Eagle Count would continue to collect the sales tax for mass transit uses,and it would be transferred to CORE Transit. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered about the areas outside of the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority(EVTA) service boundary. Tanya Allen,Core Transit Executive Director, stated that CORE Transit would support transit at similar levels throughout Eagle County paying the tax,which included Gypsum which was not currently part of EVTA. The new EVTA money was for system expansion and other goals. Commissioner McQueeney acknowledged the legal team's work and appreciated the heavy lifting with the deadline being in August and priority given to this matter. Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked Commissioner McQueeney for serving on the board on behalf of Eagle County. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Lease Agreement for the Gypsum Maintenance Service Center for the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2. First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and the Town of Avon Regarding the Avon Station Bus Shelter Jill Klosterman, County Manager's Office 2 07/23/2024 Executive Summary: Eagle County Government(ECO Transit)and the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority continue work to transition mass transportation services to the newly formed transportation authority. This First Amendment between Eagle County and the Town of Avon corrects the general location of the bus stop improvement and license area at the Avon Station Bus Shelter. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and the Town of Avon Regarding the Avon Station Bus Shelter. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3. Assignment,Assumption and Consent Agreement Regarding the Avon Station Bus Shelter Between Eagle County,the Town of Avon and the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority Jill Klosterman, County Manager's Office Executive Summary: Eagle County Government(ECO Transit) and the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority continue work to transition mass transportation services to the newly formed transportation authority. This is an assignment of the Amended IGA between Eagle County and the Town of Avon related to the Avon Station Bus Shelter. The parties to this Assignment are Eagle County, the Town of Avon, and Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Assignment,Assumption and Consent Agreement Regarding the Avon Station Bus Shelter Between Eagle County,the Town of Avon and the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 4. Assignment,Assumption and Consent Agreement Regarding the Walmart Bus Shelter Between Eagle County, the Town of Avon and the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority Jill Klosterman,County Manager's Office Executive Summary: Eagle County Government(ECO Transit) and the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority continue work to transition mass transportation services to the newly formed transportation authority. This is an assignment of the Amended IGA between Eagle County and the Town of Avon related to the Avon Station Bus Shelter. The parties to this Assignment are Eagle County,the Town of Avon, and Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Assignment,Assumption and Consent Agreement Regarding the Walmart Bus Shelter Between Eagle County,the Town of Avon and the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 5. Assignment,Assumption And Consent Agreement Regarding The Easement For A Bus Stop And Improvements At The Dotsero Mobile Home Park Abby Dallmann,Administration 3 07/23/2024 Executive Summary: This easement agreement transfers Eagle County's responsibility for the Dotsero Mobile Home Park bus stop to Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. The Mobile Home Park is owned by Three Pillar Communities. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Assignment,Assumption And Consent Agreement Regarding The Easement For A Bus Stop And Improvements At The Dotsero Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 6. Amended and Restated Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Agreement Between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Transportation Authority Abby Dallmann,Administration Executive Summary: This is an amendment to the fleet services maintenance agreement,and includes indemnification language and strikes the language regarding fueling. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Amended and Restated Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Agreement Between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Transportation Authority. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Work Session - Eagle County Room 1. TreeTop Child Advocacy Center Megan Burch, Human Services Executive Summary: TreeTop Child Advocacy Center will be presenting information about their program,to include a funding request to the BoCC at 10:30 on July 23. Executive Session - Holy Cross Room 1. Executive Session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f)to discuss personnel matters and mid-year performance reviews of BoCC direct reports Planning File - Mt. Sopris Room, El Jebel 1. Continuation of Hearing for Twin Acres Riding Stable and Boarding Stable ZS-009260-2022 Vince Hooper,Community Development Executive Summary: Continuation of a Hearing for a request for the Twin Acres Riding Stable and Boarding Stable ZS-009260-2022 Consolidated Special Use Permit approval for development and operation of a 25-stall horse boarding stable and a 100 x 200 foot covered riding stable,proposed to be commercial operations and open 4 07/23/2024 to the public on a reservation basis as space allows to accommodate horse boarding&horse riding,training and lessons. Owner: Whiskey Mountain Estates, LLC Applicant: Jess Graber Representative: The Land Studio, Inc./Doug Pratte Staff Planner: Vince Hooper The location of the parcel is 623 Fender Lane. The parcel zoning is Agricultural Residential(AR). The existing acreage is 101 acres. Primary access to the property is Fender Lane and secondary access is Green Meadow Drive. Water is supplied by a well on the property and irrigation water rights. Sewer is processed through a private onsite wastewater treatment system. The parcel is a legal parcel of record and historically used as a ranch for over 50 years. The new proposed uses on the property include a 25 stall horse boarding stable, 1 enclosed riding stable/area, and up to 45 boarding horses (36 indoor and 9 outdoor). Chairman Scherr stated that at the last meeting, staff presented the application,the applicant presented their application, and public comment was taken. Today,the applicant would respond to questions and public comments. Vince Hooper, Eagle County Staff Planner, stated that he had some proposed revisions to the proposed conditions of approval. Doug Pratte, of The Land Studio stated that the Twin Acres owner, applicant, and consultant team had coordinated responses to the public comments at the June 18 hearing. Chad Lee and Laurel Quinto of JVAM Law Firm had prepared a response that focused on the history of the Twin Acres parcels. Sara Dunn with Balcomb& Green would address the applicant's water supply plan and compliance with the special use standards. Annie Graber would address public comments related to her operation of the Twin Acres Boarding and Riding Stables. High Country Engineering had updated its report and site plans to address the primary access discussion. He listed the exhibits that had been amended to address lighting,manure and waste management,dust control, employees, fencing and wildlife,riding assessment,indoor and outdoor boarding, etc., and many of the concerns expressed by the public. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission, at their hearing on February 22,2023, unanimously recommended approval of the application with conditions. Annie Graber Wells stated that she knew how to run a ranch. She'd been working with horses her entire life and knew how to manage horses in all aspects of the industry. She believed this prepared a good Best Management Practice plan. She would be living on site and would be the closest household to everything, and she didn't want dust, flies,or manure. She would do the best job possible to make sure she was also not living in those conditions. Laurell Quinto,JVAM Law Associate wished to respond to some comments and to ensure everyone understood the history of the parcel, compatibility, as well as the conservation easement language. The property was historically a larger working ranch that operated for over 100 years. In 1981, a developer acquired the larger ranch and began upzoning the property into surrounding ranchettes. The process involved the surrounding areas becoming higher density. As part of the master plan for the ranch,which began in 1981,was the development of the adjacent subdivision. The central ranch was legally required to remain as a working commercial ranch as an amenity to the newly approved surrounding neighborhoods and to honor the equestrian heritage of the neighborhood. This condition was memorialized in the Master Declarations for Aspen Mountain View. She read the requirements from the recorded public record. Not only could the property be operated as a commercial equestrian enterprise, it was required to do so as part of the larger Master Plan approved in 1981. In 1998, after a series of upzoning, a developer carved off the Sopris Mesa development and rezoned it to higher-density home sites. To ensure the preservation of the central ranch, the body again required as a condition of approval that the central ranch be preserved as a working commercial ranch in perpetuity through a conservation easement. The applicant was seeking to ensure the continued viability of the central ranch as an equestrian enterprise as was required by the Master Declaration including continued use of their water rights.Not only was the requested special use compatible,but it was also required due to the board's decision to approve the neighboring home sites. The Colorado Right to Farm Act allows agricultural operations to continue by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed a nuisance. This property was a working ranch and was currently in such bad condition it needed to be reconstructed, and someone needed to make a substantial investment for it to continue 5 07/23/2024 its operations as a ranch. The applicants were willing,able, and ready to make the investment and seeking approval to do so. The conservation easement was meant to preserve and protect the scenic open space and wildlife while allowing the continued agricultural ranching and equestrian uses. There was no limit to the number of livestock that could be kept or grazed on the agricultural parcel. The ranch headquarters parcel had no restrictions on improvements except for minor limitations on the amount of single-family residents. The conservation supported and encouraged what the applicants were requesting to do on the property. Sara Dunn,water Attorney with Balcomb&Green, spoke. The public comment focused on the physical source of the water,the legal supply, and the use of the dedicated fire suppression well. She stated that the spring that would serve the boarding stables was the same spring that had served the property since 1926. The historical uses on the property had been used solely for livestock,mostly cattle watering and the ranch headquarters. The water court approved a plan for augmentation. The applicant obtained approval for the water supply in a public process that many of the opponents of this application could have participated in and raised their concerns about. The decree, she believed, addressed all their concerns. The decree provided for drinking water and sanitary facilities as well as horse watering. There was an action plan in the decree of what was to be done if a call occurred. In this case,the spring would get curtailed,the livestock watering would continue, and the sanitary facility would continue through water hauling. The applicant was limited to its water usage and required to provide monthly accounting.All the water used in the boarding facility would come from the spring or exempt fire protection well. The well would be metered and part of the reporting under the augmentation plan. The water quality met the standards. The applicant obtained a permit for exempt fire protection that is well dedicated exclusively to fire protection. The assumption made in the augmentation plan was that water would be the only source of dust suppression,but this was not the case. Irrigation was not a component of the SUP, consideration. The agricultural parcel would continue to be irrigated pursuant to the terms of the easement with its historic water rights. The flood irrigation was important to the sustainability of the surrounding wells. Two factors impacted the viability of the aquifer were climate and the continuation of flood irrigation. Mr. Hooper stated that staff was recommending approval with conditions. He reviewed the updated conditions. Mr. Pratte stated that the applicant approved of the amended conditions. Chairman Scherr asked about the fire inspection mentioned in conditions#3. Mr. Hooper stated that it was originally intended that the temporary grass parking spaces would be maintained,mowed, and inspected before any events, and at that time,the Fire Department would come up and inspect them for use. At this time, since events had been removed from the application,there would be an ongoing maintenance requirement, and they would not be required inspection. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the dust suppression plan and traffic counts. Mr. Pratte stated that Twin Acres would post a maximum of 5 MPH on the ranch to minimize dust. Water could be used per the water augmentation plan for dust suppression. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if the applicant had an evacuation plan for horse safety in case of a fire. Ms. Graber Well stated that the horses would be moved out before fire became an issue. If there was a fire closer, she would release her horses and not put anyone safely at risk. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the traffic counts and number of trips. Mr. Pratte stated that the traffic study was Exhibit F in their application. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the 16 trips per day for visitors. Ms. Graber Wells stated that there were absentee owners, and wonders did not come up every day to see their horses. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about lessons and trainers and if they were included in the visitor numbers. Ms. Graber Wells stated that she was the trainer and there was a limit as to the number of lessons she could provide daily. Mr. Pratte stated that there was a letter written from High Country Engineering that identified the proposed peak hour volume of traffic for the horse boarding had been calculated to be approximately 3 trips per hour. 6 07/23/2024 Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the location of the concrete manure bunkers and if removal every two weeks was reasonable for 45 horses. Ms. Graber Wells stated that concrete blocks would be located where they worked best for the facility. She would monitor the manure and have it hauled out if an extra pick-up was needed. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that she had some legal questions and wondered if an Executive Session was necessary. McQueeney asked about night sky compliance and light pollution. She wondered about the lighting during the winter months. Mr. Pratte stated that the applicant was committed to not having panels that were translucent. The lights would be at the entrance and exits of each of the buildings. McQueeney asked about air quality and air quality monitoring and when to produce more dust mitigation. Ms. Graber Wells stated that she would be living on site and dust suppression would occur whenever she notices a dust problem. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing matter that may be subject to negotiation concerning the Twin Acres Riding and Boarding Stable Special Use Permit Application,which is appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and(e)Colorado Revised Statutes. Commissioner Mc Queeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Matt Peterson,Assistant County Attorney,provided some guidance on the nature of the private covenants that applied to the property. He noted that the county commissioners could not consider the private covenants that applied to the property as the county was not a party to the private covenants. Also,none of the county's standards of approval required conformance with a private covenant on the property. There had been a lot of discussion that this was a ranch. This was a Special Use Permit application because the project did not constitute a ranching use under Colorado law. The code identified a ranch,defined under state statutes, as a parcel of land used for grazing livestock to obtain a monetary profit. This use did not propose the grazing of livestock for the purpose of that profit. If this were a ranch this would be allowed as a use by right on the property. A boarding stable and riding stable were different uses than ranches. Because the proposed use fell in the boarding stable and riding stable category,the board of county commissioners had to apply the standards that applied to a SUP independently of any of the private covenants or any discussion of whether ranching is a use by right on the property or not. Chairman Scherr stated that there had been a lot of useful things raised by the public. There had also been a lot of talk about the conservation easement and whether or not it complied. Mr. Peterson stated that the county was not a party to the easement and compliance with a conservation easement on the property was not a standard of approval for a SUP. Commissioner Scherr stated that he struggled with the compatibility standard. Clearly this was a horse community,and larger operations were nearby. Regarding the intensity and not the use itself was fairly significant and he found it to be incompatible with the surrounding use. He could not approve the file as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry was thinking along the same lines with regard to the intensity of use and the size and scope. She did not believe the application met the standard of conformance with the comprehensive plan and compatibility. The intensity of the use did not match the outlining rural subdivision and the Future Land Use Map. It was a quiet residential neighborhood and this was a large commercial operation and an intensive equestrian use. The site of the buildings were not compatible with the neighborhood,nor were 45 horses. She believed that some of the other adverse impacts could be mitigated through a management plan,but the compatibility and comprehensive plan she did not believe met those standards. Commissioner McQueeney agreed with her fellow commissioners in different areas. She reflected on the site visit and believed it was helpful. She agreed that the size and scope of 45 horses on the 20 acres was a little too much. The issues around fire,water, and light pollution had been addressed but the intensity of use with the 45 horses was beyond what was considered in the comprehensive plan. She appreciated all the work the applicant had done but was inclined to not approve this proposal based on compatibility with surrounding uses. 7 07/23/2024 Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to deny file no. ZS 009260-2022 because the application did not meet all the standards for approval of a Special Use Permit, specifically compatibility with surrounding uses and conformance with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. P�QF EAGie There bein no further business - rd,the meeting was adjourned until July 30,2024. 1 < Attes . ' Clerk to the Board Chairman 8 07/23/2024