No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/16/08 PUBLIC HEARING December 16,2008 Present: Peter Runyon Sara Fisher Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Assistant County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Am Menconi Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of December 15, 2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative B. Ratification of Amended Task Order between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Jill Hunsaker, Health & Human Services c. Agreement between Eagle County and The Literacy Project for provision of comprehensive family literacy services Kathleen Lyons, Health & Human Services D. Resolution 2008-139 Authorizing Kimberly B. Williams, Eagle County Deed Restriction Manager and Tori L. Franks, Eagle County Housing Program Analyst, to execute documents of behalf of the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority effecting already-approved purchases of deed-restricted properties in Eagle County to prevent foreclosure Housing & Development Representative E. Amended and Restated Grange Ranch Deed of Conservation Easement County Attorney's Office Representative F. Amended and Restated Conservation Easement on the River Parcel owned jointly by Eagle County and the Town of Basalt County Attorney's Office Representative G. Amended Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Pitkin County, Town of Basalt and Aspen Valley Land Trust concerning Grange Ranch and River Parcel Conservation Easements County Attorney's Office Representative H. Bill of Sale, Acknowledgement and Indemnification Agreement between Eagle County and the Western Colorado Chapter of the Red Cross 1 12/16/08 County Attorney's Office Representative I. Bill of Sale, Acknowledgement and Indemnification Agreement between Eagle County and Crowley County County Attorney's Office Representative J. Resolution 2008-140 Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies Cindy Preytis, Finance K. Amended Final Plat / Cordillera Valley Club, Lot II, Filing No.4. (Eagle County File No. AFP- 1837); The intent of this Amended Final Plat is to modify the building envelope location and configuration Scot Hunn, Community Development Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-K. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Public Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed Public Input, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. X Bar Fly, Inc d/b/a Sato Sushi #04-33696-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. B. Marko's Pizzeria of Edwards d/b/a Marko's Pizzeria #06-19233-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. 2 12/16/08 C. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Broken Arrow Cafe #04-84044-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards (Arrowhead). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. Other D. CVC Management, LLC d/b/a The Chaparral #03-78536-0000 This is a Manager's Registration for The Chaparral Restaurant in Edwards/Cordillera. CVC Management, LLC wishes to register Troy Buyse as its new Manager. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Mr. Buyse was reported to be of good moral character, based upon both the Sheriff and CBI reports. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for December 16, 2008 consisting ofItems A-D. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: REQUEST: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Beaver Creek Fine Art Gallery, Inc. Beaver Creek Fine Art Gallery David Miller 210 Offerson Road, # 162 - St. James Place - Beaver Creek Art Gallery Permit Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Art Gallery Permit. This permit would allow the gallery to offer complimentary malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors for consumption on the premises. The art gallery shall not serve alcohol beverages more than four hours in anyone day, and shall not serve alcohol beverages more than fifteen days per year of licensure. The permit shall be renewed annually. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The application is in order, all requirements have been met, and all fees are paid. 2. The applicant has listed each day that alcohol beverages will be served. 3. The applicant has provided a diagram of the premises. 4. The applicant's primary purpose is to exhibit and offer for sale works of fine art as defined in section 6- 15-101, C.R.S. 5. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on December 5, 2008, 10 days prior to the hearing. 6. No protests have been filed in the Clerk Office. 7. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan. 3 12/16/08 CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the staff findings from the staff report. She indicated that staff had no concerns with the application. However, this was a new permit and the first time one was being requested in unincorporated Eagle County. Commissioner Fisher asked if the applicant was required to get petition signatures. Ms. Scriver stated that petitioning was not required nor was publishing and posting. However, because this was the first application she received for the permit she posted for the hearing in case there were any concerns from neighboring businesses. Commissioner Fisher asked if notice to the local authority was required prior to each day of service. Ms. Scriver stated that no prior notice was required. The days of service must be requested at the time of application and may only be changed if notice was provided to both the local and state authorities at least 15 days prior to the day requested on the application. Commissioner Fisher asked David Miller, representative for the applicant to speak about the business and how they planned to manage the service of alcohol. Mr. Miller stated that alcohol service would be monitored very closely. Alcohol would only be served during show times. Commissioner Fisher asked about the server training. Mr. Miller stated that their gallery secretary would be trained because she would have the responsibility of taking care of the clients. Chairman Runyon asked about the request dates on the permit application and wondered if they were an approximation. Ms. Scriver stated that the applicant could request up to 15 day on the application. The dates on the application may not be changed without notice. Chairman Runyon felt that this type of change could be a consent agenda item. Commissioner Fisher stated that she believed it would be appropriate if Ms. Scriver managed the calendar. If any change to the dates occurred it should be submitted to the Clerks Office, she didn't believe it was necessary to come before the board unless there was a concern. Commissioner Fisher requested that the applicant keep their staff well informed and be conscious of the liability of holding a liquor license of any form or fashion. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Licensing Authority approve the Art Gallery Permit for Beaver Creek Fine Art Gallery, Inc. d/b/a Beaver Creek Fine Art Gallery. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: EVENT: REPRESENT ATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: St. Clare of Assisi & Vail Christian High School Mardi Gras Ball Kim Schramm, Mardi Gras Ball Committee Chairperson Vail Christian High School - 31621 Hwy 6, Edwards Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a special event permit for the Mardi Gras Ball to be held on February 21, 2009 in the Vail Christian High School Auditorium. The funds generated from the event will cover operating costs of both schools. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 4 12/16/08 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on December 5, 2008, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk Office. 4. The applicant has provided proof of server training and an alcohol management plan. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the application. She indicated that all findings were positive and stated that Kim Schramm, Mardi Gras Ball Committee Chairperson was present to answer any of the board's questions or concerns. Ms. Schramm stated that the event had been held at the Ritz Carlton the last two years. They thought it would be nice to hold the event at the Vail Christian High School in the new auditorium. The purpose of the event was to raise money for both schools and increase enrollment. She provided ticket and catering information. She would provide server-training certificates for the 4 bartenders working that evening prior to the event. Commissioner Fisher asked Ms. Schramm if people would be able to purchase bottles of wine. Ms. Schramm stated that there would not be bottles of wine available for purchase. Commissioner Fisher reiterated the importance of safe alcohol service. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit for the Mardi Gras Ball event to be held at the Vail Christian High School on February 21,2009 from 6:00 p.m. to 1 :00 a.m. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files LUR-2050 2008 Buildine: Resolution Dan Stanek, Building Department ACTION: The purpose of this Land Use Regulation is to consider amendments to the Eagle County Building Code LOCATION: TITLE: FILE NO. /PROCESS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: N/A Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendments (ECLUR) LUR-2050; Amendment to the ECLUR Eagle County Government Eagle County Government 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This amendment is to allow for modification of the Eagle County Building Resolution as follows: 5 12/16/08 1. Updating the 2005 National Electrical Code to the 2008 National Electrical Code. 2. Five percent increase in building permit and plan review fees to cover fees incurred due to implementing credit card and electronic plan review usage in Community Development. 2. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: The proposed amendment package was referred out to the following agencies: · County Attorneys Office · Town of Vail Fire Department · Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District · Gypsum Fire Protection District · Greater Eagle Fire Protection District · Eagle River Fire Protection District · Eagle Valley Homebuilders Association · Town of Avon · Town of Basalt · Town of Eagle · Town of Gypsum · Town of Minturn · Town of Redcliff · Town of Vail · Additionally, these proposed regulations were referred out to over 400 General Contractors, Developers, and Electrical Contractors that are associated with Eagle County's Community Development Department. No responses were received from any of agencies, firms, or individuals. STAFF DISCUSSION: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: The proposed amendments HA VE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the applicable towns within Eagle County. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.06 Board action of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation: The Building Resolution, as proposed, is in general conformance with the policies and regulations of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B Initiation of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation. a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. 6 12/16/08 5. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: a. The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan. b. The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. c. The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: On December 3, 2008 the Eagle County Planning Commission and on December 4, 2008 the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval ofLUR-2050 with the following conditions. 1. On page forty after strike out of~ add $27.50. 2. On page twenty three to read M. Article 695.6(6) Power Wiring. (B) Circuit Conductors. Article 695.6 is amended by adding the following: When located within the room where the pump is located, wiring methods for fire pumps containing NFP A l3D systems maybe in accordance with the manufactured listing. DISCUSSION: Mr. Stanek explained the request. The amendments would allow for modification of the Eagle County Building Resolution. The first modification would update the 2005 National Electrical Code to the 2008 National Electrical Code and the seconded modification would include a 5% increase in building permit and plan review fees to cover fees incurred due to credit card fees and electronic plan review usage. They sent out about 400 referrals and received no responses. Commissioner Fisher about the 5% increase and what it meant in dollars. Mr. Stanek stated that the 5% would equal about $65,000 a year. Chairman Runyon wondered if there was a down side. Mr. Stanek stated that the State of Colorado adopted the 2008 National Electric Code in July and they were following suit with this code per regulations. The building fees had not been raised for 6 or 7 years. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve LUR-2050 2008 Building Resolution. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0076 Eae:le County Land Use Ree:ulation Amendments Bob Narracci, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of the Land Use Regulation Amendments is to: · Provide greater clarification regarding public notice requirements; · Promote collocation of wireless communication facilities, it is proposed to introduce greater flexibility in siting free-standing wireless telecommunication facilities; · Establish standards for road improvement requests; · To revise the land use application process to require applications to be more refined by the time they reach the public hearing process; · Place limits on the length of time a land use application can be tabled; 7 12/16/08 · Limit the length of time that a land use application may remain 'open' without activity. PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Multiple Land Use Amendments Not Applicable Not Applicable Eagle County Staff 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as follows: I) Revise Public Hearing Notice Requirements for Building Resolution amendments to be consistent with all land use regulation amendment notice requirements; 2) To limit non-agricultural accessory buildings to a maximum of two at 850 sq. ft. apiece unless approved to allow more or larger accessory buildings via special use permit; Please note that this proposed amendment has been withdrawn based upon feedback received from both Planning Commissions. 3) To include Temporary Construction Trailers and Temporary Sales Trailers and On-Site Sales Offices as uses-by-right in all zone districts; Please note that this proposed amendment has been withdrawn based upon feedback received from both Planning Commissions. 4) To allow the maximum height for free-standing wireless telecommunication facilities, in all zone districts, to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners on a case-by-case basis; 5) To include a new section pertaining to Road Improvement Requests; 6) To limit the length of time that a land use application can remain 'open' without any activity; 7) To revise general procedures pertaining to land use application processing; 8) To limit the cumulative length of time that a land use application can be tabled by the body conducting the public hearing; 9) To specify when new or revised information must be submitted in response to concerns delineated by the body conducting the public hearing. B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: Eagle County Planning Commission: The Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment package. During deliberations, the ECPC asked that the proposed amendments pertaining to non-agricultural accessory buildings and temporary sales/construction trailers be pulled from the package for further discussion. The ECPC helped to word-smith the proposed procedural amendment language. Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission: The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment package. During deliberations, the RFVRPC agreed with the Eagle County Planning Commission that the proposed amendments pertaining to non-agricultural accessory buildings and temporary sales/construction trailers be pulled from the package for further discussion. The RFVRPC also helped to word-smith the proposed procedural amendment language. 2. STAFF REPORT 8 12/16/08 A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Zone District Map Section Purpose: Standards: Official 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. 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. There are no specific standards directly applicable for changing the text of the Land Use Regulations. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals. the proposed amendments have been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Department 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 AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of Chapter 2, Article 2; Chapter 2, Article 3; Chapter 2, Article 4; and, Chapter 2, Article 5 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and do not 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.1} 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 Section 3.3 Section 3.4 Section 3.5 Section 3.6 Section 3.7 Section 3.8 Section 3.9 Section 3.10 General Development Economic Resources Housine: Infrastructure and Services Water Resources Wildlife Resources Sensitive Lands Environmental Qualitv Future Land Use Map Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k Policies b, c, d, e, f, h, j, m and 0 Policies a, d, e, g and n Policies a, c, g, i, j, k, m and 0 Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, hand i Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Policies a, c, e and g Policies a, c and d Policy a 9 12/16/08 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 Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub-Area Master Plan Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is not applicable. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE ST ANDARD: 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? Dimensional limitations 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 issue of compatibility does not directly pertain to this proposal. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X 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. The proposed procedural amendments will not directly provide a public benefit but will help to ensure that land use applications are processed in a more efficient manner without adversely impacting Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearing agendas with applications that are prematurely scheduled. Public benefit will be realized by allowing the Board of County Commissioners to determine on a case-by- case basis the maximum allowable height for free-standing wireless telecommunication facilities. By virtue of allowing additional height, in appropriate circumstances, it will be possible to encourage co- location of competing providers' telecommunication equipment on one facility. Co-location is vital to reduce the quantity of freestanding wireless communication facilities. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local jurisdictions must not discriminate between wireless service providers and cannot prohibit the ability to provide service. In other words, the ability to allow additional height to achieve a 10 12/16/08 wireless provider's coverage objectives will reduce the need to approve new freestanding facilities for each provider. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Conditions have changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated due to significant population growth and development pressures. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate 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 amendment 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 B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eae:le County Attorney's Office - The language set forth in the Draft proposed regulatory language has been thoroughly reviewed and edited by the County's Attorney's Office. . Eae:le County Ene:ineerine: Department - The Engineering Department provided the following recommendations in the form of red-mark print comments: ./ Chapter 2 - Article 5 Administration, Section 5-210.D.2.d. Vicinity Map. An eight and one-half inch by eleven inch (8 W'xll") vicinity map, locating the subject parcel within Eagle County. The map shall (at a minimum) have a scale bar and clearly identify the subject parcel(s) and the nearest adjacent public road. Planning staff concurs with this proposed language. ./ Chapter 2 - Article 5 Administration, Section 5-2l0.D.2.g. Adjacent Property Owners. A list of all adjacent property owners, compiled by the applicant using the most recent County ad valorem tax rolls, is required for all applications and shall be submitted to the Community Development Director as part of the application for development. In addition to submitting a written list, the applicant shall also submit typed addresses on individual adhesive labels or in the form of pre- addressed envelopes. Hand written labels or envelopes are unacceptable. (am 9/27/99) (am 05/01107) Although it was not originally proposed to amend this Adjacent Property Owner language, the addition of the word 'individual' relative to adhesive mailing labels would prove beneficial. 11 12/16/08 ./ Chapter 2 - Article 5 Administration, Section 5-210.DA.g. It is proposed to substitute the words, 'reach an impasse' with 'are not able to resolve deficiencies as delineated in Section 5-210.D.4.a., above, ' Planning staff concurs with the proposed language. ./ Chapter 2 - Article 5 Administration, Section 5-210.DA.h. It is proposed to revise the proposed language as follows: 'Upon the scheduling of public hearing dates, or at the submission of the written request as delineated in Section 5-210.D.4.g above, no new additional or altered information may be submitted by the applicant. (orig. XVXVXX)' Planning staff concurs with the proposed language. . Land Plannill2 Collaborative - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated September 8, 2008 wherein it is noted that the amendments 'appear to be straightforward and clarify a few items of the code to the benefit of staff, policy bodies and future applicants'. . Mauriello Plannine: Group, LLC - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated September 17, 2008. Following are the comments provided: ./ With respect to referral mailing on page 5-5, are you really going to mail "the application materials" to review agencies or might you send them a summary with an indication that the full materials are available for inspection at your office? Another suggestion would be to require applicants to provide you with a PDF of the application materials so that they could be posted online. You could then allow a notice to just refer people to the website or better yet require agencies to provide you with an email address and do the whole thing digitally. This will save everyone time and money. Seems like the green way to operate. The same could be true for these referrals (send them via email). Staff concurs with this recommendation and has been working with land use applicants to achieve paperless processing to the degree practicable; some applicants are better equipped to submit application materials electronically/digitally than are others. ./ With respect to the referral time frame, can the timeframe be reduced to 14 days to allow for a speedier review process? Does this referral period work against an applicant and count towards the 90 day inactive application provision? The proposed 21 day referral period is codifying the length of referral period that has been utilized in practice for many years. Further, many of the external referral agencies are unable to assemble and submit a response within the allotted 21 day time frame. Lastly, speed of process is not the goal rather; the intent is to help ensure that applications are as thorough as possible prior to scheduling public hearings. ./ With respect to "b" on page 5-6, there are many times when comments are provided by referral agencies that are either irrelevant to the application or the agency lacks any review authority or jurisdiction. In these cases, a remedy would not be required. A good example would the difference between receiving a comment from CDOT, a permit review agency, and the Colorado Historical Society which lacks any authority except on state or federal projects. Comments from a homeowners association is another example. A complete and thorough response might be, "we understand the concerns of X but there is no regulatory authority for the comment being made." You might want to consider classifying the responses. Section C requires that "referral responses received have been satisfactorily addressed or resolved." Who makes that judgment call? It would seem to me that would be a Planning Commission determination in the review of the project. The Community Development Director or assign makes the judgment call. Staff understands that certain external review agency responses are more pertinent than others. The intent here is to require thoughtful discussion and resolution of issues between the applicant, planner, engineering or any other referral agency providing substantive comments. The intent is not to ham-string land use applications through process. The algorithm proposed for addressing referral agency responses to the greatest degree practicable prior to scheduling public hearings 12 12/16/08 will help to facilitate smoother hearings and a decreased need for repeated tablings. The process does allow a land use applicant to request, in writing, that their application be scheduled for hearing even if all outstanding issues have not been adequately addressed or resolved. ./ Section d on page 5-7 requires that the applicant respond or remedy all concerns within 90 days. I can think of many instances where it might take more than 90 days to address a concern. For instance, ifthere was an environmental concern identified that was not evident from the County's mapping and I had to hire a consultant to prepare a report. That could take 6 months in some cases. In that case is it reasonable to withdraw the application? Is the application also refunded? If an applicant is actively working toward resolution of an identified issue, then the 90 days will not apply. The intent is to prevent further accrual of land use applications that have not had any activity for an extended period of time - some measured in years. No refunds are anticipated but will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on how much staff time has been invested. Over time, regulations change, fee schedules increase, comprehensive plans are amended and adopted, etc.; if an application remains in process too long then in effect that application is receiving preferential treatment since no process fees or regulations adopted after an application is submitted will apply to said application. ./ With respect to "d" on page 5-11, does this apply to an application being tabled 6 times during the review process for one month each? Does this apply to County applications as well? The Eagle County Planning Commission specifically directed staff to develop language to disallow tabling of any land use application for more than a combined total of six months. The six months could be consumed all at once or through multiple tablings. This limitation indeed will also apply to County applications. ./ With respect to "H" on page 5-12, I think 90 days is too quick to unilaterally determine an application to be dormant and automatically withdrawn. The language says that it is considered "formally" withdrawn. I think in this case it would be anything but formally. How about "administratively withdrawn" which more accurately describes what occurred? The terminology may be changed but the end result is the same. The intent is to hold applicants accountable for their process as well as county staff. . Pvlman & Associates - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated October 16, 2008. Staff concurs with the recommendations set forth by Mr. Pylman. . V Ae:. Inc. Architects and Planners - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated September 26, 2008. I reviewed the referral form sent to our office for file number LUR - 0076. I have a question regarding amendment request No.6 "To limit the length of time that a land use application can remain 'open' without any activity'. As it relates specifically to the Cordillera Valley Club PUD Amendment approved by the BOCC June 4, 2007, will the amended text if it is approved, affect the PUD Amendment approval, given the status of the project and a pending submittal of follow up materials to meet the conditions of approval? I have previously asked Lisa if there was a term to submit the follow up materials towards execution of the resolution and I believe she said it was 5 years? Can you or Lisa please let me know ifthis is still the case or if the amended text would affect the status of the application? As you are aware, a significant amount of time, effort and expenditure were put forth in pursuit of the PUD Amendment to allow the CVC berm project to be possible. If this amendment potentially restricts the amount of time to submit follow up materials, the CVC Metro District needs to be notified immediately. Several of the critical agreements that need to be executed prior re-submittal of materials to the County are in the final stages of development, and the Golf Course Owner and CVC intend to submit the materials per the conditions of approval as soon as they are complete. The proposed regulations will not be retroactively applied to land use applications already in process or which have already received vesting. With regard to the CVC Amendment, the applicant is strongly 13 12/16/08 encouraged to finalize the necessary details so that the revised PUD Guide can be recorded via Board of County Commissioner Resolution. The intent behind the proposed land use regulation amendment is to prevent dormant land use applications from accruing. The goal is to make land use applicants accountable for their process by keeping the county apprised of the progress being made to resolve outstanding issues. . Vail Resorts - Please refer to the attached letter dated October 3,2008 in which the following comments are provided: ./ Chapter 1 - General Provisions, Section 1.15.05 Public Hearing. "In subsection (2), consider whether 2 notices should be required for public hearings regarding proposed amendments to the County Building Code. The previous requirement was for 4 weekly publications and the proposed changes would reduce this to I publication". The intent is to make the notice requirements for Building Resolution amendments identical to the notice requirements for the Land Use Regulations. Please note that the Building Resolution is in fact a chapter of the Land Use Regulations. Further, prior to suggesting this amendment, the County Attorney's Office researched Colorado Revised Statutes and concluded that there is no legal requirement to advertise Building Code amendments for 4 consecutive weeks. ./ Chapter 2, Article 5 - Administration, Section 5-210.DA Post Referral Period Stakeholder Meeting. "The proposed procedures for the Post Referral Period Stakeholder Meeting involve addressing extensive referral responses. Please consider the process outlined in the proposed regulations - including the repeated reviews and responses that are contemplated under subsections (c) and (d). These procedures may impair the ability of an applicant to pursue the process in an acceptable timeframe, may circumvent the public process generally or they may have other unintended consequences". The proposed procedures will require that all referral responses be adequately addressed prior to establishing public hearing dates. Alternatively, at any point in the process following the initial Post Referral Period Stakeholder Meeting the applicant may request in writing that public hearing dates be established. This is not circumventing public process; rather it will make the public process more efficient. Improved efficiency in the public hearing phase of a land use application process will result in an overall improvement in process time over the current procedures set forth in the land use regulations. Applicants for complex land use applications currently spend a proportionally greater amount of time in the public hearing phase of the process than they do working with staff. ./ Chapter 2, Article 5 - Administration, Section 5-210.F.5.d Continuance of Public Hearing. "An application should be continued for at least a year after the initial application, particularly for larger projects. The body conducting the hearing should be in a position to extend an application beyond the proposed 6 month deadline". The Eagle County Planning Commission specifically directed staff to develop language to disallow tabling of any land use application for more than a combined total of six months. The six months could be consumed all at once or through multiple tablings. This limitation indeed will also apply to County applications. The County Attorney's Office did not identify any legal concerns with the proposal to cap the total amount of time that a given land use application can be tabled. It is further noted that limiting tablings to a combined 6 months will indirectly necessitate land use applicants to submit well conceived, thoroughly investigated, complete applications that will ultimately require less revision as the applications progress through the process. The time and attention of the appointed and elected officials will be more effectively utilized by beginning their public hearing evaluations with more refined land use proposals. The Planning Commissions and/or the Board of County Commissioners may certainly consider revising the draft regulation to allow a combined total one year of tabling time versus 6 months as suggested by Vail Resorts (VR). ./ Chapter 2, Article 5 - Administration, Section 5-210.D.3.d Referral Mailing. VR suggests that 'Referral Mailing' be changed to 'Referral Process'. Staff concurs with this suggestion. 14 12/16/08 ./ Chapter 2, Article 5 - Administration, Section 5-21O.DA.b. and Section 5-21O.DA.d VR proposes the following language, "Within ninety (90) calendar days or longer period due to weather or seasonal consideration as agreed between the applicant and the Community Development Director or his assign, the applicant shall respond.. ...". Further, "If the applicant fails.. ...within ninety (90) days or such agreed longer period, the application. . ...". Weather or changes in season are irrelevant; rather the 90 day time frame is proposed as an impetus to keep land use applications moving forward. If an applicant is actively working toward resolution of an identified issuers) and keeps the county apprised, then the 90 days is not applicable. ./ Chapter 2, Article 5 - Administration, Section 5-2l0.H. "Any land use application request that has been dormant for a period of ninety (90) calendar days or a longer period due to weather or seasonal consideration as agreed between the applicant and the body conducting the public hearing without a substantive and sufficient response by the applicant to pending requests by the County for additional information and other changes in the application, or other, similar failure of the applicant to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the application in a timely manner, shall be deemed to be formally withdrawn. The land use application file and its contents will be archived or returned to the applicant". Weather or changes in season are irrelevant; rather the 90 day time frame is proposed as an impetus to keep land use applications moving forward at a staff level prior to being scheduled for hearing. If an applicant is actively working toward resolution of an identified issuers) and keeps the county apprised of progress being made, then the 90 days is not applicable. . Town of Basalt - Please refer to the attached letter dated September 23,2008. Two recommendations are provided: . "With regard to 'Section 3-340, Zone District Limitations - Notes', the Town would discourage the County from determining the height of telecommunication facilities on a case-by-case basis unless additional provisions are included to ensure that unreasonable tower heights are not approved. The County may consider height limitations in specific districts while allowing height exceptions in areas that do not have scenic impacts." In practice, through the Special Use Permit process, county staff, the Planning Commissions and the Board of County Commissioners are concerned primarily with the aesthetics of proposed wireless telecommunications facilities and strive to preserve scenic viewsheds uninterrupted by wireless towers and antennae. The proposed amendment language is intended primarily as a mechanism to promote co-location of multiple wireless communication carriers on as few facilities as is practicable. The alternative is to allow each carrier to construct an exclusive facility. Due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local jurisdictions cannot discriminate and must allow all carriers to achieve the same coverage objectives. . With regard to 'Section 5-210, Provisions of General Applicability', the Town would ask that the County not shorten the length of current referral times for land use applications since the Town often has difficulty submitting comments within the currently adopted timelines, particularly when Staff gives the P&Z or Council the opportunity to provide comments." The land use regulations do not currently specify referral timelines. This proposal is to codify the referral timelines that have been utilized historically. . Town of Vail- The Town submitted comments via a red-marked copy of the proposed draft regulations. The Town's recommendations are as follows: ./ Chapter 2, Article 2 - Definitions, Section 2-110. Definitions. The Town recommends that regulations not be stated in the 'definitions' section of the regulations and that the county would be better served by incorporating the regulatory language in the 'accessory structure' section. The proposed language pertaining to accessory structures is located in the proper section of the land use regulations. The same language is also proposed to be included in the definition of 'accessory building' in Article 2. 15 12/16/08 ./ Chapter 2, Article 3 - Zone Districts, Table 3-300 Residential and Agricultural Zone Districts Use Schedule AND Table 3-320 Commercial and Industrial Zone District Use Schedule. The Town recommends that the notation number applicable to the proposed Temporary Construction Trailers and Temporary Sales Offices should be referenced in the use tables as a footnote. Staff concurs. ./ Chapter 2, Article 3 - Zone Districts Section 3-340 Zone District Dimensional Limitations. The Town offers the observation that the notes pertaining to dimensional limitations should be referenced in the tables. The notes in question are indeed referenced in the Schedule of Dimensional Limitations Table 3-340. This table was not included in the referral package because no changes are proposed. . Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Please refer to the attached letter dated September 17, 2008 wherein no recommendation is provided. . Colorado Division of Wildlife - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated September 10, 2008 wherein the DOW indicates no comments or objections to the proposal. . Eae:le River Water & Sanitation District - Please refer to the attached letter dated September II, 2008 wherein the District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority offer no comment. . Vail Fire and Emere:encv Services - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated September 19, 2008 wherein no comment is offered. . Roarine: Fork Transportation Authority - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated September 10, 2008 wherein the District proposes amendments to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations pertaining to 'transportation services'. While the proposed amendment appears to have merit, it is unrelated to the regulatory amendments currently proposed. . Northwest Colorado Council of Governments - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated September 23, 2008 wherein NWCCOG provides no comment or concern. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies: . Eagle County: Airport, Animal Services, Assessors, ECO Trails, ECO Transit, Environmental Health, Housing, Road and Bridge, RE-50J School District, Sheriff's Office, Surveyor, Weed and Pest, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Historical Society . Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Gypsum. . Braun Associates, Inc., Design Workshop, Isom and Associates, Knight Planning Services, Land Studio, Otak, Sid Fox and Co., . Alpine Engineering, Arroyo Engineering, Benchmark Engineering, CTL Thompson, Gamba & Associates, High Country Engineering, HP Geotech, Intermountain Engineering, Peak Land Consultants, Resource Engineering, Inc., Schmeuser Gordon Meyer, Sopris Engineering, Archibeque Land Consulting, Backlund Land Surveys, Bookcliff Surveying, Eagle Valley Surveying, Eldridge Land Surveying, Gore Range Surveying, John Curran, J&K, Leland Lechner, Lines in Space, Marcin Engineering, River City Surveys, Starbuck Surveying. . State of Colorado: CDOT, Department of Local Affairs, Division of Minerals and Geology, Division of Water Resources, Forest Service, Geological Survey, Water Conservation Board, Historical Society, . . Federal: Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service . u.s. Army Corp of Engineers . u.s. Forest Service . Fire Protection Districts: WECAD, Eagle County Health Service District, Basalt & Rural FPD, Gypsum FPD, Greater Eagle FPD, Eagle River FPD,t . Special Districts: All . Mid Valley Trails Committee . Home Builder's Association 16 12/16/08 . American Institute of Architects . Cattleman's Association . All Registered Home Owner's Associations and Design Review Boards C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: · The amendments proposed are straightforward and clarify a few items of the code to the benefit of staff, policy bodies and future applicants. Disadvantages: · Perception by some that the proposed amendments will hinder land use application process. D. PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] 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 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 [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] 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 Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] 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 ofthe 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). (None) DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the request. He presented the proposed amendments 1-9 as outlined in the staff report. The Eagle County Planning Commission and Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment package. Mr. Schroeder explained the update to the roadway standards. The update would allow anyone from the public to request improvement of any county road. He stated that if a county road was unpaved and there was an increase in traffic then someone could submit a proposal requesting road improvements. Chairman Runyon wondered if there was really a need for this type of mechanism. He wondered if this would encourage groups to ask/demand road improvements or upgrades. Mr. Schroeder stated that as more development occurred in rural areas of the county where the road infrastructure was poor they could see more of these requests. Currently there is no mechanism in place. They do get requests from time to time and they would like a way treat everyone fairly. He does not believe the county would see a tremendous number of requests. However, it is important to have set standards in place when they do. 17 12/16/08 Chairman Runyon stated that he sees some downsides to the regulation. He believes the mechanism could lead to certain expectations. Mr. Schroeder stated that funding is always a major discussion piece with any type of request. The focus is to give anyone who comes forward with a request a set of standards that could be evaluated on so that everyone would be treated fairly. Chairman Runyon wondered what was being regulated. Mr. Narracci stated that it was similar to the sustainable community index and it's not a typical regulation. Engineering was just looking for a level playing field. It doesn't necessarily have to be in the regulations. Chairman Runyon asked Bob Morris, Deputy County Attorney for his input. Mr. Morris stated that he saw no compelling reason why it should be a regulation. He wondered if it would be possible to put something on the county website with a description of the process. Mr. Schroeder stated that he saw no reason this could not be an engineering policy if the board so desired. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the public expectations and the request for road maintenance on an ongoing basis. Mr. Schroeder reassured the board that they would have the final say on any request. Mr. Morris asked Brad Higgins reaction to the regulation. Mr. Schroeder stated that Mr. Higgins was in favor of the language because he gets these types of requests quite frequently. Mr. Morris wondered if this type of regulation would create more confusion with identifying county roads versus private roads. Chairman Runyon stated that the public might be better served by working more on a road policy piece independent of the regulations. Mr. Narracci stated that the new section pertaining to Road Improvement Requests would be scratched for the time being. He continued his review of the amendments. He stated that the proposal was sent to close to 300 referral agencies throughout the county. Vail Resorts, Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, Land Planning Collaborative, Pylman & Associates, and VAg, Inc. responded. He presented their suggestions and staffs response to the comments. At the request of both Planning Commissions, staff withdrew certain originally proposed revisions pertaining to non-agricultural accessory buildings and temporary construction trailers. In summary, the regulatory amendments are straightforward and clarify a few items of the code to the benefit of staff, policy bodies, and future applicants. The time and attention of the Planning Commissions and the Board of County Commissioners would be more effectively utilized. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher revisited the road improvement request and wondered if Chairman Runyon suggested it be an informational piece. She saw it as a way to give more guidance to those who would be making the request. Chairman Runyon thought there should be a parallel piece that was more easily obtainable. He believes there should be some way to distribute the information. Commissioner Fisher stated that she was in agreement with the amendment package except for the road improvement request. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve file no LUR-0076 Eagle County Land Use Regulation Amendments with the suggestion that the road improvement request be addressed it as an administrative how-to policy. Incorporating all other changes noted in red and as approved by the both the Eagle County Planning Commission and Roaring Fork Planning Commission. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Clerk to the Bo tl VJ~'. _ L..---- /'JrI.,~ t?~~ There being no further business before th eeting was adjourned until December 23,2008. Attest: 18 12/16/08