No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/15/07 PUBLIC HEARING May 15,2007 Present: Am Menconi Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Sirnonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board 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: Executive Session It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on County ownership of certain personal property located at the Berry Creek Equestrian Center, the Green Btidge, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District's well easements at Berry Creek, the School District's improvements to Miller Ranch Road and the cancellation ofleases at Summit View Apartments due to the sale to Aspen Skiing Company which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to c.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e) Colorado Revised Statutes. I~was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Resolu.tion 2007-049 acknowledging Jody Caruthers' dedicated public service as a two-term ASsessor for Eagle County Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner Fisher read the resolution for the record. She stated Ms. Caruthers was a special person and dedicated public servant. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve Resolution 2007-049 acknowledging Jody Caruther's dedicated public service as a1wo-term Assessor for Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2007..050 recognizing the Battle Mountain High SchoolProStart Team for culinary excellence in taking first place at the National ProStart Student Invitational Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner RUnyon read the resolution for the record recognizing Ian King, Colby LeFebre, Cam Lewis and Ryan Walker. Sharon Rybol explained the details of the competition. The BMHS students beaU3 other teams to win the invitational in Charlotte, North Carolina in April. All four students plan on pursuing this as their future career. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2007-050 recognizing the Battle Mountain High School ProStart Team for culinary excellence in taking first place at the National ProStart Student Invitational. Cotnmissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2007-051 declaring May 2007 "Older Americans Month" Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services 1 5/15/2007 Cotnmjssioner Menconi read the resolution for the record. Theresolution acknowledges Mayas National Older Americans Month. Over 4500 Eagle County residents are 60 years or age and older, the numbers of "Older Americans" in Eagle County is expected to increase over 60 percent in the next five years. Ms. Forinash introduced Virginia Rose. Ms. Rose has been involved as an "Older American" programs for many decades. Ms. Rose spoke on behalf the hundreds of "Older American" that participate in the County's adult services programs. She recotnmended that everyone always be active and never say I can't, but I will try and always be happy. She expects to live to be one hundred. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2007-051 declaring May 2007 "Older Americans Month" Cotnmissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying forthe week of May 14,2007 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Agreement between Eagle County and Railroad Specialties, Inc. for the removal and replacement of railroad track as part of the Eagle to Gypsum trail project Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails C. Agreement between Eagle County and Calzadillas Landscaping, LLC for landscaping installation along the Seago section of the Eagle to Gypsum Trail Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails D. Agreement between Eagle County and Elam Construction, Inc. for overlay project Road & Bridge Representative E. Agreement for Professional Services for the engineering design of the replacement Colorado River County Road 301 bridge Rick Ullom, Facilities Management F. Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado West Regional Mental Health Center Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services G. Agreement between Eagle County and CASA of the Continental Divide Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services H. Agreement between Eagle County and The Eagle Valley Child Care Association Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services I. Agreement between Eagle County and Meet the Wilderness Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services J. Agreement between Eagle County and Red Canyon High School, Eagle County School District Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services K. Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle River Youth Coalition Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services 2 5/15/2007 L. Agreement between Eagle County and Red Ribbon Project Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services M. Agreement between Eagle County and the Buddy Program Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services N. j First amendment to the consulting agreement between Eagle County and Shapins Associates Attorney's Office Representative O. Amendment to Water Rights Agreement among Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Edwards Metro District, Eagle County and Eagle County School District RE-50J Attorney's Office Representative P. Resolution 2007-052 concerning ambulance licensing standards and appointment of Regional Emergency Trallffia Advisory Council Attorney's Office Representative Q. Emergency Medical Services Ambulance Licensing Standards Attorney's Office Representative R. Resolution. 2()07:'053 directing county staff to prepare and present an amendment to the county guidelines and regulations for matters of state interest to prohibit water projects that deplete streams within or upstream of the wilderness areas located in Eagle County Attorney's Office Representative S. First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Consulting Services between Eagle County and Carter Burgess, Inc. Valerie Hays, Facilities Management T. Agreement between Eagle County and Two Rivers Village to amend Subdivision and Offsite Improvements Agreement Engineering Department Representative U. Resolution 2007..054 in the matter of amending the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; general amendment affecting chapters I, II and III (Eagle County File No. LUR-0071) lena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning V. Resolution 2007-055 of the Special Use Permit for the WhiteIMorris Accessory Dwelling Unit (Eagle County File No. ZS- 00150) Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development W. Resolution 2007..056 of the Special Use Permit for the Spahmer Accessory Dwelling Unit (Eagle County File No. ZS-00145) lena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development X. Resolution 2007-057 of the Sketch Plan for the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park Planned Unit Development expansion (Eagle County File No. PDS-00048) Bob Narracci, Community Development Y. Final Plat and Subdivision and Offsite Improvements Agreement for the Belle Terre Subdivision (Eagle County File No. SMA-00027) Joe Forinash, Community Development Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no concerns on comments on the consent agenda. 3 5/15/2007 Chairman Menconi requested that Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails report on the Eagle to Gypsum trail progress. Ellie Caryl stated that currently the Road and Bridge Department is making excellent progress on the section along Hwy 6. Their goal is to have the trail open by the end of July Cotnmissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-Y. Cotnmissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none Cotntnissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Corfimissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A.Park Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Park Hyatt Beaver Creek Resort and Spa This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in :Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. B. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Saddleridge at Beaver Creek This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. Other Consent C. EagIeValley Chamber ()fCommerce This is a request for two Special Event Permits. Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce will be hosting the Rocky Mountain Horse Expo on June 1-3,2007. The applicant is requesting a permit for June 1,2007 from 1 :00 p.m. to 8:00p.m. at the Eagle River Event Center and June 2, 2007 from 11 :00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Eagle County Fairgrounds in Eagle. All fees have been paid, no protests have been filed, and the various Eagle County departments have stated no objections. Clerk's files indicated that staff has had no problems with events held by this applicant in the past. COnUnissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Cornmissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Cochrane was present. He explained the benefits of the new Eagle River Event Center and stated that he is pleased that the Chamber will be putting on four major events at the facility. He explained the details of the Rocky Mountain Horse Expo held on June 1-3. Commissioner Fisher stated that she believes it's a great idea and she looked forward to spending some time there. She asked if the staff would be checking identification and banding those being served alcohol. Mr. Cochrane stated that there would be individual security checkpoints that each individual has to go through before entering the service area. They will be working with the Eagle County Sheriffs Office for additional security. All of their personnel are TIPS trained. There will also be a strict control on the backpacks. 4 5/15/2007 Cotnmissioner Runyon thanked Mr. Cochran and the Chamber. He stated that this type of event is exactly what they anticipated for the facility. Abatement Hearings Attorney's Office Representative Chairman Menconi asked if any of tpe property owners were present and interested in speaking to the board. No one indicated interest in speaking. Bryan Treu asked the Assessor to give a review of the recommendations. Mark Chapin, County Assessor spoke to the board. He indicated that there were seven abatements on the docket. He provided a brief explanation of each schedule and the reason for the recommended abatements. Petitioner: Schedule No: , Douglas N. Morton The Bowlmor LLC D.L Peterson Trust Wolcott Markett Minturn Realty Int. Tyrolean Real Estate Investments LLC Custom Concepts LLC R039509 P029673 P025649 P002671 R003710 R047149 R057836 Cofu:tnissionet Runyon moved that the Petitions for Abatement/Refund of Ta:xes for the above referenced iridividuals and Schedule Numbers be approved for the tax years, in the amounts, and for the reason as set forth in the AssesSor's reco111mendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion Planning Files ZS-00154 B&B Mont2:ome:tv Site- SUP Amendment Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: To be tabled to 6/12/07 To modify the existing Special Use Permit in order to add a 6,000 sq ft office building and a 5,000 sq ft equipment shop. All other uses shall remain the same. LOCATION: 14955 Hwy 6, Eagle; S6 T5S R84W & S1 T5S R85W Cotnmissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners table file no. ZS-OO 154 B&B Montgomery site-SUP Amendment at the applicant's request. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS~00138 Zip Adventures of Vail Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department ACTION: To introduce a zip-line tour into the current operations at the 4-Eagle Ranch in Wolcott. The zip- line tour will be an ecological event to educate guests about local plant and animal life as well as the Colorado River water system and regional history. LOCATION: Wolcott vicinity on the south side of State Highway 131, south and west of 4-Eagle Ranch; at the south end of Alkali Creek Canyon near the confluence of the Eagle River. 5 5/15/2007 FILE NO./PROCESS: :eROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: ZS-00138/ Special Use Permit Zip Adventures of Vail Wolcott vicinity - south side of Highway 131, southwest of 4-Eagle Ranch The lartd is leased to Tom Backhus, owner 4-Eagle Ranch, from the Denver Water Board Charlie Alexander Rick Pylman Lisa de Graaf APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A, . SUMMARY: the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permitto operate an ecological zip-line tour which will be an addition to the current operations at the 4-Eagle Ranch in Wolcott. Ten to twelve guests will assemble at the Ranch and be given an orientation that will include safety instructions (up to seventy guests per day). Shuttles will then transport the guests to the zip-line site. The tour consists of seven zip-lines spaced along Alkali Creek Canyon, connected by a primitive trail system and takes approximately two to three hours to complete. Guests will be educated about their surroundings including geological.formation, wildlife, flowers, mountain ranges and the pioneer history of Colorado in general and the Eagle Valley in particular. Site development will consist of upgrading the existing access point at Hwy. 131, per a permit granted by CDOT. Wooden decks will be constructed for take-off and landings that will be approximately 12 feet by 8 feet in diameter. The applicant is aware of the possibility that a dam/reservoir may be built in the future so the decks and zip~lirtes ca.n be removed with little effort as may be necessary. the applicant has worked with local agencies to create a safety plan that would ensure regular inspections and a maintenance schedule. In addition, an emergency plan is in place. See attached Site Map. B. SItE DATA: South: East: Vacant Vacant Resource Resource Vacant Land Sloping upland bench, perennial stream with sage and scattered juniper. 11.4 6 5/15/2007 C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Planning Commission met on May 2, 2007 and heard presentations from Staff and the applicant. Several people spoke in favor of the proposal and three (3) letters wete read from supporters that could not attend the meeting. Several issues were discussed and good ideas were brought forth by the Planning Commission for the applicant. they inCluded: . In lieu. of signage that explains wildlife and other ecological issues to the 'gnests, a hand outlbtochure be cteated for the guests to take home with them. . Per recommendations from the CDOW, install a mechanism to visually alert the raptors of the zip line. . Screening of the pott.;.o-let . Add a condition that ensures the applicant work with the CDOW to implement a sign to discourage hunters from parking on the site, which has been an historical use (and an illegal use). . Add langllage to condition # 1 that in addition to the visit after the first year, they also Visit every two years thereafter for the next ten (10) years, to determine if there ate any problems related to the disturbance of the site and erosion control. . Add language to COndition # 9 that states that if a historic resource were to be found per ~n Archeological survey, that all requirements and processes from the State are followed. . Add language to condition # 4 that states that the reseeding of all disturbed areas be implemented with best management practices for replanting. The Commission voted unanimously to Recommend to Approve File ZS-00138. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5.;.250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed 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. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the 7 5/15/2007 Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate ,to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, Or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREm::NSIvE PLAN x x x x x XI x X Xl... Comments frolD the nOW and staff included concerns for the migratory routes of mule deer and visual options be added for the raptures. The applicant has addressed that by agreeing to operate from May 1 to December 1. See C()nditions 2, 3. WOLCOTT ARE:ACOMMUNlTY PLAN X X X X X X X X X EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN 8 5/15/2007 Xl- Seeexpla.na.tion above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS .....~:~~~~~b=~ ~=~:NDARDS STANbARD: Compatibitity. [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. South: Vacant Resource X East: Vacant Resource X West: Vacant Resource X ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ,... . MEETS THE MAJOiUTY OF MINIMUM ST AljDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.B.3] 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 Avplicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. - The following are the Standards for Resort Recreational Facility, which are not applicable to the Zip Line type of use, however allowed with a Special Use Permit. Resort Recreational Facility. Where a resort recreational facility provides accommodations, the maximum number of accommodations shall be limited as follows: 1. Resource (R) Zone District. Twelve (12) dwelling units or forty-eight (48) beds of visitor capacity may be allowed in the Resource (R) zone district; and 2. Backcountry (BC) Zone District. One (1) dwelling unit or twenty (20) beds of visitor capacity may be allowed in the Backcountry (BG) zone district. 9 5/15/2007 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMuM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minilllizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. Xl- Issues such as trash, parking, noise and loading were all preliminary concerns ofthis project, and discussions with the applicant have satisfied those concerns. However because this nse is new and the bnpactsare unknown, close monitoring of operations for the next year will determine if they have actually been met. See Condition # 1. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS .. . MEETS T>>EMAJORITY OF WNlMUMSTANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minilllizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5] Theproposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildli e habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. X X x XI X x X Xl- Wildlife issues have been addressed; operations will commence from May 1 to December 1 to allow for migratory routes. In addition, if in the unlikely event that an eagle nest is discovered within a ~ mile radius of a zip line, it will have to be closed until further notice. The applicant is aware of this recommendation and has agreed to the terms. 10 5/15/2007 H EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETSMINIMUMSTANDARDS · MEETS TREMAlORlTY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS J 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 emer enc medical serVices. x x X XI x x X Xl~ At the request of Eagle County Dept. of Environmental Health. and staff, a port-let will be placed at the site and maintained with recommendations of the serVice provider. See Condition #6. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ME,EtSTHE MAJORITY?F MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARI>: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7J The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. X X X X X X X X X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Wildlife Protection (Section 4~41 0) Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) 2,3 4 11 5/15/2007 X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Sec~ion 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) 4 X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ,,', M, E,ETS TIlE MA10mY OF MrnThruM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS stANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8} 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ... . ~~~~~~E=O=::~=~~DARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated April 6, 2007. . How many guests will partake in each tour? . Per the requirements of the access permit, a Notice to Proceed from CDOT must be issued prior to any work to improve the access. . The road plan and profile for the improved access does not show the full extent of grading and improvements. This plan is also not drawn to scale. Please provide a scalable drawing that shows the grading and profile from Hwy 131 to the end of disturbance. . The grading and road improvements appear to reach into the wetlands at the stream crossing. This is a sensitive area and will require a permit or approval from the Army Corps of Engineers'. . There is no turn-around mentioned in the project description. There will be a need for vehicles entering the site to turn around when preparing to leave. . Please provide this location and any related grading on a site plan. . There is no discussion for the creation of the trails between the zip-line platforms. As previously discussed, graded trails aren't desired in this area, but defined trails to keep guests from wandering in undisturbed areas are necessary. Some discussion withthe Forest Service or other trail groups might be helpful on how to build and maintain the trails with minimal impact. Please provide discussion or plans for trail construction and use. 12 5/15/2007 . As guests are waiting at each platform, there should be a defined waiting area to keep people from venturing into undistUrbed terrain. Please describe how this situation will be handled. . Please describe the planned operation hours and seasons of operation. . We have a concern that people may use the access road if the gate is left open during all hours of operation. Consider only leaving the gate open while tour vans are on site and having the van driver open the gate when arriving and close the gate when leaving. . Due to the proximity of the zip-line course to Hwy 131, there may be an attraction for people to enter the site from the highway. This is a concern if people were to access the zip-line platforms during the hours of operation, when the locking mechanisms are not in place. Is it possible to keep each tower locked at all times except for when a tour is taking place, or will there continuously be tours on site during operating hours? Review #2 1. We would like to revisit this application after a year of operation to determine if there are any problems related to the distu!bance of the site and erosion control. . See Conditions No. 1,2,4,10 Eagle County Dept. Euvironmental Health - Please refer to attachment dated April 2, 2007. . 1. Soils in this area are extremely erosive. Added care must be taken to control erosion when constructing platform infrastructure and while developing the trail system. We reconnnend providing specific plans along with a grading permit to properly mitigate these issues. 2. Our experience is that recreational drop-off spots as is being proposed often times require sanitation services or portable toilets. We understand the proposal is not to include portable toilets at this time but it should 1:>e noted that it will be the responsibility of the property owner to assure that the site remain free of any waste materials, including trash. . SeeConduwnsNo.~6 Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources - Please refer to attachment dated March 30, 2007. Eight lines would cross Alkali Creek, which cuts down about 100 ft over a distance of 14 mile. The platforms would be anchored in the Dakota sandstone and the Benton Shale. HP has tabulated the ground slope at the individual platforms and the distance of the platforms to the top of the cliff. Hp'provides preliminary engineering analyses but the competency of the bedrock would need to be verified at each of the platform locations. The Benton Shale and any claystone layers in the Dakota that could affect foundation performance should be analyzed for swell potential; moderate to high swell would necessitate foundation mitigation for the platforms. It appears from Figure 3 that platforms 4L and 6L would be located at the cliff edge. This area should be examined closely, as the rock strength could be affected by exposure and erosion. Erosion protection should be in place before grading at the site begins to prevent sedimentation to Alkali Creek. The upgrade to the access road will require culvert installation (in addition to an improved creek crossing). Permanent erosion protection methods should be installed at drainage outfalls. Disturbed areas should be reseeded as soon as possible. Based bn observations during my site visit, there would be only small impact from possible debris flows. In summary, the HP report provides a good overview of the site conditions, and their recommendations should be followed during development. Please call me if there are any questions. . See Condition No.4 Colorado Division of Wildlife - Please refer to attachment dated March 30, 2007 The CDOW would like to commend Charlie Alexander for putting together a plan proposal whith has been well thought out and organized. The main concerns for the CD OW are the mule deer which travel to and from the area in migratory routes as well as inhabit the area in dense numbers during the colder months of the year. Mule deer are sensitive to both sight and sound disturbances which is why the CDOW recommends a closure period frorn December 1 to May 1. This closure would prevent disturbance to the deer while on their winter range, 13 5/15/2007 seVere winter range or migrating to or from the winter range located within the proposed project area. This closure period is a compromise between a broader migration period and narrow winter range occupancy period. Additional evaluations could be conducted by the CDOW if conditions are not severe enough to warrant a closure to May 1 in given year with the understanding that the December 1 to May 1 closure would stand unless after a site visit(s) the CDOW feels comfortable advising otherwise. A second concern from the CDOW would be the impact of the wires on resident and migrating raptors and other species of birds. Within the proposed project's area there are populations of Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Red-tailed Hawk, Peregrine Falcon as well as Greater Sage Grouse, owls, Great Blue Herons and other birds of prey. Bald Eagles are foundto have a winter concentration within the boundaries of the projected site. If the Eagles develop a nest site within the proposed site, the CDOW would need to be notified and the CDOW would recommend a Yz miles buffer zone from the nest between the months of November to July and a 1;4 mile buffer zone throughout the rest of the year. The CDOW recommends a 14 mile buffer zone surrounding a Golden Eagle best site. An additional concern from the CDOW is the possible conflict between the above mentioned species of birds and the wires used in the zip lines. If possible, the CDOW suggests any visual deterrent on or surrounding the wires so that the wires are visible but still able to be used for their intended purpose. Additionally, if any perimeter fencing is deemed necessary for security or any other reasons, the CDOW recorntnends wildlife friendly fencing guidelines. For a wire fence, we are recommending wire heights for 16-22-28-40 inches. The top and bottom wires should be smooth and the middle wires can be barbed. Our recotnmendation for a three wire fence is 16-26-38 inches, again top and bottom wire smooth. Since any fence within the scope of the proposed project would be within an area often traveled by deer, flagging the top wire will greatly reduce the frequency of damage to the top wire as well as the wildlife attempting to cross the fence. . SeeConduwnslVo.~3 Colorado Historical Society - Please refer to attachment dated April 10, 2007 OUr office has reviewed the submitted materials. The proposed project will have no effect on any historic properties. However, it is possible that there are archaeological resources inthis area; these may be disturbed by the project. We encourage you to consider surveying the proposed project area for archaeological resoUrces prior to undertaking this project. . See Condition lVo. 9 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Assessor; Road and Bridge Department; Sheriff's Office; Housing; School District; Weed & Pest . Colorado State: CDOT; Water Resources; CGS . Federal: BLM; USDA . Service Districts; WECAD (ambulance); Greater Eagle FPD . Homeowners; Red Sky; Bellyache Ridge. C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The benefits ofthis proposal include an educational and fun event that has minimal impacts and can be considered a temporary use of the land overall. In addition, the tour may be beneficial to the overall economics of the County. The disadvantages are that this type of use is very new to our area and the impacts are unknown; to the environment, infrastructure and otherwise. Although all of the referral comments have been addressed/satisfied, an annual revisit of the application would be warranted. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in 14 5/15/2007 compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulatiol1sand with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request with conditions and/or performance sta.ndards if it is deterrriinedthat certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, . health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Lisa De Graaf presented the request. She highlighted the Planning Commission's deliberation and motiOns. Commissioner Runyon asked if the conditions were different from the Planning Commission's recommendations. Ms. De Graaf stated that they were not different. Rick Pylman representing the applicant was present and spoke to the board. LMG Inc. is trying to create this type of activity in Wolcott. Charlie and Cathy Alexander are the applicants. The property is under lease to the Four Eagle Ranch and owned by the DenverW ater Board. This would be a sub operation of the Four Eagle Ranch. They propose to install 7 zip lines from easy .ahd short to mote difficult and longer. T.hose participating would start at Four Eagle Ranch. Parking would be provided for transportation vans, there would be a turnaround area and screened portable bathroom facilities. Charlie Alexander spoke to the board. He highlighted the tour operation expectations. He indicated that the guides would communicate via radio. The lines are between 25 and 75 yards apart. These tours are very popular in Costa Rico, Mexico and the Caribbean. He indicated that he had received requests for this type of tour. Park City added their tour in 2000. He showed some of the safety equipment that would be used. He indicated that the design is approved by various agencies. The cable would be Y:z inch in diameter and have a 2600 pound breaking strength. The harnesses would be rigged for 7000 pounds. He explained the specifications for the ground anchors. Each evening the zip line will be locked down to the ground. Annual inspections would be performed by Experience Based Learning. He stated that the county comprehensive plan encourages tourist based activities. It offerS a non-skiing activity. The demographics would be more families than individuals. Mr. Pylman reiterated that Mr. Alexander is a long time Eagle County business owner and has always been very committed to safety. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Lorie Johnson spoke to the board as a local small business owner. She spoke in favor of this project and the owner's integrity. She read a letter in support of the tour from Rob Levine of the Antlers at Vail. She read another letter in support from Michael Brown. Jim Spahtner spoke to the board. He stated that the proposal looked very well done. He showed the area of his property. He has reservations about these tours. He is concerned about the potential noise from screaming customers. His future residence would be impacted by this type of tour. Jan Jouflas, Wolcott resident agreed with Jim Spahmer. She is also concerned about the location. She thinks it would be great in a different valley. This particular valley is extremely hot and the towers would not be visually impacted because there are no trees in the area to hide them. The land in question is quite arid, she doesn't like the location. She wondered ifthe lines could be seen from the 1-70 corridor. 15 5/15/2007 Mr. Alexander indicated that the towers are only 6 to 8 feet tall. Ms. Jouflas also indicated that in other areas with this type of tour people are required to not distract motorists by wearing light colored clothing. Kim Spahmer spoke to the board. She mentioned that 8 foot tall towers would still not be camouflaged by trees and she believes this tour will create an eye sore for the area. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Mr. Alexander stated that he understands their concerns and would like to have the opportunity to work with them to resolve their issues. Commissioner Runyon stated that he had received a call from Tom Backus, owner of Four Eagle Ranch in favor of the project. He wondered if the operation would be self-regulated through the EBL. He asked about state licensing. Mr. Alexander indicated that there are regulatory agencies involved. The insurance companies are also involved. Cotnmissioner Runyon wondered if Aerial Tramways was interested in being involved. Mr. Alexander indicated that they were not. Commissioner Runyon asked about sufficient insurance. Mr. Alexander stated that Snyder InSurance would cover the facilities. They intend to carry a policy With a $1,000,000 liability and a $3,000,000 umbrella. The zip lines are not seen from the Interstate at all. Cotnmissioner Runyon stated that he is not worried about the visu.al impact if the applicant works with the Spahmers. He wondered about distraction for motorists. Mr. Alexander stated that the zip lines are not very visible from highway 131. Commissioner Fisher asked about raptors nesting in the area. She wondered if there would be something on the wires that would provide a visu.al for these raptors. Mr. Alexander indicated that there is the opportunity for flags on the wires to educate the birds. There could also be paint marks along the wires. Commissioner Fisher stated that she has also done zip lines and wondered about weight and height restrictions. Mr. Alexander stated that there is a weight range to make sure the person can get across the zip line. They screen the guests to determine medical history or issues. Commissioner Fisher asked about the cost. Mr. Alexander stated that the cost would be from $100.00 to $125.00, which would be based on the length of time for the tours. Commissioner Fisher wondered about local rates for schools etc. Mr. Alexander stated that he would have these types of rates. Commissioner Fisher stated that she is concerned about the impact to the topography and the pathways and trails in between. She wondered about opportunities to mitigate impacts. Mr. Alexander stated that he is trying to minimize these impacts. They are trying to make the tour between one hour and one and one half hour. Commissioner Fisher asked the Spahmers about their future home and whether there would be a visual impact. Jim Spahmer indicated that the site for their permanent house would probably not be impacted. Commissioner Menconi stated that he thinks it is a great proposal. He asked Ms. DeGraaf whether Bill Heicher was on the Planning Commissioner when this request was heard. Ms DeGraaf indicated that he was. Commissioner Menconi indicated his favor. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file no. ZS-00138 Zip Line Adventures of Vail Special Use Permit including the suggested conditions 1 through 12. 1. Revisit this application after a year of operation, and every two years thereafter for the next ten (10) years, to determine ifthere are any problems related to the disturbance of the site and erosion control. 16 5/15/2007 2. Operation ofthe zip line can commence May 1 through December I of any year unless after a site visit(s) the CDOW feels comfortable advising otherwise. 3. All other recommendations from the CD OW are followed. 4. Erosion protection should be in place before grading at the site begins to prevent sedimentation to Alkali Creek. Permanent erosion protection methods should be installed at drainage outfalls and disturbed areas should be reseeded as soon as possible with best management practices for planting and reseeding in mind. The HP report provides a good overview of the site conditions, and their recommendations should be followed during development. ' 5. Any signage on the site needs approval from Community Development. 6. A portable toilet is installed at the site and is maintained by best practices recommend by the provider. In addition, trash is removed from the site daily. 7. The gate to the site/zip line be locked at all times, including during operation. 8. A copy of the Notice to Proceed certificate from CDOT must be provided to the engineering department. 9. An Archaeologist will need to walk the site (survey) and determine that no archaeological resources are present. If a resource is discovered, the applicant must follow the State process for such a finding. Furthermore, a copy of his /her report will then be provided to Community Development. 10. Please follow #6 of your (the applicants) letter dated April 9, 2007 in regards to constructing trails between the zip lines. 11. The applicant will cooperate with the CDOW to create and implement signage to discourage hunter parking at the site. 12. 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. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion for discussion. She feels that this is an inappropriate location due to the pristine aspect of the cliffs. She believes that this proposal would deter the special visual quality of the space. She indicated that she would be more enthusiastic with another less special and unique location. Commissioner Runyon stated that he appreciates Commissioner Fisher's opinion and those concerns were weighing for him as well but he believes that having the additional amenity for recreational tourists is at the core of what Eagle County's economic base is. The vote was called. Commissioner Runyon and Menconi voted in favor of the proposal and Commissioner Fisher voted against it. The motion passed with a 2 to I vote. PDF- 00097 Willits Bend PUD Final Plat Joseph Forinash, Planning Department ACTION: A final plat to subdivide this 4.6 acre site into 2 lots and a tract for a right-of way for a mixed use development which will consist of up to 92,555 square feet of floor area for commercial and ligl1t industrial uses and to include up to 16 dwelling units. 17 5/15/2007 LOCATION: 1712 Willits Lane (east of Park Avenue and the Oak Grove Townhouses; west of Aspen-Basalt Campground and Mobil Home Park) OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Willits Bend Development Company (Steve Crowley, President) Willits Bend Development Company (Steve Crowley, President) Doug Dotson STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: A final plat to subdivide this 4.6 acre site into 2 lots and a tract for a right-of way for a mixed use development which will consist of up to 92,555 square feet of floor area for commercial and light industrial uses and to include up to 16 dwelling units. STAFF REPORT A. REFER:IlAL RESPONSES: All referral responses have been satisfactorily addressed. B. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES: None. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-280. B.5.b(3). Final Plat for Subdivision - Action bv the Board of County Com.missioners. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following finding is rnade: The Final Plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for Subdivision for the Willits Bend Planned Unit Development, and Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e, Subdivision Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following findings are made: (1) Consistent Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan; (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all of the standards ofthis Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards; (3) Spatial Patterns Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve IDtimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate population ofthe service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions ARE allowed only when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 18 5/15/2007 (4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. (5) Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrotmding area. (6) Adequate Facilities. The development will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relatiotfto schools, police and fire protection, and ernergency medical servIces. Pursuant to Section 4-700, School Land Dedication Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following findings are made: The Applicant HAS provided an appraisal in the form of a Summary Appraisal Report, completed by an appraiser licensed or certified in the State of Colorado and dated no more than six (6) months prior to the date of the application, which has established the full market value of the land to be platted, based on anticipated market value after completion of platting, in the total amount of $4,750,000, which is a per acre value of$1,025,696.30 for the 4.631 acre parcel. Flltt:her, based on a school land dedication requirement of 0.04 acres for the Willits Bend PUD, a cash in- lieu-payment of $41,027.85 IS reasonable and appropriate. DISCUSSION: Mr. Forinash presented the proposal. The project will be phased in. He showed a site plan of the built out subdivision. There would be a total of 9 buildings on the site. Each of the building locations Will ultimately be condotniniumized. Staff findings are positive and approval is recommended. Glen Rappaport, architect was present along with the owner and attorney. They are excited about the projeCt. They look forward to the next step. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Cotntnissioner Fisher asked how many residential units would be included. Mr. Rappaport indicated that there would be 16 live / work Units. CommissionerFisher wondered about the square footage for the units. Mr. Rappaport stated that these units would be divided into 1000 square foot areas. They would be deed restricted units. Mr. Dave Myler stated that this was not yet specified. The units would be allocated when they deal with individual business owners. Only individuals working full time in the Roaring Fork Valley would be eligible to pm'chase these live / work units. Commissioner Fisher asked if they would be owner occupied. She was trying to dete~ine how many people could live above the work areas. Mr. Rappaport stated that there could be many individuals living in the residential areas of the units_ Mr. Myler clarified that at least 4 units would be designated as live / work. Mr. Forinash stated that the covenants would not limit the number of occupants in each unit. Commissioner Runyon asked if anything was imposed on the preliminary plat. Mr. Forinash stated that there were a number of conditions related to housing. Commissioner Runyon wondered if all conditions had been met. Mr. Forinash indicated that they had been met. Commissioner Runyon indicated concern about the caveat that "up to 16 units" must be provided. Mr. Rappaport stated that there are two financial provisions, which would be added to the four deed restricted units. 19 5/15/2007 Commissioner Runyon asked about the management of the deed restricted units. Mr. Myler stated that a non-profit organization would be created for these units. This is primarily a service/commercial project, not a residential project. They have agreed that 10% of the commercial space will have a price restriction on it. Chairman Menconi expressed his appreciation for the work the applicants have done. He has always liked the concept. Mr. Rappaport stated that they have started taking refundable reservations and about 75% of these are from artisan / craft people. Cotnmissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve File No. PDF-00097, incorporating the Staff findings, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat and the Subdivision and Off-Site Improvements Agreement. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0069 Land Use Re2:ulation Amendment and ZC-00086 Zone Chan2:e Bob Narracci, Planning Department AC'flON: Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation to create a new "Resource Preservation" zone district in an effort to proactively address the potential eventuality ofU.S.F.S. and BLM Lands being sold into private ownership. LOCATION: N/A FILE NO./PROCESS: LUR-0069 / Land Use Regulation Amen~ment ZC-00086 / Zone Change All Federal Lands in Unincorporated Eagle County United States Forest Service ~nd Bureau of Land Management Eagle County LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. REQUEST SUMMARY: Federally owned lands within Eagle County may potentially be sold and / or traded by the Federal Government into private ownership. In an effort to proactively address this potential eventuality, it is proposed to create a new zone district designation referred to as "Resource Preservation". Presently, all federally owned lands, excluding designated Wilderness Areas, located within unincorporated Eagle County are zoned "Resource". The "Resource" zone district, originally created and applied in 1974 is the County's most permissive agricultural zone district, allowing one Primary Residence and one Accessory Dwelling Unit per 35 acre parcel. The "Resource" zone district also governs the majority of privately ',_ owned lands in unincorporated Eagle County and therefore allows numerous land uses by-right. The Federally owned Eagle's Nest Wilderness and Holy Cross Wilderness areas are currently zoned "Back Country". The "Back Country" zone district, originally created and applied in 1992 is the County's most restrictive zone district. The "Back Country" zone district allows very few land uses by-right, with the intent of more rigorously protecting these sensitive lands from human caused impacts. The proposed "Resource Preservation" zoning classification represents a hybrid of the "Resource" and "Back Country" zone districts. Many of the land uses by-right enjoyed by private owners of "Resource" zoned property may be inappropriate in more remote areas that are currently owned by the Federal Government. Conversely, the "Back Country" zone district may be considered to be overly restrictive if applied to all federally owned lands outside of the designated wilderness areas. The intended effect of this new "Resource Preservation" zone district is to restrict the uses-by-right of these lands should they become privately owned; thereby necessitating review and approval by Eagle County of any type of new development or subdivision. The purpose of the Resource Preservation (RP) zone district 20 5/15/2007 is to preserve the open character and associated public benefits of those lands in Eagle County, and not located entirely within the boundaries of an existing city or town, that are owned by the Federal Government on the date of adoption of this zone district in the event of sale of such lands by the federal government into private ownership. This is accomplished by disallowing certain land uses; requiring County approval for other land uses which may negatively impact the scenic quality a.nd open character of these lands and by limiting residential development to one dwelling unit per 80 acres. The new "Resource Preservation" zone district, if approved, will become relevant only when and if land presently owned by the United States Forest Service or Bureau 0fLand Management should be sold into private ownership, at which time said land will automatically become subject to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations relating to "Resource Preservation". Please note that Eagle County fully intends to retain the ability to evaluate the environmental impacts caused by land uses located on federally owned property which are not federal government projects such as reservoirs, ski area expansions, resort recreation facilities and high & low power wireless communication facilities. The land use processes historically utilized by Eagle County to evaluate potential environmental impacts include the Special Use Permit process and the 1041 Permitting process. B. PLANNINGCOMMlSSIONDELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION: Eagle, County Planning Commission: · Questioned situations where federally owned land is surrounded by a Town boundary but the Town has never officially annexed said federal parcel; if the land becomes privately owned will it become part of the Town or is it an unincorporated enclave? · Is there anything that can be done to encourage good land trades? · Can we tie stipulation of the contracts (for trade or purchase of federal land) contingent upon County approvals? . · State Land Board land should be included in addition to federal lands. · Community Development needs to rezone State Land Board lands when the time is right in the future. Eagle County needs to take.this stance. · If we can do this legally then we should. Following deliberations, the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the regulatory amendment to create the new 'Resource Preservation' zone district, as well as, the zone change to apply the Resource Preservation zone district to all federal lands located within unincorporated Eagle County. Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission: The RFVRPC unanimously recommended approval of the regulatory amendment to create the new 'Resource Preservatidn' zone district including the below recommended conditions of approval regarding the list of proposed uses within the Resource Preservation zone district: . RecvclingCollection or Drop Off Centers should require Special Use Permits versus an administrative review. Land Application of Domestic or Industrial Sludge should be precluded from the Resource Preservation zone district versus a Special Use Permit review. Processing (including alfalfa pellet mill, saw mill. gravel crushing, asphalt or concrete batch plant, but excluding primary wood processing) should be precluded from the Resource Preservation zone district versus a Special Use Permit Review. Boarding Stables should require Special Use Permits versus being allowed by-right. Forestry should require a Special Use Permit versus being allowed by-right. Sales of Commercial Firewood should be precluded from the Resource Preservation zone district versus a Special Use Permit review. . . . . . 21 5/15/2007 . Sports Complexes should be precluded from the Resource Preservation zone district versus a Special Use Permit review. . Sports Shooting Ranges should be precluded from the Resource Preservation zone district versus a Special Use Permit review. . Lastly, the language utilized to describe 'Processing' needs to be embellished to not preclude the preparation of firewood from fallen trees so as to be distinguished from a saw mill. I.E.: Processing (including alfalfa pellet mill, saw mill, gravel crushing, asphalt or concrete batch plant, but excluding primary woodprocessing and firewood processing) The RFVRPC also unanimously recommended approval of the zone change to apply the Resource Preservation zone district to all federal lands within unincorporated Eagle County. 2. STAFF REPORT C. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Zone District Map Official Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations, by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages, to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals. the proposed amendments HA VE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs; Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice. Public notice HAS been given; Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments will amend the text of: . Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3-210 RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL, RESOURCE, BACKCOUNTRY, FULFORD HISTORICAL AND RESOURCE PRESERVATION ZONE DISTRICTS (am XX/XXl07), · Chapter II, Article 3, Table 3-300 RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL l\ND RESOURCE, ZONE DISTRICT& USE SCHEDULE (am. XX/XX/07), . Chapter II, Article 3, Table 3-340, SCHEDULE OF DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS and Chapter II, Article 6, Section 6-120: NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and; 22 5/15/2007 · Will also amend the Official Zone District Map. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided (please see attached) Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: Section 3.2 General Development Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k · Policy 'a' is not applicable. . Policy 'c' speaks to managing growth for future sustainability by striving for a healthy balance between economic success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment. The proposed Resource Preservation zone district implements this policy. · Policy 'e' is not applicable. · Policy 'f' states that, "New communities proposed for unincorporated areas of the County should be subject to a thorough and rigorous set of development criteria". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district implements this policy. · Policy' g' is not applicable. · Policy 'h' is not applicable. · Policy 'i' states that, "A cluster style of development should be encouraged, especially in areas where cultural, environmental or scenic resources at risk". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district implements this policy. · Policy 'k' is not applicable. Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c, d, e, f, h, j, m and 0 · Policy 'b' is not applicable. · Policy 'c' states that, "Those qualities that make Eagle County a world class tourist destination and a great place to live, work and play should be identified, promoted and protected". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district implements this policy. · Policies'd, e, f, and h' are not applicable. · Policy 'j' states that, "Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations". Theproposed Resource Preservation zone district is consistent with this policy. · Policy 'k' states that, "Timber harvesting and mining should be recognized as viable economic activities, so long as negative social, cultural and environmental impacts are appropriately mitigated". Forestry activities will not be hindered by the proposed Resource Preservation zone district. · Policies 'm and 0' are not applicable. Section 3.4 Housine: · Policies 'a, d, e, g and n' are not applicable. Policies a, d, e, g and n Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g, i, j, k, m and 0 · Policies 'a, c, g, i, j, k, m and 0' are not directly applicable. Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, hand i · Policies 'a, c, g, I, j, k, m and 0' are not directly applicable. Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i 23 5/15/2007 . Policy 'a' states that, "The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district helps implement this policy. . Policy 'b' states that, "The well-being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and protected". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district helps implement this policy. . Policy 'c' states that, "The well-being of wildlife species of less economic importance and those on the rare and endangered species list should be actively monitored and protected. The proposed Resource Preservation zone district helps implement this policy. . Policy 'd' states that, "Development in areas critical.to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will help implement this policy. . Policy 'e' states that, "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will help implement this policy. . Policy 'f' states that, "Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will assist in implementing this policy. . Policy 'i' states that, "Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need to preserve quality wildlife habitat". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will assist in implementing this policy. Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g · Policy 'a' states that, "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will assist in implementing this policy. . Policy 'b' states that, "The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the integrity of the natural environment and the visual quality of the area". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will assist in implementing this policy. . Policy 'c' states that, "Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic and archeological value". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will assist in implementing this policy. . Policy 'e' states that,"A variety of approaches should be utilized preserve land as open space". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will indirectly assist in implementing this policy. . Policy 'g' states that, "Appropriate access should be provided to public lands and rivers". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will assist in implementing this policy. Section 3.9 Environmental Qualitv · Policies 'a, c and d' are not applicable. Policies a, c and d Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a . Policy 'a' states that, "Zone changes and site-specific land use proposals should reflect the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and the goals and objectives set forth within Area Community Plans, as applicable". The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will assist in implementing this policy. Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals, policies and FLUM designations Additionally, all relevant goals & policies of the following plans or such equivalent plans and/or future plans, which may be in effect at the time of application for zone change: Eagle County Open Space Plan Eagle River Watershed Plan Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan 24 5/15/2007 Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub-Area Master Plan · By and large, the sub-area plans are not applicable to the proposed Resource Preservation zone district. Generally, the proposed zone district will help to protect the Eagle River watershed thereby making the Resource Preservation zone district consistent with the spirit and intent of the Eagle River Watershed Plan. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Compatible\with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2} Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? pimensionallimitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will serve to maintain compatibility of future land uses ill the event that United States Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management land is ever transferred into private ownership. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3} Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi- modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. As stated above, the purpose of the Resource Preservation (RP) zone district is to preserve the open character and associated public benefits of those lands in Eagle County, and not located entirely within the boundaries of an existing city or town, that are owned by the Federal Government on the date of adoption of this zone district in the event of sale of such lands by the federal government into private ownership. This is accomplished by disallowing certain land uses; requiring County approval for other land uses which may negatively impact the scenic quality and open character ofthese lands and by limiting residential development to one dwelling unit per 80 acres. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE 25 5/l5/2007 STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4} Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occUJred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Eighty percent of Eagle County's overall land area is federally owned. It is anticipated that due to development pressures over time it may become more attractive for the Federal Government to liquidate its land holdings. There are several sizeable federally owned enclaves of land within Eagle County sUITounded:bY private lands which, if transferred into private ownership have the potential to result in 35 acre subdivisions under the existing 'Resource' zoning. These 35 acre subdivisions may occur, without the benefit of County review, in areas which may not have suitable access and! or are encumbered by a variety of natural hazard and lack of supportive infrastructure. The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will restrict uses by right compelling perspective developers to pursue land use approval through the County via the public land use process. Conditions have changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequllte Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? This all1e~clment will not result in the need for new infrastructure. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE C. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated April 17,2007. Several recommendations have been provided regarding specific uses and whether they should be allowed by-right, by special use permit or by limited review. Eagle River Fire Protection District - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated March 26,2007. The district offered no recommendations. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management - Please refer to the attached letter dated April 9, 2007. The letter indicates that the proposed Resource Preservation zone district is compatible with the 1984 Glenwood Springs Field Office's Resource Management Plan and will not negatively affect the management of Bureau of Land Management administered public lands in Eagle County. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, White River National Forest - Please refer to the attached letter dated May I, 2007. The USFS maintains that what Eagle County is attempting to accomplish, "violates the United States Constitution and is preempted". This is premised on the belief that, "the proposed new zoning classification for federal land would serve to artificially depress the values of federal land by severely limiting its development potential". Also, "the restrictions would significantly 26 5/15/2007 dimillish the public's interest in acquisition of the land because of the burdensome development restrictions". Colorado State Historical Society - Please refer to the attached letter dated April 11, 2007. The letter states that, "We appreciate the additional efforts proposed by Eagle County to protect its cultural and natural resources" . Land Planning Collaborative - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated March 29,2007. A lengthy response is provided expressing concern that the proposed Resource Preservation zone district "will only compel the USFS / BLM to actually trade MORE land than what is currently required to equalize values between federal and private parcels". Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: · Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Assessor; ECO Trails/Transit; Historical Society; Housing Division; Road and Bridge Department; School District; Sheriff's Office; Surveyor; Weed and Pest; Wildfrre Mitigation Specialist; · All private planning firms in Eagle County; · All private ellgilleering and surveying firms in Eagle County; · All listed private architectural and construction firms in Eagle County and surrounding region; · Colorado State: CDOT; Department of Local Affairs; Division of Minerals and Geology; Division of Water Resources; Colorado Divtsion of Wildlife; Forest Service; Geological Survey; Water Conservation Board; · Bureau of Land Management; Natural resource Conservation Service (USDA); US Army Corps of Engineers; US Forest Service; · Ambulance DiStrict; Fire Districts; Excel Energy; Qwest/Century/San Isabel Telecom; Special Districts; · Basalt Water Conservancy; CDHPE Air and Water Divisions; Mid Valley Trails Committee; Postmaster; Roaring Fork Transportation Authority; Home Builders Association; AIA; Cattleman's Association; · Town of Avon, ToWn of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Basalt, Town of Gypsum. Further, approximately 3000 adjacent property owners within Eagle County have been notified of this proposal; 69 of whom contacted the County for additional information - the majority of which were pleased with the proposal. Eleven individuals wrote letters 1 e-mails of support for this proposal, their comments are attached. D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefi ts/Disadvantages: Benefits: The proposed Resource Preservation zone district will pro actively place Eagle County in a better position to address: . The IIlcreasing possibility of frequent sales of land owned by USFS or BLM to private developers; . If government land sold, developments rights depend on zoning conditionally applicable to such land . Eagle County current zoning ofUSFS and BLM is Resource, allowing.35 acre development . 35 acre development results in inefficient use ofland, large infrastructure costs, sprawl . Proposed "Resource Preservation" zoning will permit increased County oversight of development plans by requiring special use permit for residential or commercial development 27 5/15/2007 . Proposed "Resource Preservation" zoning also will require minimum 80 acres to encourage consolidation of land into planned developments · New zoning will not apply to either government land located entirely within the boundaries of a town or city or embedded privately owned mining claim land · New zoning will be come operable only if and when federal land is sold to private parties Disadvantage: . The USFS and BLM may be compelled to trade and 1 or sell more land to equalize the values between federal and private parcels. E. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: *Please note that tWo separate motions are required: 1) LUR-0069 (Land Use Regulation Amendment), and; 2) ZC~00086 (Zone Change). 5. Approve the Land Use Regulation Amendment and Zone Change request without conditiolls ifit is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and!or other applicable master plans). 6. Deny the Land Use Regulation Amendment and Zone Change request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not atfunedwith the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations andwith the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 7. Table the Land Use RegulationAmendment and Zone Change request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve the Land Use Regulation Amendment and Zone Change request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and!or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the file. The request is based on the increasing possibility or likelihood ofland owned by the USFS or BLM being sold to private developers. If government land is sold, development rights depend on zoning conditionally applicable to such land. Eagle County's current zoning is Resource, allowing 35 acre development. 35 acre development results in inefficient use of land, large infrastructure costs and sprawl. Proposed classification will permit increased County oversight of development plans by requiring special use permit for residential or commercial development. The proposed resource preservation zoning will require minimum 80 acre per residence to encourage consolidation ofland into planned developments. This proposal was referred to over 280 local and state agencies seeking comment and over 3000 letters were sent to adjacent property owners as well. The majority of the responses were positive. The BLM has indicated that this proposal could affect its land tenure program and hinder the opportunity for the public to exchange or purchase BLM land. Eagle County has twice in the past applied zoning to federal lands. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rezoning represents a viable land planning tool. The Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission also recommended approval. They went through the use of 28 5/15/2007 proposed possible uses and felt that recycling centers should require special use permits along with application of domestic Or industrial sludge, processing, boarding stables, forestry, sales of commercial firewood, sports complex and shooting ranges. Chairman Menconi asked if the recommendations from the Roaring Fork Planning Commissioner could be taken into consideration. Mr. Narracci stated that this adjustment could be made to the amendment. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Brian Bortz spoke to the board. What did he say? Did he say "Is this related to a specific property?" Mr. Narracci stated that this is not related to a specific property. Chairman Menconi explained the intent of this amendment. This amendment would provide greater oversight and opportunities for the local government. Melinda Gorman, landowner near McCoy. She has 26 acres. She is restricted as to what she can currently do with her land. She hoped to be able to acquire land to bring her property up to 35 acres, but this amendment would not allow her to develop if she owned 35 acres. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Gorman to explain further. Ms. Gorman explained that she is only permitted to have one home on her land. Mr. Nartacci stated that she could have two homes on a 35-acre parcel. Her uses are limited to a single family home. Ms. Gorman stated that she already has a special use permit. Chairman Menconi asked how the. process could allow Ms. Gorman to obtain land from theBLM. Mr. Narracci stated that in the event some land was deeded to Ms. Gorman's property she would still be able to ranch. Ms. Gotinan stated that she does not own a ranch. She stated that if she acquired some BLM land and had a total of 35 acres she would be able to build another house. Mr. Narracci stated that she could apply for a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Runyon stated that she has a lot of options. Purchasing 9 more acres is not necessarily an attractive option. He believes that the board would look favorably on a request to add a dwelling unit to her existing property, Pam Harris spoke to the board. She wondered if the change would restrict currently allowed uses. Chairm:an Menconi stated that it would not change currently allowed uses. Dominic Mauriello stated that the current map is'very difficult to read and see the shaded areas. John Staight of Community Development stated that the map provided was not meant to be a legal representation. Chairman Menconi requested that these maps be available electronically. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Commissioner Fisher asked about the sports complex near Bond. She wondered whether this use would be allOwed. Mr. Narracci stated that sports complexes should be precluded from this type of zoning, but special use permits could be applied for. , Commissioner Runyon wondered if there would still be backcountry zoning on wilderness areas. Mr. Nartacci stated that historic files did not include any obvious input about this zoning. Most of the allowed development is by special use permit. Commissioner Runyon wondered ifbackcountry zoning is redundant on wilderness areas. Mr. Narracci stated that there has been no conflict for the past 17 years. Mr. Morris stated that all of the County's zoning is redundant until some point when this wilderness land is sold or transferred to a private entity. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the conjecture that larger parcels ofland could be transferred. Mr. Narracci stated that the Federal Government felt that this new zoning would make it more difficult and less profitable to sell smaller parcels of land. Commissioner Runyon asked if this would prohibit the county from up-zoning any area of land. Mr. Morris stated that there could be some diminution of value. How much this impact could be would depend on many variables. This provides the county a bit more leverage for controlling development. 29 5/15/2007 Chairman Menconi stated that this tool could work many different ways. He referred to two recent examples when this tool could have benefited the county. Commissioner Runyon stated that the Undersecretary of the Interior was looking at two parcels in the Edwards area to the south of Homestead and the East of Cordillera. He was interested in selling these parcels to developers to pay for other programs. Chairman Menconi expressed favor for adding this tool to land use planning. He addressed positive comments to the Forest Service's concerns. Comm:issionet Runyon asked about the Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission's recommended exclusions. He prefers a review of all uses on this zoning. Mr. Narracci stated that there could be accessory uses, home office, parks, open space, green belts, water diversion structures, water impoundment, agricultural and related buildings, and outfitter and guide services. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve file no. LUR-0069 and file no. ZC-00086, Zone Change, on the condition of incorporation of those special use review requirements specified by the Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission. Comm:issioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: 30 5/15/2007