No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/30/95 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 30, 1995 Present: James Johnson, Jr. George "Bud" Gates Johnnette Phillips Sara J. Fisher Chairman Corrmissioner commissioner Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Corrmissioners for their consideration: Consent Calendar Chairman Johnson stated the first item on the agenda was the consent calendar as follows: 01) Bill paying 02) Resolution 95-129, regarding public auction of personal property of Eagle County 03) Acceptance of Assignment of Collateral account for Road CUt Permit, Four Paws Development, Inc. 04) Contract between Eagle County and Colorado Department of Health and Environment to provide prenatal services. Commissioner Gates moved to approve the consent calendar as presented. Corrmissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Final Settlement Lloyd Powers, Ensineering Department, presented final settlement with Warning Lites and Equlpment, Inc., for the 1995 centerline marking project. He stated no claims have been received. Mary Jo Berenato, Deputy County Attorney, stated notice was published and related the County Attorney's Office has received no claims. She recommended the Board approve final settlement. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final settlement for Warning Lites and Equipment, Inc. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Corrmissioners Johnson and Phillips voting aye and Commissioner Gates abstaining. Appeal, Jack Oleson Mara Kleinschmidt, Attorney representing Jack Oleson, presented an appeal for Jack Oleson. She explained the appeal to the Board. She related Mr. Oleson submitted an application to consider the property for a use not itemized. Since that time there has been a response from the county but the responses have not been to the aI?plicant's satisfaction. Commissioner Phillips questloned Mr. Clarkson about a previous application for this property. Paul Clarkson, Planner, responded that was for a PUD sketch plan but related this matter could be heard under a POD amendment or a separate zone district amendment. He stated part of the confusion lies in the fact this parcel of land was intended to be accepted under the PUD plan within the chronology of the Eagle Vail PUD, which did not come into existence until 1979. Mary Jo Berenato, Deputy County Attorney, stated perhaps the best course of action is for Mr. Clarkson to define what it is they are looking at and then the applicant can respond. Mr. Clarkson referred to a letter he wrote to Mr. Knight on August 29, 1995. Because the County failed to provide a land use regulation in 1975, however, it was not inadvertent. 1 Chairman Johnson questioned if this were commercial land and the uses by right did not include what the applicant is requesting, the Board could add uses as itemized. Mr. Clarkson answered yes, if the uses are compatible but meeting the four major criteria. Mr. Clarkson stated further, this particular site was not to be included in the PUD in the past. Staff, in looking at the four criteria, stated that they do not find the use to be applicable. Mr. Clarkson read the four conditions as listed in the land use regulations and as stated in his August 29th letter. . Chairman Johnson questioned the PUD regulation and the resource zonlng that could be changed. Mr. Clarkson stated this particular piece of property is zoned resource. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated this is an application procedure and asked that it be heard before the Board. She stated they have selected this procedure and feel this corrmission has an obligation to review this and then find either for or against this file. ~s. Kleinschmidt,st~ted in the,Eag~e vail PUD Guide and the Land Use Regulatlons, 2.06.15, wlthln the sectlon ln I?aragraph #4, and the "use" regulation which is attached, Mr. Oleson's parcel lS not listed. In preliminary form, they believe they should have the opPOrtuni ty to make their case to the governing body. Chairman Johnson questioned whether Ms. Kleinschmidt believes staff has no opportunity to administrate their department. Ms. Kleinschmidt suggested there may be differences of opinion between staff and the applicant. Where in the regulations does it allow Staff to turn away the applicant. Further, because this is a complicated process, there is no other direction to point the applicant. "Uses not itemized" as far as she is aware, has never been used. She suggested if they are wrong, they are willing to admit it. She questioned the zoning of resource and suggested it is a matter of interpretation. No where, she believes, is that listed. They are looking for a starting point and don't believe that it is resource. Chairman Johnson questioned the starting point and that staff, in other applications has pointed the applicant to the aPI?ropriate zoning, but that it can not be done with this. He suggested by looklng at the uses there should be a direction to So forward. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated if it is not I?art of the Eagle Vail PUD then there should be a correction plat. If it lS not part of the PUD, then where is it. Right now there is no definitive project for this parcel because the applicant doesn't know what is allowed. They could come forward with numerous applications. corrmissioner Gates guestioned if by granting a hearing what difference will that make in determlning intent. Ms. Kleinschmidt suggested they are prepared to present the facts necessary to allow for a decision to be made. She asked the hearing be granted. Ms. Berenato asked if staff is recorrmending a PUD amendment application. Mr. Clarkson responded that is staff's recommendation. corrmissioner Phillips questioned if they grant the hearing what next. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated if granted a hearing they would make a presentation that would provide the foundation for the application process. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated they will provide all of the facts up front. Chairman Johnson stated he has a problem with the process they are going through riSht now. In essence this is an appeals hearing and for the Board to asree wlth the applicant's case, they would be stating that Mr. Clarkson was ln error. In reviewing the land use regulations, Chairman Johnson stated they are following the regulations and if they were to allow this hearing they would hurdle the planning corrmission's position. By using the "uses not itemized" they would be doing so. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated this is a unique parcel and it is a use not it~mi~ed within the existing PUD. The Board would be required to amend the exlstlng uses. Ms. Kleinschmidt again stated today's hearing is to determine if the Bo~rd should hear the aPI?lication. She reminded the Board for some reason thlS parcel was not iteffilzed. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated the Staff1s willingn~ss to amend the PUD indicated it is I?art of the PUD. Chalrman Johnson asked if the amendment ltself could be the inclusion of the property within the PUD. He asked what use is being asked to be added 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 to the Eagle Vail PUD Guide. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated it is actually already listed. Ms. Kleinschmidt listed the itemized uses. Discussion continued on the proposal. Hugh Warder, a lawyer from Glenwood, is here on behalf of the Eagle Vail Homeowners and is asking this hearing be denied. If they wish to modify the PUD or request a zone change they should do. so. If one applicant is allowed to come in and use this system it will change this entire process. Mr. Warder suggested the appeal process today is either to support staff in their decision or to contend with the applicant that staff is wrong. Mr. Warder suggested if the applicant is unable to determine what zone they are in, they are not a zoned resource and they are trying to change it under an incorrect process. The applicant should be instructed to go back and file the appropriate application. Charles Penwell, property owner, along with other property owners, stated this has been denied before the planning department, the planning corrmission and the Board. As property owners, they subscribe to the process, but feel this is a backdoor process and suggest the Board deny this appeal. Ms. Kleinschmidt stated this is not about Paul's decision and whether it was right or wrong. This is about a request to have the applicant's file heard before the Board. Jon Feeney, homeowner in Eagle Vail, asked if he understands the process correctly, the applicant is asking the Board to have a hearing to decide what to zone this parcel. Chairman Johnson stated they are asking for a hearing to define the uses not itemized. Mr. Feeney asked if then they were asking the Board to assign the parcel zoning without having the input of the staff. Chairman Johnson stated they are being asked to list a zone district within the PUD and he does not feel that Mr. Clarkson's decision was incorrect. Commissioner Gates moved to deny the appeal clarifying they are asking the applicant to go back through the correct process. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Phillips believes this was a parcel of land that got dropped through the hoops. Chairman Johnson called for the question on the motion. Corrmissioners Gates and Johnson voting aye and Corrmissioner Phillips voting no. Ms. Berenato stated a written response will be sent in twenty days. Appeal, Earl & Sandra Skiles The next item on the agenda was a Notice of Appeal for Earl & Sandra Skiles, regarding a decision of Community Development denying a request for a building permit for Joseph and Eldora Skiles. Paul Clarkson stated this is an application by the Skiles concerning an application for a building permit to park a double wide mobil home on a piece of property in Burns. The circumstances in this case is Mr. Skiles family owns a 4 112 acre parcel on which they are two structures. This is a resource, non conforming parcel of land. The resource zone district allows for a main dwelling unit and a caretakers unit. This parcel is not sreater than 35 acres and the structures were on the property before the zonlng. Staff is recorrmending denial of the building permit as this structure is of considerable size. Commissioner Gates asked if Staff's recommendation is to reconstruct the original trailer? Mr. Clarkson responded the desire is not to allow the proliferation of the land use regulations. The question is whether this is a grey area. Corrmissioner Phillips stated replacing a preexisting non conforming use will happen and or should be considered. To replace a building if it is not going to impact anyone anywhere, to replace the facility is acceptable. Mrs. Berenato asked what the Skiles options would be? Either they would have to abandon the building, move in with their parents, or remodel the existing unit. 3 Chairman Johnson asked if there are requirements regarding mobil homes. Mr. Clarkson stated for mobil homes yes. Earl Skiles, applicant, stated they are requesting this so there will be room for them to live in. His parents are in a spot of 900 square feet, he and his wife are in 320. Ms. Berenato asked where in location to his I?arent's house is the applicant's house. Mrs. Berenato asked if an addltion would be permissible. Mr. Montag responded the addition would be acceptable if the 320 square foot trailer was done away with. Chairman Johnson referred to the land regulations and the non conformance. Under 2.2.100(4) the non conforming use could be replaced. . . . .He does not believe by replacing a trailer with a mobil home it does comply with the land use reSUlations. Mrs. Berenato stated there lS an issue of health, safety and welfare of the residents. Corrmissioner Phillips moved to approve the appeal of the Skiles application. Corrmissioner Gates seconded the motion. In discussion, Chairman Johnson suggested this would not be a I?resident setting decision. Ms. Berenato suggested the findings be included ln the motion. The Board concurred. Chairman Johnson called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to come before this Board the meeting was adjourned until October 31, 1995. ~-- Attest: ~ Cler to t e B~ In::;;r ~ .~~ 4