No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/16/10 PUBLIC HEARING November 16, 2010 Present: Sara Fisher Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Jon Stavney Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of November 15, 2010 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Resolution 2010 -138 Adopting Eagle County Emergency Operations Plan, Appendix F Barry Smith, Emergency Management C. Resolution 2010 -139 Adopting Eagle County Emergency Operations Plan, Appendix G Barry Smith, Emergency Management D. Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and Stan Miller, Inc. for the Gypsum to Dotsero Trail Project Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that he had no input. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -D. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1 11/16/2010 Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: The Charitable Foundation of the Edwards Rotary Club REQUEST: Special Event Permit(s) EVENT(s): Soccer Events DATE OF EVENT: December 4, 18 - 2010 January 22, and February 5, 19 - 2011 REPRESENTATIVE: Matthew Kozusko, Event Manager LOCATION: WECMRD Field House — 0450 Miller Ranch Road, Edwards STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested (5) special event permits for professional soccer events being held at the 4th Ni nd r follows: December 4 and 18 January 22 WECMRD field house. The event days are as o ows: ry , nd a February 5 and 19 The applicant will offer beer and/or wine, as well as light snacks, soft drinks, and water. rY pp g Liquor sales will begin at 6:30 p.m. and end at 8:30 p.m., additional time is included on the application for set up and tear down. Seating capacity for the field house is 450 and ticket sales for the event will be restricted to that number. These events will be open to all ages. Staff will be providing security and handling the ID checks. Server - trained volunteers will oversee all alcohol sales. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place in both areas on November 5, 2010, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. There have been no protests filed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan and provide proof of server training. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Mr. Kozusko believed it was a great opportunity to raise funds for the Edwards' Rotary Club. Commissioner Fisher asked about the hours of liquor sales and if it was understood that all consumption ended after the service hours. Mr. Kozusko stated that they partnered with WECMRD on the event times. Commissioner Fisher asked if any alcohol would be stored on site after the event. Mr. Kozusko stated that all alcohol would be removed from the premises after the event. Commissioner Runyon stated that the Rotary Club was a great organization and spoke about Rotary Internationals involvement in curing polio. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Event Permits for The Charitable Foundation of the Edwards Rotary Club events being held in the Edwards Field House on December 4, 18 - 2010 January 22, and February 5, 19 — 2011, from 5 — 10 p.m. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. 2 11/16/2010 APPLICANT: Hung -Jen, Yen d/b /a Henry's Chinese Cafe REPRESENTATIVE: Hung -Jen, Yen aka Henry, Owner LOCATION: 175 Main Street — C101, Edwards (Riverwalk) REQUEST: Transfer Ownership of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested the transfer of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License. Fiesta Jalisco Numero Quince, LLC d/b /a La Valentina, currently holds this license. The applicant is currently operating under a temporary permit issued by the local licensing authority, August 10, 2010. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 2. Whether the applicants are of good moral character 3. If applicant plans to make any physical change, alteration or modification of the licensed premises, whether the premises, and if changed, altered or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Codes, including, but not limited to the following factors: a. the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants; b. the possession, by the licensee, of the changed premises by ownership, lease, rental or other arrangement; c. compliance with the applicable zoning laws of the county; and d. compliance with the distance prohibition in regard to any public or parochial school. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees have been paid. 2. The state and local licensing authorities have previously licensed the premises where such alcohol beverages will be sold and such licenses were valid at the time the application for transfer of ownership was filed with the local licensing authority. 3. The applicant is reported to be of good moral character. 4. The Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been received. 5. The applicant is over 21 and fingerprints are on file. 6. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, November 5, 2010, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication is not required for a transfer of ownership. 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. 3 11/16/2010 STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a transfer of ownership and all findings are positive. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the application. This was the final hearing for the transfer of a hotel and restaurant license in Riverwalk. The applicant was currently operating under a temporary permit issued by the board in August. Mr. Hung -Jen stated that he was pleased with the location. The restaurant and bar area was small. The bar would be used for servicing the restaurant guest. They expect to close around 9 pm and possibly 10 pm down the road. They would be open for lunch and dinner. Commissioner Fisher stated that she remembered Mr. Hung -Jen from May Palace. She believed that Mr. Hung -Jen would treat the alcohol service with respect and responsibility. She encouraged him to ask the Sheriff's Office to speak to him and his staff. Mr. Hung -Jen stated that he had been working the front of the restaurant since opening and he would do his best. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, incorporating staff's findings, approve the application for transfer of ownership of the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License held by Fiesta Jalisco Numero Quince, LLC d/b /a La Valentina to Hung -Jen, Yen d/b /a Henry's Chinese Cafe. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. • APPLICANT: Vail Valley Mexican Foods, Inc. DBA: La Cantina — Beaver Creek REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Wheelock, Owner LOCATION: 26 Avondale Lane, Beaver Creek Lodge Unit 216B — Beaver Creek REQUEST: New Hotel and Restaurant License STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Vail Valley Mexican Foods, Inc. submitted an application for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License on October 13, 2010. La Cantina has been operating in the Beaver Creek Lodge for the past 2 years and has become a local's favorite as it is located near the bus stop. During the winter season, the establishment is open from 7:30 am — 7 pm seven days a week La Cantina is a small commercial unit of approx. 400 sq. ft. with approx. 250 sq ft of customer space and 175 sq. ft. of outdoor patio area. The establishment seats 16 - 20 customers indoors and exhibits a grab -n -go type ambiance. The menu includes breakfast and lunch items. The applicant wishes to provide bottled beer and premixed margaritas to his customers with the approval of this application. Mr. Wheelock is the current owner of two other establishments in Eagle County, La Cantina at Vail and Agave in Avon. Both the town of Avon and Vail expressed favor for Mr. Wheelock's responsive action regarding business matters and believed him to be a responsible business owner. Town of Vail found him to be one of their more responsible licensees. Nevertheless, these two establishments were found guilty of service to minors during state sting operations and a fine was paid in lieu of a suspension. Agave, in December of 2006 and La Cantina at Vail, in April of 2010. ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD: The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood. 4 11/16/2010 Staff recommended that the definition of the "neighborhood" include the area within a two -mile radius from the proposed location (26 Avondale Lane — Beaver Creek). This area includes but is not limited to Beaver Creek Subdivision, Beaver Creek Plaza, Bachelor Gulch, Eagle -Vail and the town of Avon. MOTION: Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority establish the neighborhood to include the area within a two -mile radius from the proposed location. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood, the desires of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and desires, per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12- 347 -301 (2) (a). 2. Whether the licensee shall possess and maintain possession of the premises for which the license is issued by ownership, lease, rental, or other arrangement for possession of such premises. 3. Whether the premises are within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 4. Whether the fees have been paid. 5. Whether the applicants are of good moral character. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicants have filed an application on forms provided by the state licensing authority and provided information as required by the state licensing authority. All applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees paid. 2. The applicants are 21 years of age and reported to be of good moral character. 3. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises November 5, 2010 and publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on November 4`'' and 11 2010. 4. The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. 5. The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 6. The applicant has submitted proof of possession of premises. 7. Staff received no response from the Eagle County Treasurer or Environmental Health Office. 8. The Eagle County Sheriff's Office, Community Development, and Road & Bridge Department expressed no concerns with the application. 9. The Eagle County Engineering Department expressed concerns with the unit size, seating capacity and the ability to control the premises. 5 11/16/2010 10. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan and proof of server training per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request, the staff findings and concluded that all staff findings were positive. Mr. Wheelock stated that this was his 3r year running the restaurant. They had done breakfast and lunch and closed around 4 pm. Breakfast had been great and then around 2:00 pm business slowed down considerably. He hoped that providing alcohol service it would boost business in the afternoon. Eric Hokanson, the registered manager stated that the patio area would be fenced. There would one cook and another person taking orders and serving drinks. During the busy hours, they would have an extra manager on duty to keep an eye on the exterior boundary. Mr. Wheelock stated that there would be plenty of signage. It was a small restaurant and he believed no matter where you were you could see things happening. Commissioner Fisher asked if the patio was such that people would hang out in the winter. She also asked about smoking. Mr. Wheelock stated that that he did not expect people to hang out in the winter and no smoking would be permitted in the patio area as it was against county code. Commissioner Runyon expressed concerned with the patio being so close to the road and wondered whether the license could be granted on a temporary basis. Ms. Scriver explained that this was a request for a new license so a temporary permit was not an option. Mr. Treu stated that the mechanism for anything happening was suspension, fine, etc. You could not have a temporary approval of a new license. Mr. Wheelock stated that if it was the board desired he could provide a letter /progress report from Beaver Creek security when the license came up for renewal. Commissioner Stavney stated that would be great but he did not want to make that a condition of approval. Commissioner Fisher asked if alcohol service would be provided at breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mr. Wheelock stated that he was not in favor of serving alcohol before lunch. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board find that there is a reasonable requirement and desire for the issuance of this license, therefore approve a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License for Vail Valley Mexican Foods, LLC d/b /a La Cantina Beaver Creek based on the testimony, petitions, and evidence submitted today and incorporating the staff findings. Such license is to be issued upon the written findings and decision of this Board and upon a final inspection of the premises by the Clerk and Recorder's Office to determine that the applicant has complied with the site information provided today and as may be required by the Colorado Liquor Code. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher stated that the local licensing authority took the liquor licenses seriously and don't want to find themselves at odds with the property owners as well as the community in which the license is held. He encouraged the Sherriff s Office to talk with his servers about some of the things that they were seeing such as new types of ID's, etc. 6 11/16/2010 Energy Smart Program - Department of Energy Grant Update (recorded) Adam Palmer, Planning Mr. Palmer spoke about the Governor's Energy Office (GEO) and Department of Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant (DOE) Grants. ECO Build Community Grant Requests (recorded) Adam Palmer, Planning Homestake Dam Rehabilitation Project and Related Activities (recorded) Gerry Knapp, Aurora Water Arkansas /Colorado River Basin Planning Files PDA -00067 Cordillera Valley Club PUD Amendment Bob Narracci, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 08/31/10 & 11/16/10. To be tabled to 12/14/10 ACTION: To amend the condition of approval of the Cordillera Valley Club Sound Mitigation and Landscaping berm. LOCATION: North side of I -70, extending the boundary of the Cordillera Valley Club. Mr. Narracci stated that the applicant requested a tabling to continue working with staff to pull the loose ends together and find a reasonable solution. Commissioner Stavney moved to table file PDA -00067 cordillera Valley Club PUD Amendment at the applicants request until December 14, 2010. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. El Jebel Transportation Update (recorded) Greg Schroeder, Engineering CDOT Federal Hazard Elimination Grant Award 1. Cedar Drive - $1.3M 2. State Hwy 82 & Valley Road - $250K 7 11/16/2010 PR -3006 Bair Family Subdivision PUD Sketch Plan Extension Adam Palmer, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 11/9/10 ACTION: The purpose of this Plan Review file is to review the extension request to submit a PUD Preliminary Plan application for the Bair Subdivision. The Sketch Plan for Bair Subdivision was approved on November 18, 2008. LOCATION: 675 Frying Pan, Basalt Area FILE NO. /PROCESS: PR -3006 Bair Family Subdivision PUD Sketch Plan Extension PROJECT NAME: Bair Family Subdivision OWNER: Virginia and Lowell Bair APPLICANT: Owners REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Dotson 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to request an extension of previously approved PUD Sketch Plan approval for PDS -00054 Bair Family Subdivision. The Bair Family Subdivision PUD Sketch Plan is to rezone and subdivide the current 10.37 -acre Agricultural Residential property into six (6) single- family residential lots ranging from 0.365 acres to 0.587 acres in size and a 7.88 -acre common open space parcel. The original staff report, resolution, and site plan are attached to this Staff Report for reference. Pursuant to Section 5- 240.2.E(4) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Sketch Plan approvals are valid for two (2) years prior to submittal of a preliminary plan. Since the Resolution for PDS -00054 was signed by the BOCC on November 18, 2008, the Sketch Plan would expire on November 18, 2010 unless a Preliminary Plan was approved or extension request was granted prior. The Board of County Commissioners may grant extensions to Sketch Plan approvals not to exceed 2 years in length, if the applicant demonstrates by competent substantial evidence that failure to proceed was beyond the applicant's control, the special use is not speculative in nature, complies with current Eagle County Land Use Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the Special Use will be developed in the extension period. B. NECESSARY FINDINGS: The necessary findings associated with the Sketch Plan Extension are articulated in Section 5- 240.2.E(4), as follows: 1. Extension Upon written request, an extension of the Sketch Plan's life may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners, not to exceed two (2) years in length, if the applicant demonstrates that failure to obtain approval of the Preliminary Plan for PUD was beyond the applicant's control (allowing reasonable time for the review process), the Sketch Plan for PUD is not speculative in nature, the Sketch Plan for PUD still complies with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, and there is a reasonable likelihood the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be developed in the next two (2) years. No request for an extension shall be considered unless a written application requesting the extension is submitted to the Community Development Director no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date the Sketch Plan for PUD is to expire. The permit shall be deemed extended until the Board of County Commissioners has acted upon the request for extension. 8 11/16/2010 Failure to submit an application for an extension within the time limits established by this Section shall render the Sketch Plan for PUD null and void. (am.11 /08/05) Failure to obtain Preliminary Plan approval was beyond the applicant's control: The applicant claims economic difficulties and challenges securing financing since the Sketch Plan approval. See attached written request from applicant. Special Use Permit is not speculative in nature: The applicant states that the primary purpose o f the subdivision is to create legal lots for family members and is not speculative in nature. Compliance with Land Use Regulations and Comprehensive Plan: No significant changes to the Land Use Regulations nor Comprehensive Plan have taken place that would affect the approval of the Sketch Plan. There is a reasonable likelihood that the Special Use will be developed in the next two years: The applicant states that geotechnical review has been completed on the property and they plan on submitting the Preliminary Plan application within the next six months. C. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. APPROVE PR -3006 Bair Family Subdivision Sketch Plan Extension request with or without conditions if it is determined that the petition DOES meet the standards outlined in Section 5- 240.2. E(4). 2. DENY PR -3006 Bair Family Subdivision Sketch Plan Extension request if it is determined that the petition DOES NOT meet the standards outlined in Section 5- 240.2.E(4). 3. TABLE the PR -3006 Bair Family Subdivision Sketch Plan request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented a slide of the Cedar Drive area. He explained the reason for the request of the extension. The request for extension required 4 findings. The board had the ability to extend the request for up to 2 years. The applicant planned on submitting the preliminary plan application within the next six months. Doug Dotson was present and spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that it was in the applicant's best interest to tackle the project and get it done as soon as possible. Commissioner Stavney believed it made good sense. Commissioner Runyon stated that he had no problems with the request. Chaiiivan Fisher asked if there was a limit to the number of times an extension could be requested. Mr. Narracci stated that there was no limit. The applicant could ask a second time. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve PR -3006 Bair Family Subdivision Sketch Plan extension. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 9 11/16/2010 ZC -2757 Lane Property Zone District Amendment Scot Hunn, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 10/19/10 ACTION: The purpose of this Zone Change is to re -zone (down -zone) approximately 128 acres of a 200 acre property from Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone District to Resource (R) Zone District. LOCATION: 401 Tree Farm Drive; located along Hwy. 82, due east of the intersection of Hwy. 82 and El Jebel Road, in El Jebel FILE NO./PROCESS: ZC- 2757 /Zone District Amendment PROJECT NAME: Lane Property Zone District Map Amendment LOCATION: 401 Tree Farm Drive, El Jebel OWNER: Woody Ventures, LLC & Nothin But Blue Skies, LLC APPLICANT: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Jon Fredericks, landWEST STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. REQUEST SUMMARY: The Applicant proposes to rezone (down zone) a 128 acre portion of the 199.8 acre "Lane Property" located in El Jebel - from Planned Unit Development (the Kodiak Park PUD) to the Resource (R) Zone District. The Resource Zone District is described in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, as follows: "The purpose of the Resource (R) zone district is to maintain the open rural character of Eagle County and to protect and enhance the appropriate use of natural resources and agricultural uses in the County including water, minerals, fiber and open land. This is accomplished by limiting residential development to very low density single-family uses on lots of thirty -five (35) acres or larger, or by encouraging clustered development on smaller lots within those portions of a property that do not contain environmental resources or natural hazard areas and by maintaining the remainder of the property as common open space or ranch land, and by limiting new commercial development to uses that have a resource orientation and to small recreation areas that comply with Master Plan policies for such uses. " This request represents the first step towards re- establishing zoning on the property and addressing a condition of Sketch Plan approval for "The Tree Farm PUD" in El Jebel, wherein the Applicant is required to present a conservation subdivision plan for those portions (128 acres) of the Lane Property not included within the adjacent Tree Farm PUD boundaries. Condition number 21 reads as follows: "Pursuant to the concept plan for a conservation subdivision presented by the applicant at the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners held on September 1, 2009, the applicant shall, at the time of any PUD Preliminary Plan application, submit a concurrent application for a Conservation Subdivision in accordance with the requirements and standards of Section 5 -295, Eagle County Land Use Regulations, addressing the future uses for all remaining Lane Property land holdings surrounding and /or adjacent to the Tree Farm PUD boundaries. The applicant may condition any rezoning or subdivision of all remaining Lane Property land on the approval of The Tree Farm land use plan pursuant to conditions acceptable to the applicant." Although the Applicant has submitted (inclusive with this Zone District Amendment request) a conceptual plan for a conservation subdivision, this application is not associated with any formal subdivision request at this time. The 10 11/16/2010 conceptual subdivision plan is submitted in good faith toward addressing a condition of Sketch Plan approval for the Tree Farm PUD, and to illustrate the viability of a potential subdivision design. B. BACKGROUND /CHRONOLOGY: The subject property (actually two properties constituting 128 acres) is located within the former Kodiak Park PUD, also known as the "Lane Property ". Portions of the subject property are also located within the Town of Basalt Urban Growth Boundary. The Kodiak Park PUD encompassed 199.8 acres owned by the Lanes. The Lane Property is generally situated adjacent to the Highway 82 corridor to the south; Laura J Estates to the east; State and Bureau of Land Management (Federal) lands to the east and north, and; the El Jebel Mobile Home Park and Shadowrock PUD to the west. The Preliminary Plan and PUD zoning for Kodiak Park PUD was originally approved by Eagle County in February 1994. That Preliminary Plan and zoning designation was applied to the entirety of the 199.8 acres owned by the Applicant. Due to access issues with neighboring properties, the subsequent Final Plat for the PUD was not approved, therefore, development did not commence. In 1997, the County granted a one year Preliminary Plan extension for 1994 Kodiak Park PUD approval, however that extension (and the 1994 development plan associated with the Preliminary Plan) expired, again without the submittal of any Final Plat. However, the PUD zoning designation remained in effect on the property. In 2000, a new Sketch Plan for PUD application was submitted for the Lane Property. That Plan was reviewed and approved by Eagle County. That approval has also since expired, leaving the entire 199.8 acre property zoned PUD but with no approved development plan. Most recently, 71.71 acres of the total 199.8 Lane Property were the subject of a new Sketch Plan for PUD — the "Tree Farm PUD ". The Tree Farm PUD received Sketch Plan approval from Eagle County on September 1, 2009. During the review of the Tree Farm PUD, concerns regarding the future use (or preservation) of the remaining 128 acres included in the Lane Property (which is still zoned PUD, but which has no development plan) was expressed by community members, the Town of Basalt and the Board of County Commissioners. A resultant condition of approval for the Tree Farm Sketch Plan requires Applicant to submit an application for a "conservation subdivision" for the remaining 128 acres at the time of any Preliminary Plan for PUD application, with the intent to limit future residential development and to ensure the majority of the remaining acreage owned by the Lanes is somehow preserved as open space. As outlined in this zone district amendment application, the 128 acres located outside the proposed Tree Farm PUD must be down -zoned to Resource (or some other agricultural zone district) in order to 1) legitimize existing uses on the property, and 2) facilitate submittal of any future conservation subdivision on the property. Note: While the Applicant has submitted a concept of a future conservation subdivision, no formal application for a subdivision has been submitted at this time. Therefore, many of the criteria and issues related to conformance (listed below) typically associated with the review of a zone district amendment and companion subdivision application — will be addressed by Staff as "not applicable ". In addition, while Staff's memo would normally include a lengthy review of Eagle County Land Use Regulation requirements applicable to a subdivision request, such review is not necessary at this time as no formal subdivision request has been made. As outlined above, the Applicant has included the concept plan for a conservation subdivision in the spirit of meeting the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and as a good faith effort toward meeting the intent of a condition of Sketch Plan approval for the Tree Farm PUD. 11 11/16/2010 In this instance, though, Staff suggests it is important to make the distinction between a typical "up- zone" request (say, from Resource zoning to Planned Unit Development) and this proposal which could be considered "a- typical" — where the Applicant is actually proposing to down -zone the subject property to the County's second most rural/least dense residential zone district where the minimum lot size is 35 acres (second only to Resource Preservation, or `RP' zoning which is typically applied to federal lands and where the minimum lot size is 80 acres). C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / ping: North: BLM `RP' South: Wind River Nursery / Kodiak pUD' Park Ski Lake East: Residential (Laura J Estates) `RR' Christine State Wildlife Area `R' West: Residential (Shadowrock) / El `PUD' / Jebel Mobile Home Park `RSM' Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)* Proposed Zonings Resource (`R') C urreld t: (1) Single- family residential use and associated accessory dwelling unit; out - buildings (art studio, barn) and private recreational motorized "track" Site Conditions: Moderate to steep pinion /juniper hillsides and sagebrush meadows; Robinson Ditch Water: Public: N/A Private: Well Sewer: Public: N/A Private: Septic Access: Via State Highway 82; Willits Lane intersection; Tree Farm Drive /Shadowrock D. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated July 14, 2010. Eagle County Department of Environmental Health: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated July 2, 2010. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District: Please refer to the attached letter dated July 9, 2010. Mid Valley Trails Committee: Please refer to the attached letter dated July 7, 2010. Town of Basalt: Please refer to the attached letter dated July 27, 2010. Pitkin County: Please refer to the attached letter dated July 12, 2010. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following County departments and referral agencies with no response received as of this writing: • Eagle County Attorney's Office • Eagle County Housing and Development Department • Eagle County Assessor's Office • Colorado Division of Wildlife • Colorado Division of Water Resources • Holy Cross Energy • Mid - Valley Metropolitan District • Gas Utility Provider • Cable Utility Provider • Basalt Water Conservancy District • Garfield County 12 11 /1 6/2 1 00 • Shadowrock HOA • Laura J Estates HOA E. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION At their regularly scheduled meeting on October 21, 2010, the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the Lane Property Zone District Amendment request. After a short presentation by County Staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission deliberated briefly before a motion and second to approve the request failed, with a vote of 2 -2; a subsequent motion and second to deny the request failed as well with a vote of 2 -2. During their deliberations, Commission members stated the following: • One member inquired about the intent of the clustering provisions (allowable under the Land Use Regulations). The Commission then discussed the number of lots permitted under Resource (35 acre) zoning vs. the potential for additional lots that could be created within any future conservation subdivision; • One member indicated general support for the re- zoning request, but questioned why the proposal was applicable to only 128 acres (out of the total 199.8 acres). That same member expressed concern for the fact that by not including the entire 199.8 acres in the re- zoning proposal, the property was being presented (and considered) piece -meal; • One member clarified the intent and timing of the re- zoning request relative to Condition No. 21 o the Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD approval; • One member clarified the timing of consideration for any recommendations or requests by the M id- Valley Trails Committee, stating that as the Applicant were to move forward with any future conservation subdivision request for the 128 acres, they should coordinate with the Trails Committee; • In voting to deny the request, two of the Commission members expressed the desire to consider the proposal in relation to the entirety of Lane Property. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map 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. 13 11/16/2010 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: EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Section 3.2 General Development Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k Policy `a': "Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations ". This proposal to down zone the subject property from PUD to the Resource Zone District (with 35 -acre minimum lot size and `rural' development standards) will ensure the subject property will retain those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County. Policy `c': "Growth should be managed toward future sustainability — a healthy balance between economic success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment ". The proposed zone district amendment helps to protect a healthy balance between economic success for the land owner and protecting the quality of life and the preservation of the environment by reducing the potential for future development upon the subject property. Policy `e': "Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers ". Not applicable. Policy `f': "New communities proposed for unincorporated areas of the County should be subject to a thorough and rigorous set of development criteria". Not applicable. Policy `g': "Redevelopment and/or revitalization of currently underdeveloped, outdated, rundown, or otherwise dysfunctional areas should be encourages". Not applicable. Policy `h': "Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved ". Zoning of the subject property (and significant acreage), located between the community center of El Jebel and Federal and State lands may serve as a transitional, buffer area. Resource zoning applied to the subject property may lead to the preservation of significant portions of pinion juniper hillsides in the Hwy. 82 corridor. Policy `I': "A cluster style of development should be encouraged, especially in areas where cultural, environmental or scenic resources at risk". This proposed zone district amendment does not include any formal, accompanying application for subdivision at this time; however, the Applicant has submitted (for reference) a conceptual plan for a conservation subdivision on the subject property, wherein four (4) additional residential lots could be created in a cluster nearby the existing 14 11/16/2010 single- family residence. As plans for such conservation subdivision are further developed working with County Staff, the Applicant will be encouraged to maximize the benefits of clustering any additional building sites so as to ensure protection of scenic and/or environmental resources. Policy `k': "Local communities should establish unique venues, attractions and design standards directed toward enhancing individual community character and developing a sense of place". Not applicable. Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c, d, e, f, h, j, m and o Policy `b': "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered". Not applicable. Policy `c': "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 zone district amendment may serve to protect a healthy balance between economic success for the land owner and protecting the quality of life and the preservation of the environment by reducing the potential for future development upon the subject property. Policy `d': "The potential impacts of second -home ownership and an aging resident population in Eagle County should be identified and incorporated into the decision making process ". Not applicable. Policy `e': "Commercial development should occur at a pace commensurate to growth in Eagle County': Not applicable. Policy 'f': "Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers". Not applicable. Policy `h': "Commercial development should fit a regional economic structure that promotes a coherent regional `community' while respecting sub -area character and identity". Not applicable. Policy `i': "Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations': Not applicable. Policy `k': "Timber harvesting and mining should be recognized as viable economic activities, so long as negative social, cultural and environmental impacts are appropriately mitigated': Not applicable. Policy `m': "Economic infrastructure should be planned for in advance, and should be adequate to support existing and future business needs". 15 11/16/2010 Not applicable. Policy `o': "Future economic development in Eagle County should center on the area's existing amenities while encouraging new knowledge and technology based enterprises': Not applicable. Section 3.4 Housing Policies a, d, e, g and n Policy `a': "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers ". Not applicable. Policy `d': "Efforts to increase the stock of affordable rental units for local workers should be supported ". Not applicable. Policy `e': "Adequate housing options for Senior Citizens should be available ". Not applicable. Policy `2': "Well designed mobile home subdivisions, modular home subdivisions and mobile home parks should be encouraged where appropriate". Not applicable. Policy `n': "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs". Not applicable. Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g, i, j, k, m and o Policy `a': "Developed areas in Eagle County should be served by multiple modes of transportation': Not applicable. Policy `c': "Residential neighborhoods should include an appropriate mix of community services and community centered retail spaces that can be accessed by alternative modes of transportation': Not applicable. Policy `2': "Eagle County should be adequately and efficiently served by mass transportation systems and facilities ". Not applicable. Policy 'i': "Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and second home owners". The existing property is currently served by emergency service providers. Policy `1': "The management and distribution of recreation areas and facilities in Eagle County should be implemented in an environmentally conscientious manner ". 16 11/16/2010 Not applicable. Policv `k': "Adequate and efficient infrastructure should exist within community centers and .suburban neighborhoods for the delivery of domestic drinking water and for the treatment of domestic sewage". Not applicable. Policy `m': "Communication infrastructure should be sufficient to support all anticipated needs in Eagle County': Not applicable. Policy `o': "The service and infrastructure needs of all socio- economic, age and cultural groups present in Eagle County should be fully addressed". Not applicable. Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i Policv `a': "The long term viability of both ground and surface water sources should be protected" Not applicable. Policy `b': "Minimum in- stream flows should be maintained and efforts to establish optimum in- stream flow standards in Eagle County should be supported': Not applicable. Policv `c': "Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented ". The application does not address water conservation. Policy `d': "New water diversions and water storage projects should result in positive impacts to Eagle County's economy and environmental quality". Not applicable. Policy `e': "Collaborative efforts on regional land and water use planning efforts to address future growth, water supply, and stream flow protection should be encouraged': Not applicable. Policy `fl: "Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable standards': Not applicable. Policv `2': "Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts': No change in use is being proposed at this time. Any future conservation subdivision will likely include provisions for protection of open space and any surface or groundwater supplies. Policy `h': "Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts': 17 11/16/2010 See above comment. Policy `i': "Water- related recreation should be encouraged where appropriate at a level that will not damage related resources, ecosystems and environments". Not applicable. Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Policy `a': "The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved" As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not responded to Eagle County's referral of the application. However, by down - zoning the property from PUD to the Resource Zone District, potential for development on the property will be reduced significantly. As well, the land owner will be required in the future to submit an application for subdivision, wherein a conservation subdivision will be required as a matter of conformance with conditions of approval for the Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD. Through that process, Staff and the Applicant will be able to work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife with regard to placement of any future building sites, as well as site development standards specific to the protection' of wildlife habitat, movement corridors and the like. Policy `b': "The well -being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and protected". Not applicable. Policy `c': "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 " Not applicable. Policy `d': "Development in areas critical to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed". Please see above comment regarding wildlife and the layout and design of any future conservation subdivision. Policy `e': "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts" Not applicable. Policy `P: "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 ". Not applicable. Policy `i': "Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need to preserve quality wildlife habitat ". Not applicable. Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g Policy `a': "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard': 18 11/16/2010 Not applicable. Policy `b': "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". Not applicable. Policy `c': "Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic and archeological value ". The proposed zone change will help protect the visual and historic value of the subject property by reducing the potential for future development upon the subject property. Further, if a conservation subdivision is later proposed for the subject property, significant portions of the pinion juniper hillsides (and therefore scenic qualities of the area) could be further preserved through proper placement of building sites. Policy `e': "A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space". While no further subdivision or development is proposed at this time, future conservation subdivision plans will include clustering and a conservation easement or other protective mechanism on a minimum of 67% of the subject property. Policy `g': "Appropriate access should be provided to public lands and rivers". Not applicable. Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a, c and d Policy `a': "Air quality should meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents" Not applicable. Policy `c': "Noise should be minimized to meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents': Not applicable. Policy `d': "Energy efficiency and the reduction of overall energy consumption should be a primary goal for future operations and developments in Eagle County': Not applicable. Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a Policy `a': "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 future land use map for the Mid Valley area identifies the subject property as being within "Existing Residential Development." This designation reflects the one (1) single- family residence and one (1) assessor dwelling unit currently constructed on the property. Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals, policies and FLUM designations 19 11/16/2010 MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Communit El Lower Open Space / Ruedi Missouri Housing Transportation y Environment Jebell/ Frying Reservoir Heights Facilities Basalt Pan Conformance X' X Non Conformance Mixed X Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable (1) The proposed zone district amendment will generally encourage the preservation of open space, wildlife habitat, natural environment and the rural character of the valley by reducing the overall potential for additional residential development on the subject property. (2) Although not being considered concurrently with the zone district amendment at this time, the conceptual plan for a conservation subdivision on the subject property as presented by the Applicant demonstrates the potential for a limited cluster of low density residential development on the property while preserving significant portions of agricultural and undeveloped pinion juniper hillside areas in their natural state. (3) The proposed zone district amendment (and any conservation subdivision proposal creating limited additional residential building sites) would actually result in a lower density in this area of the El Jebel community center than is called for in the Mid - Valley Area Community Plan. The Plan calls for "High Density" (or 4 -8 units per acre) to be "concentrated around the El Jebel and Basalt community centers within '/2 mile radius (ten minute walking distance)..." According to the Future Land Use Map for the Mid - Valley area, the subject property is generally located adjacent to and within 'h mile of the "Service Area" which covers most of El Jebel's commercial core to the west of the property boundary. Further, the subject property is located directly adjacent to areas identified as "Potential High Density Residential" uses on the Future Land Use Map. When considering the next density classification outlined in the Plan — "Medium Density" - which calls for 2 -6 units per acre for developments occurring "outside the Vz mile walking radius, where community sewer and water services are available and access to Highway 82 is convenient ", again, the proposed zone district amendment and conceptual plan for conservation subdivision would create a lower density than is currently prescribed in the Mid - Valley Community Area Plan for those areas beyond Yz mile from the community center, but which are located within urban service boundaries. TOWN OF BASALT 2007 COMMUNITY PLAN EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 20 11/16/2010 DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS r r ' = ` . g 0 A Desig Recommendation, - Incorporates - ` Majdrity X 1 X2 X3 of Recommendatorta Does Not Incorporate Recommendations _ Not Applicable X X X X (1) The Community Size and Character goal directs the town to: "[T] ake advantage of community assets, (particularly the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers, small -town character and the architectural character of the Midland Avenue business district) in the design and implementation of new projects, both private and public to foster a balanced community made up mostly of year -round residents with a broad mix of income, age and ethnic backgrounds." An objective of the plan is to: "Examine land use and physical planning concepts and other possible improvements along and adjacent to Highway 82 to ensure that the Highway 82 Corridor complements, and does not detract from, the Town's existing small -town qualities" Certain portions (the valley floor /tree farm agricultural uses) of the Lane Property are located within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. To the extent the proposed Zone District Amendment furthers the goal of complementing other land uses in the area and does not detract from the Town's `small town qualities', this master plan goal is being met. (2) Environmental goals and objectives set forth seek to `protect and enhance the natural environment ", and to: "Maintain the ecological integrity of the natural landscape, streams, surface waters and wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, big game migration corridors and critical habitats such as critical winter range and production areas." Objective number 4.8.13 states: "Strictly enforce the UGB identified in this master plan which was, in part, established in response to the desire to preserve wildlife habitat areas and migration routes; " Certain portions (the valley floor /tree farm agricultural uses) of the Lane Property are located within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. To the extent the proposed Zone District Amendment furthers the objective of `enforcing the UGB' and the goal of preserving `wildlife habitat areas and migration routes' by creating rural zoning directly adjacent to and surrounding the UGB, this plan goal is met. (3) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) The FLUM designates a small portion of the subject property (within the UGB) as "Public Open Space/Private Open Space ". 21 11/16/2010 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? 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 proposed zone change from `PUD' to Resource zoning provides compatibility with surrounding land uses — specifically with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property. For example, dimensional limitations of the Resource Zone District are identical to the standards of the Rural Residential (`RR') zone district associated with Laura J Estates located directly adjacent and to the south/east of the subject property. The proposed zone district (amendment) may serve as an important transition area and buffer between existing community center uses located to the south, west and east in El Jebel and the Lake Christine State Wildlife Area and Federal (BLM) lands to the north and east. As well, the proposed amendment request will permit the applicant to submit a subsequent application for a conservation subdivision, wherein significant preservation of existing, undeveloped agricultural and native pinion juniper hillsides may be achieved. X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. The public benefit generated by this proposal includes: • Increased opportunity to preserve woodland hillside /visual or scenic qualities of area. • Restoring low density, rural zoning on transitional property located between higher intensity uses and densities located in the El Jebel community center and publically held lands to the north and east (BLM and State) which are currently zoned Resource Preservation and Resource, respectively. • Creation of zoning on the property which will legitimize existing uses on the property, and permit the Applicant to submit an application for a conservation subdivision for the property in response to a condition of approval associated with the Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD. 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? The proposal responds to a condition of Sketch Plan for PUD approval associated with the Tree Farm PUD; the proposal also responds to a situation wherein the subject property is currently zoned PUD, but with no development (zoning) standards. Therefore, there has been a material change in the immediate neighborhood which predicates this zone district amendment request. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 22 11/16/2010 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 and the property is currently, adequately served by private water and wastewater facilities (ie. well and septic). EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE B. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: • The proposal responds to a condition of Sketch Plan for PUD approval associated with the Tree Farm PUD. The proposal also responds to a situation wherein the subject property is currently zoned PUD, but with no development (zoning) standards. As outlined in this zone district amendment application, the 128 acres located outside the proposed Tree Farm PUD must be down -zoned to Resource (or some other agricultural zone district) in order to facilitate submittal of any future conservation subdivision on the property. • Zoning of the subject property (and significant acreage), located between the community center of El Jebel, Federal and State lands may serve as a transitional, buffer area. Resource zoning applied to the subject property may lead to the preservation of significant portions of pinion juniper hillsides in the Hwy. 82 corridor. • The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for the Mid - Valley Community Master Plan area identifies the subject property as being within "Existing Residential Development ". Adjacent land use designations include "Service Area" and "Potential High Density Residential" to the west, and "Existing Residential" to the east and south. • The proposed zone district amendment (allowing for existing residential uses and any future conservation subdivision proposal creating a limited amount of additional residential building sites) would actually result in a lower density in this area of the El Jebel community center than is called for in the Mid - Valley Area Community Plan. • The Town of Basalt 2007 Community Plan goals for community size and character, environment and future land use are generally met by this proposal. • The proposed zone change from `PUD' to Resource zoning provides compatibility with surrounding land uses — specifically with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property. C. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OPTIONS: 1. Approve File No. ZC -2757 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). 23 11/16/2010 2. Deny File No. ZC - 2757 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 File No. ZC - 2757 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve File No. ZC - 2757 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). D. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. 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. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hunn presented the request. He presented a vicinity map highlighting the property location. The property included 199.8 acres, a single- family residence, an accessory dwelling unit and out buildings, a Special Use Permit for the nursery/tree farm, and private motorized recreation area. The entire property was zoned PUD as part of the Kodiak Park PUD and in 1998 the preliminary plan expired. Since 1998, the property had been PUD but effectively had no development plan or standards. The current uses were non - conforming. The applicant was requesting to rezone a 128 -acre portion of the 199.8 acres. Commissioner Runyon wondered why the zoning would not just revert back to the original zoning after the preliminary plan expired in 1998. Mr. Morris stated that the land use regulations did not address these types of circumstances. There were currently no law or state statutes that addressed it either. - There were a lot of anomalies in the Colorado vesting and zoning laws. Mr. Hunn presented a slide of the proposed zoning. The purpose of the resource zone district was to maintain the open and rural character of Eagle County. He believed that the proposed zone district was the right zone district for this property given the potential for a future conservation subdivision. The future land use map identified the subject property as existing residential development. The 2007 master plan showed a small portion of the property within the town's urban grown boundary as well as public and private open space. Chairman Fisher wondered how the private and public open space became public. Mr. Hunn stated that the area could become either. There was currently no public access. He presented the standards associated with a zone change. In each case, staff found positive findings. In summary, the proposal responded to the condition of Sketch Plan for PUD approval associated with the Tree Farm PUD. The property also responded to a situation wherein the subject property was currently zoned PUD, but with no development standards. Commissioner Runyon asked if the applicant was interested in subdividing any of the property. Mr. Hunn stated that they were not interested. Jon Fredericks, Michael Hoffman, Dave Morris were present Mr. Fredericks stated that the basis of the request was to satisfy condition of approval #21 for The Tree Farm PUD. This rezoning was a necessary first step. The second reason for the request was that the existing zoning was PUD, but had no recorded PUD guide. This had created a challenging situation for both the county and 24 11/16/2010 the landowner. There are two main parcels on the property. The first was a 35 -acre parcel and the second, a 164 acres parcel, which together made up the entire property. The tree farm portion, just shy of 72 acres would remain as is. Out of the entire property, this request focused on 128 of those acres. This request was strictly for a downzoning and there were no other changes in land use. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney believed that this was basically housekeeping. He spoke about some of the letters received by the board. He could see that there were still some concerns from the mid valley trails committee. This would open the door so the applicant could move forward in a legal well- defined way. Mr. Frederick stated that they were seeking to zone the balance of the property so they could come in at the time they made the tree farm preliminary application and suggest a subdivision plan for the balance of the property. The property would be reviewed at the next stage. This was a required step to get to that point. Commissioner Stavney found the Town of Basalt's response somewhat humorous. Commissioner Runyon stated that changing the zoning to Resource did not preclude any number of options. Mr. Hoffman stated that at the next stage he believed that one of the conditions of approval would be that no further subdivision of either parcel. This would fix the land use plan for both parcels in perpetuity. Mr. Morris stated that the county did not do exactions. He stated that the board could require that a certain percentage of the property become open space. Mr. Frederick asked if the conservation subdivision were approved it was his understanding that the subdivision could not be subdivided. Mr. Morris stated that future boards could reconfigure a subdivision. The only way to take land out of the development permanently was to put a conservation easement on it. The board would have the power to require a conservation easement held by a qualified land trust. Chairman Fisher stated that a formal vote would take place in Eagle. Commissioner Stavney moved to direct staff to write a resolution including the amendment, fmdings, and discussion for file ZC -2757 zone district amendment approving the Lane Property Zone District Map amendment from PUD to resource zoning. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board, the meetin adjourned until ovember 23, 2010. 1 vet bl Attest: - � .�iL: ` -e , Clerk to the Boar , * * ' Cha' �f %toe 'd 25 11/16/2010