No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/26/11 PUBLIC HEARING July 26, 2011 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Christina Hooper Assistant County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board 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 Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of July 25, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the Minutes for the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for May 24 and May 31, 2011 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder C. Resolution 2011 -081 for Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for The Pointe at Edwards, Eagle County File No. SMA -00025 County Attorney's Office /Engineering Representative D. Resolution 2011 -082 Approving the Format for the 2011 Election Intergovernmental Agreement for Political Subdivisions and Authorizing the Chairman of the Board to Execute the Agreements Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder E. Encroachment Easement Agreement with the Villas at Brett Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc. County Attorney's Office /Engineering Representative F. Extension Agreement for Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Colorado Department of Human Services and Eagle County for the Colorado Works and Child Care Assistance Programs Nola Nicholson, Health & Human Services G. Purchase of Services Contract between Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Alpine Area Agency on Aging and Eagle County for Program of the Older Americans and/or Program of the Older Coloradans Act Karen Koenemann, Health and Human Services H. Resolution 2011 -083 Concerning Appointment to the Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee Toby Sprunk, Open Space • L Resolution Concerning Correction of Error in the Assessor's Valuation of Certain Rams -Horn Lodge Condominium Units County Attorney's Office Representative 1 07/26/2011 J. Amendment Number Four to Contract Dated May 27, 2008 between Aviation, Inc. and Eagle County Chris Anderson, Airport Chairman Stavney asked the rest of the board and the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that Item I would be considered in next week's schedule. Commissioner Fisher spoke about item H. Commissioner Runyon spoke about Item I. Appointing Lew Meskiman, a longtime local to the Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -J, eliminating item I. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher provided some information about the Fair and Rodeo, which was going on this week. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Gypsum for Cooperative Law Enforcement Services Sheriff's Office Representative Chairman Stavney spoke about the agreement and contract for these services. He believed the Sheriff was covering his costs and Gypsum was getting a good deal in the contract. Keith Montag clarified that the contract did cover a two -year period. Commissioner Runyon stated that in years when the county had strong growth the board had not paid as much attention to this agreement and its details. Commissioner Fisher stated that it seemed like a good relationship all around. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the amended and restated intergovernmental agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Gypsum for cooperative law enforcement services. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Treasurer's and Public Trustee's Second Quarter Interest Reports Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer and Public Trustee Chairman Stavney presented Ms. Sheaffer with a certificate for 15 years of service with the county. Ms. Sheaffer stated that the interest rates of 1.25% were the best that could be hoped for. The second quarter interest report indicated $332,000, which was a 55% decrease from last year. Year to date the interest was approximately $605,000.00. Chairman Stavney clarified that interest received was currently behind budget as it was halfway through the year and the revenue was only 35% of the amount budgeted. Ms. Sheaffer stated that all principle had been preserved. Karla Herridge spoke about new foreclosures and the fact that they are less than last year at this time. She wasn't sure if this represented a trend as they can be processed at any time throughout the year. The chart was on the Treasurer's website. 2 07/26/2011 Resolution 2011 -084 Ordering Publication by the County Clerk and Recorder of a Notice of Hearing to be Held at 6 p.m. on August 30, 2011 at the Mount Sopris Room of the Eagle County Community Center in El Jebel Colorado on a Petition for Formation of a Local Improvement District Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 30 -20 -601 Et Seq. for the Purpose of Funding the 10 Percent Local Match Portion of a $1.3 Million Federal Hazard Elimination Grant for Improvements to Cedar Drive Chairman Stavney explained the need for the resolution. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution ordering publication by the County Clerk and Recorder of a Notice of Hearing to be Held at 6 p.m. on August 30, 2011 at the Mount Sopris Room of the Eagle County Community Center in El Jebel Colorado on a Petition for Formation of a Local Improvement District Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 30 -20 -601 Et Seq. for the Purpose of Funding the 10 Percent Local Match Portion of a $1.3 Million Federal Hazard Elimination Grant for Improvements to Cedar Drive Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2011 -085 Regarding Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization County Attorney's Office Representative Bryan Treu explained the process. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution regarding petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2011 -086 Appointing an Additional Referee for the 2011 Board of Equalization Hearings County Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolution appointing an additional referee for the 2011 Board of Equalization Hearings. Commissioner Fisher seconded them motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 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. 3 07/26/2011 Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. drink! d/b /a drink! #41- 76461 -0000 This is a renewal of a retail liquor store 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. Eagle/Vail Original Sports Bar, LLC d/b /a Paddy's #12- 87957 -0000 This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license in Eagle -Vail. 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. C. Connelly's, LLC d/b /a E -Town Colorado #28- 45422 -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. D. Edwards Liquor Mart, Inc. d/b /a Riverwalk Wine & Spirits #23- 77593 -0000 This is a renewal for a retail liquor store 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. The applicant is also requesting a tasting permit to continue in -store tastings. The permit will be valid until the expiration of the applicants' liquor license. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for July 26, 2011 consisting of Items A -D. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce REQUEST: Special Events Permit EVENT: Demolition Derby DATE OF EVENT: August 19, 2011 REPRESENTATIVE: Michelle Morgan and Erin Vega LOCATION: Eagle County Fairgrounds — 426 Fairgrounds Road, Eagle STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce has requested a special events permit for a Demolition Derby event being held at the Eagle County Fairgrounds on Friday, August 19, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. However, alcohol will be sold from 6 — 9:30 pm. Diamanti Security is contracted to provide security for the event. Food vendors will include, Dusty Boot Restaurant, Pazzos Pizza, Fusion Cafe and the Ice Cream Lady. The applicant estimates the number of persons attending to be 2,600 (per the lease agreement). STAFF FINDINGS: 4 07/26/2011 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 on both premises on July 14, 2010, 11 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 proof of server training. 5. Staff has had no problems with events held by the applicant in the past. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver spoke about the event and provided details about alcohol service from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Diamonte would be providing the event security. They expected over 2000 people to attend the event. Sherry Cusson with Buckaroo Productions stated that last year's event was great. Mr. Cusson explained that they would have more security this year so that there are no issues. The fire department asked them to notify them and the Sheriff's department. He would personally notify these entities. Chairman Stavney suggested sending email notifications. The Town of Eagle had their town meeting this evening. Commissioner Fisher provided some suggestions about involving the local government and law enforcement agencies. She acknowledged that 2000 people in one place were a lot. Commissioner Runyon suggested adding some details for the public. Ms. Cusson stated that there were several heats and explained how the event would proceed. The Lawn Chair Drill Team and Eagle Valley High School Dance team would also perform. Tickets were on sale at Eagle Embroidery, Sinclair, Pazzo's, and Napa Auto Parts. Advance purchase of tickets was recommended. The show started at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit for the Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce Demolition Derby event being held at the Eagle County Fairgrounds on Friday, August 19, 2011 from 9 a.m. — 11 p.m. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Commissioner Fisher asked about re- cycling efforts and hoped they would re -cycle as much as possible. 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 Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Open Space Funding Request: Cochran Property Toby Sprunk, Open Space and. Diane Mauriello spoke. Ms. Mauriello explained the reason for having 3 items for the one property. Typically, there were additional resolutions authorizing an appropriation for purchases. Mr. Sprunk provided some details about the property and site visit. The rafting community and fisherman supported the county's efforts to acquire the property. Adjacent landowners were concerned due to the boat launch possibilities. Access off Highway 131 was also a concern due to a possible unsafe turn. The county engineering department has had conversations with CDOT as any changes to the road or signage would be at their recommendation. The county would address any road issues per CDOT's recommendations. 5 07/26/2011 Chairman Stavney asked if this change of ownership would trigger a review by CDOT. Ms. Mauriello stated that use was what would trigger this review, but the county engineering department had been in contact with CDOT. Mr. Sprunk spoke about the railroad easement. It was his understanding that there was nothing that would prohibit the county's use of the property as a boat launch. Kelly Miller from the Engineering Department spoke about the easements. The map supported the deed and therefore there was a 150 ft. not 200 ft. easement. Chairman Stavney spoke about the bridge platform and the lower bridge to the neighboring property. The 75 feet from centerline was encompassed within the super elevation and would not impede upon the use of the property. Mr. Sprunk spoke about staffing limitations and management of the property. He stated that the property would not be open until the county was confident with its ability to manage it. Trash, noise, rules and regulations would need to be established in the future. He hoped to incorporate the concerns of adjacent landowners prior to opening the access. Chairman Stavney spoke about the landowner's concerns. He committed to making sure these concerns would be strongly considered in the future as plans to open the facility came together. Mr. Sprunk suggested the possibility of separating access for the public from that of the homeowners. Chairman Stavney spoke about the need for a proposed improvement site plan.. Commissioner Fisher stated that she appreciates the opportunity and yet recognizes the discomfort for the adjacent homeowners. She was committed to doing things right and would consider public input. Chairman Stavney believed that there was overwhelming public support. The Kremmling BLM department was ready to manage the access site. Commissioner Runyon asked about the access and the State Land Board parcel. It was originally 640 acres, with two parcels cut out under previous deals. He wondered how to maximize the access so that the % mile in from the river was the desired land. Ms. Mauriello stated that the easement was not an issue, and should not impede closing as the county surveyor reviewed the maps and deeds. An easement across the land board meant the State Land board had retained rights and would work with the county. Chairman Stavney opened public comment. Jeff Goodwin stated that there would be no access to that portion of the parcel. Chairman Stavney stated that the railroad did not have the legal right to block that access. Commissioner Fisher stated that there were many positives with this purchase. The property would not be open to the public until a management plan was developed. In some form, the attempt would be to create a semi- private road to restrict as much traffic as possible. When people needed to portage during high water there would be additional area available for this activity. She hoped in the end there would be little impact. Chairman Stavney stated that there would not be a full access off Highway 131. Patty Goodwin spoke about the bridge and the fact that someone would inevitably get up onto this bridge and it would be a huge liability. Chairman Stavney spoke about the exclusive right starting on the other side of the river. Ms. Goodwin stated that the bridge was going to be a huge problem. Chairman Stavney stated that it was already a problem before the change in ownership. He suggested adequate signage to help with any potential problems. He anticipated moving the put -in and take -out below the bridge. Jean Naumann spoke to the board. She planned the property for her retirement income. She had the property for sale and had a buyer until the open space property purchase came up. She found the purchase unconscionable. Mr. Goodwin stated that the economy was bad, and the county was paying 30% more than what the property was worth. Chairman Stavney stated that the appraised value after this sale would raise the adjacent property values. It was a useful parcel to break up the river use in reasonable segments. The county was excited about the purchase. Sometimes opportunities need to be taken. Ms. Naumann spoke about the noise associated with the public access. 6 07/26/2011 Commissioner Fisher stated that she appreciated everyone's concerns. The owners have had the opportunity to live in a beautiful spot, but restricting or limiting access to the river to people who also live here and pay their dues every day was not reasonable. The river was not the property of the adjacent homeowners. She respected what the owners had. The rivers were intriguing to everyone in the valley and they help to diversify the valley. She hoped the owners would continue to work with the county and she believed it a great opportunity. Chairman Stavney spoke about the 700 acres for $730,000 and that it was a unique opportunity due to the surrounding State Land Board land. The opportunity to open the land for access made it a unique benefit. He hoped it was not damaging in the end to the adjacent property owner's enjoyment of their property. Commissioner Runyon spoke about residential development and valuation. Ms. Naumann had a buyer who was a private rafting company and he believed the property was worth more than the appraised value. This represented a difference between commercial and residential use. Mr. Goodwin asked why the county did not consider purchasing the Naumann property. Mr. Sprunk spoke about the extent to which purchasing properties with homes on them was not preferable Mr. Treu stated that the State Land Board property played a part in the decision. Chairman Stavney stated that the lease was not guaranteed, but they were doing good work with the State Land Board and intended to leverage this relationship in the future. Resolution 2011 -087 Granting Approval of the Use of Open Space Funds for the Acquisition of the Cochran Property located at 18231 Highway 131, Eagle County Colorado County Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolution granting approval of the use of Open Space Funds for the acquisition of the Cochran Property located at 18231 Highway 131, Eagle County Colorado. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2011 -088 Approving Appropriation for the Purchase of the Property Located at 18231 Highway 131, Eagle County, Colorado from John and Marianne Cochran, and Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents necessary to Effectuate the Closing of the Purchase County Attorney's Office Representative explained the need for this resolution. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution approving appropriation for the purchase of the property located at 18231 Highway 131, Eagle County, Colorado from John and Marianne Cochran, and authorize any of the Eagle County Commissioners to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the closing of the purchase. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the adjacent property and the reason it was not considered. At the time the property was under contract. Mr. Treu indicated that the county did the best it could. Resolution 2011 -089 Approving Appropriation and Use of Open Space funds for the Purchase of 160 Acres East of Lake Creek Ranch Property, Eagle County, Colorado from East Lake Creek Ranch, LLP, and Authorizing any of the Eagle County 7 07/26/2011 Commissioners to Execute All Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Closing of the Purchase County Attorney's Office Representative Ms. Mauriello stated that the final piece for the purchase of the 160 acres and the resolution provided some flexibility to use General or Open Space funds. The reason for adding the General Fund piece was to provide flexibility with other partners. Some agreements take time and this provided additional flexibility. Chairman Stavney spoke about the injunction between the access and the Allen tract. The county wanted to be clear that the county's intent was to close on the sale as a fantastic opportunity and it may not neatly line up with the refinement of documents related to the sale. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the need for partners to leverage open space dollars. They always want the people most affected and benefited to step up and help to a greater degree. There had been a disappointing response from some entities. He had personally donated money to the Eagle Valley Land Trust for this property. Chairman Stavney implored citizens to contribute if they could and expected to benefit. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve appropriation and use of Open Space funds for the purchase of 160 acres east of Lake Creek Ranch property, Eagle County, Colorado from East Lake Creek Ranch, LLP, and authorize any of the Eagle County Commissioners to execute all the documents necessary to effectuate the closing of the purchase. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files LUR -3053 Regulation Amendment to Allow Residential Use in the County's Commercial Zone Districts Subject to Special Use Review FNZ -3054 Schmidt Residence Stream Setback Variance Request ZS -3055 Schmidt Residence Special Use Permit Bob Narracci, Planning Department Ben Gerdes, Engineering Department Terrill Knight, Knight Planning Services Fritz Schmidt, Applicant NOTE: Tabled from 03/15/11, 04/19/11 and 5/10/11 ACTION: Currently, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations allow via Special Use Permit Review dwelling units on a commercially zoned property not to exceed thirty - three (33) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. This proposal is to eliminate the maximum thirty -three (33) percent cap for residential use on commercially zoned property and will still be subject to Special Use Permit Review. The purpose for this Finding of No Significant Impact is an Administrative Stream Setback Variance to memorialize an existing stream setback of 50 feet from the high water mark of the Eagle River where 75 feet is currently required. The existing residence was constructed in 1973 prior to zoning regulations being implemented by Eagle County in October of 1974. The purpose for this Special Use Permit is to allow a residential structure in the Commercial- General zone district. Currently, the existing residence is considered a legal non - conforming land use. 8 • 07/26/2011 LOCATION: 71 Edwards Access Road, west of the Edwards Spur Road on the south side of the Eagle River. FILE NO. /PROCESS: LUR -3053 / Land Use Regulation Amendment PROJECT NAME: Amendment of Special Use Provision to Allow Residential Use in the Commercial - Limited and Commercial- General Zone Districts OWNER: Not Applicable APPLICANT: Fritz Schmidt REPRESENTATIVE: Knight Planning Services, Inc. / Terrill Knight STAFF PLANNER: Bob Narracci 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to allow residential development in the Commercial - Limited and Commercial- General zone districts subject to Planning Commission and Board of County. Commissioner Special Use Permit review and approval. Presently, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations contain a provision which allows, via Special Use Permit review and approval, residential development within commercial zone districts not to exceed thirty - three (33) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. to replace the thirty-three percent residential cap with the following Proposed is a regulatory amendment t ep arty p p g language: "Via Special Use Review, in the Commercial - Limited and Commercial- General Zone Districts, mixed -use commercial and residential development may be approved. The appropriate ratio of residential use to commercial use will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis subject to the standards established for Special Use Review ". This amendment, if approved, will provide greater flexibility for creating mixed -use development within the county's commercial general and commercial limited zone districts without resorting to a lengthy, expensive Planned Unit Development process. B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Heicher — Is not in favor of the FONSI request. The (stream setback) area should be inclusive of riparian and wetland preservation; the applicant is really asking for a 10 foot easement. It does not matter how long the existing residence has been in existence, intrusions into the setback need to be cleaned -up and the wetland/riparian area restored. The applicant needs to research other financing and insurance institutions. Terrill and Fritz also need to meet with Ellie Caryl regarding the trail alignment and consider recommendation number 1. B. of the Town of Basalt's comments. This recommendation pertains to maintaining a maximum 70% residential / 30% commercial mixed -use ratio. The recommendation also suggests that stand -alone single-family and duplex units be exempted from the mixed -use ratio. Commissioner Carpenter — Look into realigning the trail easement closer to the river while still protecting riparian areas. Following a site visit, Commissioner Carpenter determined that the proposed FON SI is acceptable but is concerned about the proximity of the existing gravel parking lot to the embankment of the Eagle River. 9 07/26/2011 Commissioner Fritzlen — Downzoning in Vail created many non- conforming lots and she is not aware of financing or insurance issues; she cannot support the request if this is the driving issue. Commissioner Hammon — Does not believe amending the code for one applicant is prudent. The Special Use Permit criteria should still include a minimum commercial requirement if residential is to be approved. Given the age of the existing structure, it will probably need to be rebuilt in the foreseeable future anyway. The natural state of the riparian area needs to be restored regardless of the non - conforming setback. Commissioner Hammon agrees with her fellow commissioners that the property should be rezoned and that the land use regulation amendment is not appropriate. She further recommended to the applicant that an expert on stream wetland biology be employed to weigh in on the FONSI request relative to the condition of the wetland and riparian area and what can be done to improve it. Commissioner Campos — Likewise does not believe amending the code for one applicant is prudent. Please reference the attached emailed clarification of comment from Commissioner Campos to staff Commissioner Brock — The natural state of the riparian area should be restored regardless of the setback. Believes that the applicant's financing efforts are indeed problematic but does not agree with the proposed land use regulation amendment. He believes that the property should be rezoned to residential use. Commissioner Brock ultimately determined that the FONSI request is appropriate. Commissioner Nusbaum — Agrees with Commissioner Fritzlen and Commissioner Campos' comments and further believes the property should be rezoned to residential versus a land use regulation amendment. Commissioner Moffett — Is not comfortable with the proposed regulatory amendment and does not believe the lower level of the existing residence should be converted to commercial use. Further, believes that the regulatory amendment, if approved, should specify a minimum mixed -use ratio. Amending the regulations is not the appropriate way to fix this landowner's dilemma; rather, the property should be rezoned to residential use. Commissioner Franks — For the same reasons expressed by Commissioner Moffett, does not believe the land use regulation amendment is the proper course of action and that a rezoning to residential use is more appropriate. Commissioner Long — Agrees with all comments set forth by his fellow commissioners. The property should be rezoned to residential. Following two hearings on March 2, 2011 and April 6, 2011, the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the Land Use Regulation Amendment proposal and the Special Use Permit Application. ROARING FORK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The RFVRPC was required to hear and make a recommendation only on the land use regulation portion of the applicant's three -part request. Following their hearing on March 3, 2011, the RFVRPC recommended approval of the proposed regulatory amendment with the condition that the special use language to allow residential development in the commercial zone districts be amended to require that the resulting development consist of mixed -use commercial and residential development. They did not specify a minimum ratio of commercial to residential and did further recommend that an exception be included to accommodate pre- existing non- conforming land uses in the commercial zone districts. 2. STAFF REPORT 10 07/26/2011 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. 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; 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 3; 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 General Development Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c, d, e, f, h, j, m and o Section 3.4 Housing Policies a, d, e, g and n Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g, i j, k, m and o Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a, c and d 11 07/26/2011 Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a 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 to the proposed regulation amendment. Should the proposed amendment be approved then all future applications to allow residential development ,within a commercial zone district will be required to adhere to all applicable Special Use Permit approval standards; one of which is `Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan'. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- 230.D.2] Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? 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 regulation amendment proposal. Should the proposed amendment be approved then all future applications to allow residential development within a commercial zone district will be required to adhere to all applicable Special Use Permit approval standards; one of which is `Compatibility with Surrounding Uses'. 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. A majority of the county's existing commercially zoned property is located within community centers. This finding is not directly applicable to this regulation amendment request; however, given increased development pressures experienced over time in unincorporated Eagle County; the county's desire to focus new substantive development within community centers, and where practicable establish a framework for true Transportation Oriented Development, this regulatory amendment will provide flexibility to land owners, appointed and elected decision makers in developing and redeveloping commercially zoned 12 07/26/2011 properties in a mixed -use fashion; particularly those situated in key locations within community centers with easy transit access and proximity to possible future commuter rail nodes. Additionally, the proposed amendment will facilitate provision of affordable housing mitigation within mixed -use development by not restricting the residential / commercial ratio. 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? As stated above, it is the county's desire to focus substantive new development into community centers while at the same time creating a framework for true Transportation Oriented Development in appropriate and strategic locations. This proposed regulatory amendment will enable easier implementation of these goals. 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 C. REFERRAL RESPONSES: 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 ofMinturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Gypsum, Town of Basalt. • Braun Associates, Inc., Design Workshop, Isom and Associates, Knight Planning Services, Land Studio, Otak, Pylman and Associates, Sid Fox and Co., VAg, Vail Resorts • 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. 13 07/26/2011 • 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 • Special Districts: All • Mid Valley Trails Committee • Home Builder's Association • American Institute of Architects • Cattleman's Association • All Registered Home Owner's Associations and Design Review Boards The following referral comments were received in response to this request: Eagle County Engineering Department: In the attached response dated February 10, 2011, the Engineering Department offers no comments regarding this application. ECO Trails: In the attached response dated January 3, 2011, ECO Trails is requesting a 15 foot wide trail easement to accommodate the future route of the Eagle Valley Core Trail through Edwards, connecting to the Eagle River Preserve. The final trail design will accommodate and not block the access driveway to the residential property. Colorado Division of Wildlife: In the attached response dated January 7, 2011, CDOW did not provide comment regarding the proposed regulation amendment and rather, focused on the companion Finding of No Significant Impact stream setback request. Colorado Geological Survey: In the attached response dated January 18, 2011, the CGS does not see any issues with allowing dwelling units on commercial property. A geologic hazard review is still required via the special use permit process. Town of Basalt: In the attached response dated January 3, 2011, the Town offers the following suggestions: a) Require larger properties over a certain size to meet the cap unless they are reviewed through the PUD process so the decision makers get a more thorough review of development proposals on the large commercially -zoned properties that do not want to provide a minimum amount of commercial. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations already require commercially zoned properties (not PUD's) to obtain Special Use Permit approval for all construction of 22, 000 square feet or greater. Historically, the PUD process has been the only way to achieve mixed -use development in Eagle County (other than a residential unit or two in a primarily commercial development via special use permit). The existing Special Use Permit standards provide complete discretion to the appointed and elected decision makers in determining the appropriateness of a given request and whether or not to approve, approve with conditions or deny any Special Use Permit application. b) Exempting stand - alone, single - family and duplex units from the residential cap on properties that receive a special use permit but maintain a relaxed residential cap for multi - family development. The Town suggests a relaxed residential cap around 70% on smaller commercially zoned properties to be consistent with the relatively new mortgage lending requirements that preclude conventional mortgages from the FHA, VA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac on condominiumized residential units that are part of a mixed use buildings containing more than 30% non - residential space. Every Special Use Permit application for residential development on a commercially zoned property will be evaluated on its own merit; including the appropriateness of the amount and type of residential development proposed. It is staff's preference to not create artificial thresholds which may not 14 07/26/2011 adequately anticipate all possibilities. The county is not responsible for ensuring that land use development will ultimately be financeable; rather, that is a business decision. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District: In the attached response dated December 30, 2010, The District states that from a building and fire code standpoint they have the tools necessary to evaluate mixed use occupancies that have greater residential activity that the 33 percent cap presently in place. The District wants assurance that the Special Use Permit process will provide the mechanism to ensure that an adequate evaluation and conditions are administered. All Special Use Permit applications are referred to the appropriate emergency service responders for review, comment and recommendation. The District through its review of proposed special uses can provide recommendations regarding water storage, adequate water flow distribution for fire suppression, proper street design and traffic circulation, or any other pertinent comments as may be applicable. NWCCOG: In the attached response dated December 14, 2010, NWCCOG offers no comments on the proposed regulation amendment. Mauriello Planning Group, LLC: In the attached response dated December 27, 2010, support for the proposed amendment is provided. Newland Project Resources: In the attached response dated December 15, 2010, it is questioned where the 33% restriction originated to begin with and further supports the proposed amendment. Stan Clauson Associates: In the attached response dated December 13, 2010, it is acknowledged that the proposed amendment would provide additional flexibility in the code but cautions against squeezing out commercial development with more lucrative residential development or interrupt commercial continuity with residential pockets thereby creating less compact development. The Special Use Permit standards allow full discretion in considering the appropriateness of proposed residential development within commercial zone districts. D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The proposed amendment will introduce greater flexibility and utility to the county's established commercial zone districts while facilitating establishment of mixed -use Transportation Oriented Development framework in appropriate locations. E. 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 of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County 15 07/26/2011 Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). FILE NO. /PROCESS: ZS -3055 Special Use Permit / FNZ -3054 Finding of No Significant Impact PROJECT NAME: Fritz Schmidt Property / Residence in the Commercial - General Zone District LOCATION: 71 Edwards Access Road OWNER: Fritz Schmidt Trust and Cecilia Schmidt Trust APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Knight Planning Services, Inc. / Terrill Knight STAFF PLANNER: Bob Narracci 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This Special Use Permit application is to recognize a pre- existing single - family residence, constructed in 1973, to remain as a legal use in the Commercial General Zone District. The home was constructed prior to zoning being implemented in unincorporated Eagle County. The property was assigned the `Commercial General' zoning designation in October of 1974; the residence has been non- conforming in terms of zoning ever since. Per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, non - conforming structures if damaged to an extent of 50% of its value or more, cannot be reconstructed or repaired without first correcting the non - conformity via zone change or in this case Special Use Permit approval. Companion to the Special Use Permit application is an application for Finding of No Significant Impact which proposes to legalize the existing residence's 50 -foot stream setback where a 75 -foot setback is presently required and a Land Use Regulation Amendment to change the allowances for residential development in the Commercial- General and Commercial- Limited Zone Districts (Eagle County File No. LUR- 3053). B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: Land Use Zoning Land Use Zoning Old Edwards Residential North: Estates Suburban Medium Density South: Mixed -Use Commercial Development General Riverwalk Mixed- Planned Unit CDOT Interstate East: Use Development Development Traveller Rest Resource Area West: Eagle River Resource Preserve Existing Zoning: Commercial General Proposed Zoning: NA Current Development: Single- Family Residence Site Conditions: Developed Total Land Area: Acres: 2.426 -acres Square feet: 105,684 square feet Total Open Space: N/A 16 07/26/2011 Water: Public: ERW &SD Private: Sewer: Public: ERW &SD Private: Access: Via Edwards Access Road C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: 1973: Existing residence constructed 1974: Eagle County adopted and implemented zoning for all unincorporated lands. 1987: Subject property platted for first time. 1998: Subject property part of an amended final plat. 2000: Subject property defined in its current configuration via amended final plat. 2010: Property owner discovers that the existing single - family residence has been considered legal non- conforming by Eagle County since 1974; thereby making it impossible to refinance the residence and property. 2010: Applications received by Eagle County to amend the Special Use Permit allowances for residences in a commercial zone district, request for a stream setback variance and this proposed Special Use Permit. D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Heicher — Is not in favor of the FONSI request. The (stream setback) area should be inclusive of riparian and wetland preservation; the applicant is really asking for a 10 foot easement. It does not matter how long the existing residence has been in existence, intrusions into the setback need to be cleaned -up and the wetland/riparian area restored. The applicant needs to research other financing and insurance institutions. Terrill and Fritz also need to meet with Ellie Caryl regarding the trail alignment and consider recommendation number 1. B. of the Town of Basalt's comments. This recommendation pertains to maintaining a maximum 70% residential / 30% commercial mixed -use ratio. The recommendation also suggests that stand -alone single-family and duplex units be exempted from the mixed -use ratio. Commissioner Carpenter — Look into realigning the trail easement closer to the river while still protecting riparian areas. Following a site visit, Commissioner Carpenter determined that the proposed FONSI is acceptable but is concerned about the proximity of the existing gravel parking lot to the embankment of the Eagle River. Commissioner Fritzlen — Downzoning in Vail created many non - conforming lots and she is not aware of financing or insurance issues; she cannot support the request if this is the driving issue. Commissioner Hammon — Does not believe amending the code for one applicant is prudent. The Special Use Permit criteria should still include a minimum commercial requirement if residential is to be approved. Given the age of the existing structure, it will probably need to be rebuilt in the foreseeable future anyway. The natural state of the riparian area needs to be restored regardless of the non - conforming setback. Commissioner Hammon agrees with her fellow commissioners that the property should be rezoned and that the land use regulation amendment is not appropriate. She further recommended to the applicant that an expert on stream wetland biology be employed to weigh in on the FONSI request relative to the condition of the wetland and riparian area and what can be done to improve it. Commissioner Campos — Likewise does not believe amending the code for one applicant is prudent. Please reference the attached emailed clarification of comment from Commissioner Campos to stuff Commissioner Brock — The natural state of the riparian area should be restored regardless of the setback. Believes that the applicant's financing efforts are indeed problematic but does not agree with the proposed 17 07/26/2011 land use regulation amendment. He believes that the property should be rezoned to residential use. Commissioner Brock ultimately determined that the FONSI request is appropriate. Commissioner Nusbaum — Agrees with Commissioner Fritzlen and Commissioner Campos' comments and further believes the property should be rezoned to residential versus a land use regulation amendment. Commissioner Moffett — Is not comfortable with the proposed regulatory amendment and does not believe the lower level of the existing residence should be converted to commercial use. Further, believes that the regulatory amendment, if approved, should specify a minimum mixed -use ratio. Amending the regulations is not the appropriate way to fix this landowner's dilemma; rather, the property should be rezoned to residential use. Commissioner Franks — For the same reasons expressed by Commissioner Moffett, does not believe the land use regulation amendment is the proper course of action and that a rezoning to residential use is more appropriate. Commissioner Long — Agrees with all comments set forth by his fellow commissioners. The property should be rezoned to residential. Following two hearings on March 2, 2011 and April 6, 2011, the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the Land Use Regulation Amendment proposal and the Special Use Permit Application. ROARING FORK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The RFVRPC was required to hear and make a recommendation only on the land use regulation portion of the applicant's three -part request. Following their hearing on March 3, 2011, the RFVRPC recommended approval of the proposed regulatory amendment with the condition that the special use language to allow residential development in the commercial zone districts be amended to require that the resulting development consist of mixed -use commercial and residential development. They did not specify a minimum ratio of commercial to residential and did further recommend that an exception be included to accommodate pre- existing non- conforming land uses in the commercial zone districts. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5- 250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and 18 07/26/2011 these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 250.B.1] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3 g e o E ,, g 4. Designation u�a x g 3 a' 3a Exceeds Recommendations _ Incorporates Majority of X1 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations _ Not Applicable X X2 X3 X1 The Plan speaks to preserving quality of life unique to Eagle County through environmental preservation and creating sense of place for each community. Also, that future growth provides a healthy balance between economic success, quality of life and preservation of the environment. This proposal will not result in any additional development potential on the subject property. Any future commercial development on the subject property will necessitate successful completion of a Special Use Permit or other applicable land use approvals. X2 — Although not directly applicable to this proposal, the existing single- family residence on the commercially zoned subject property is not the highest and best use of this Edwards core area property and, as such, may be viewed as a temporary use of the land until economic conditions are such that substantive mixed -use commercial development again makes sense to pursue. X3 — Due to the fact that this proposal does not entail additional commercial or new residential development, the Housing Guidelines are not applicable. The existing home; however, is located in a convenient location in a community center, close to jobs, and services. X4 — The subject property is served by public water, sewer and roads. The property is immediately adjacent to existing commercial services. ECO Trails has requested that the applicant provide a fifteen (15) foot wide trail easement across the subject property to accommodate the future route of the Eagle Valley Core Trail through Edwards, connecting to the Eagle River Preserve. The final trail design will accommodate and not block the driveway access to the subject property. X5 — The subject property is served with public water. The plan speaks to protecting against source water contamination; in the FONSI application to decrease the stream setback to 50 feet where 75 feet is required for the existing single family residence, insufficient information was provided to determine that the decreased stream setback provides adequate source water protection. While it is a fact that the residence has been in place since 1973, this in and of itself is not a sufficient basis upon which to grant the stream setback variance. What this means to the applicant is that should the existing residence be damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its value then it cannot be reconstructed in its current footprint and any newly constructed or reconstructed residence would need to satisfy the 75 foot stream setback requirement. It appears from the site plans that sufficient space exists within the lot to accommodate the 75 foot stream setback and all other minimum lot and building standards specific to the Commercial General Zone District. X6 — In the attached response dated January 7, 2011 from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, no comment was provided pertaining to the special use permit request or the companion land use regulation amendment request. Regarding the stream setback variance, CDOW indicates that it does favor a 75 foot stream setback but is not 19 07/26/2011 opposed to grandfathering the current residence footprint at a 50 foot setback. If the current building is torn down for redevelopment of the lot then the 75 foot stream setback shall apply. X7 — The existing residence does avoid areas of significant natural hazard. There are no known historical or archeological resources on the property. X8 - The existing residence does not generate any undue ocular, olfactory or auditory impacts which will compromise the environmental quality of the property or surrounding areas. Some extraneous uses of the property have been identified by adjacent property owners and thru staff site visit. As a condition of the applicant's requests, use of the property should be brought into conformance with the provisions of the Commercial General Zone District and other regulatory requirements. X9 — The FLUM identifies the property as appropriate for mixed use development. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN a FLUM 3 x H 4 3 w& w x 2 xa Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority X1 X2 X3 X4 of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X X X X X X X X X1 - The Plan speaks to protection of natural resources and systems, balanced growth, protection of social, cultural and historic resources, community character and mining activities. This Special Use Permit proposal to recognize the existing single- family residence as an allowed use in the Commercial General Zone District will not adversely impact natural resources, change growth patterns, alter social, cultural and historic resources or change the community character. Staff believes the proposed variance of the stream setback requirement is not necessary given that the subject property is sufficiently large enough to reconstruct the single - family residence in a location which meets the current 75 foot stream setback, in the event that the existing home is destroyed to more than 50% of its value. X2 — The existing residence is served by public water and sanitation facilities. Future development of the property will be held to the minimum 75 foot stream setback requirement thereby better protecting ground and surface water from environmental degradation. A recommended condition of approval is that all extraneous activities occurring on the subject property which are not typically customary to residential use, such as parking of commercial vehicles, should be ceased; absent proper review and approval by the county. X3 — The Plan speaks to ecosystem management, storm water drainage systems, clean mountain air, scenic vistas, protecting unique natural resources, protection of riparian, wetland and aquatic habitat, and protection of rare and endangered flora and fauna. The existing residence will not further compromise any of these stated goals. X4 - The FLUM identifies the property as appropriate for mixed use development. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5- 250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Potential Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning Compatibility Issues 20 07/26/2011 ■ Yes No Old Edwards Residential North: Suburban X Estates Medium Density South: Mixed Use Commercial X Commercial ' General Mixed Use Planned Unit East: Commercial X Development Riverwalk _ West: Eagle River Resourc X Preserve Focusing only on the Special Use Permit request to recognize the existing single family residence as an allowed use in the Commercial General Zone District, no new compatibility issues should arise. In 1981 when Old Edwards Estates received county approval, presumably consideration was given to potential conflicts between the single family residential development on the north side of the Eagle River and the existing commercially zoned property on the south side of the river. The Commercial General designation was assigned to the subject property in 1974. Comments received from the owners of property in Old Edwards Estates, indicate that it is not the existing residence on the subject property creating compatibility problems rather; it is the extraneous uses of the ro erty which are the cause of concern. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5- 250.B.3] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3 -310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3 -330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. With the exception of the stream setback, the existing single family residence satisfies all currently applicable Commercial General Zone district lot and building standards. Based upon the attached email dated February 17, 2011, the subject property has been and/or continues to be utilized in part for a `garbage dump', storage space, seasonal garden centers, Christmas tree lots, boat /raft storage, taxi cab parking and fleet parking for Bachelor Gulch buses. In the Commercial General Zone District: • `Junk Yards' and `Construction and Demolition Debris Facilities' require Special Use Permit review and approval. • `Vehicle storage', including boats /rafts and motor vehicles likewise require Special Use Permit review and approval. • `Parking lots' as a principal use of the property, and `Transportation Services' also necessitate Spec Pr revd a • Seasonal ial Use uses, e such mit as iew Christmas anpproval. tree lots, require Special Use Permit approval for a `Temporary Building or Use'. • `Garden Supply and Plant Materials /Greenhouses/Nurseries' are uses -by -right in the Commercial General Zone District; however, the regulations contemplate that these uses would occur in a fixed location, as such, seasonal garden centers should be permitted as `Temporary Use'. 21 07/26/2011 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5- 250.B.4J The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. ,, 4 'o s .c 0 H H vl C� a. ..1 0 Z C7 > aZ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X X Requirements Not Applicable X The existing single - family residence is provided with adequate services, and parking. The single - family use does not generate undue odors, noises, glare or vibrations. Extraneous uses of the property should be brought into regulatory conformance as a condition of approval. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5- 250.B.5] The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. o a3. a o o ^ 0 z 4 Z ¢ 0 caw 3�t >" O F Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement X Not Applicable Special Use recognition of the existing single - family residential use as a permissible use on the subject property in the Commercial General Zone District is not anticipated to cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Extraneous uses of the property should be brought into regulatory conformance as a condition of approval. 22 07/26/2011 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5- 250.B] The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. � � �� 0 .8 aC as O. / Sr a v w ri Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X The subject property is adequately served by public facilities and services including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection and emergency medical services. ECO Trails has requested that the applicant provide a fifteen (15) foot wide trail easement across the subject property to accommodate the future route of the Eagle Valley Core Trail through Edwards, connecting to the Eagle River Preserve; this is a suggested condition of approval. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5- 250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. P, 8 w . 8 Article 4, Site Development Standards ijij g � g d t vit faW Z X Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4 -1) X Landscaping and illumination Standards (Division 4 -2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4 -410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) Wood Burning Controls (Section 4 -440) 23 07/26/2011 X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4 -5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4 -520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4 -530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4 -540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non - hazardous Materials (Section 4 -550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4 -560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4 -620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4 -630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4 -640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4 -650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4 -660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4 -670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4 -680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4 -690) X *Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4 -7) *to be applied to new structures only. Single- family residential use of the subject property is not subject to the Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards; however, the Standards are applicable in the Commercial General Zone District. As described in the attached emails from adjacent property owners, extraneous uses of the property are not presently in compliance with the requirements of the land use regulations. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5- 250.B.8] The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The existing single - family residence satisfies all applicable provisions of the land use regulations with the exception of the non - conforming stream setback. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Finding of No Significant Impact: [Section 3- 340.C.6] Stream Setbacks and Water Resource Protection. For the purpose of protecting water resources, including wetlands and riparian areas, the following shall be observed in all zone districts: a 75 foot strip of land measured horizontally from the high water mark on each side of any stream, or the 100 year floodplain, whichever provides the greater separation from the stream, shall be protected in its natural state. No grading or removal of vegetation may occur within the stream setback. If necessary to protect the stream, wetlands, or riparian areas, additional width may be required. PUD zoned areas shall also comply with this standard unless either granted a Variance by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or a variation has been granted by the Board of County 24 07/26/2011 Commissioners. There shall be no projections into either a 100 year floodplain or stream setback (orig 03/12/02) (am. 07/17/06) Pursuant to Section 3.340.C.6.b, Exceptions, the applicant has requested that the Community Development Director or the Board of County Commissioners approve a reduction of the stream setback to a minimum of 50 feet or the outer edge of the 100 year floodplain, whichever provides the greater separation from the stream through a Finding of No Significant Impact process. In order to be considered for an exception, the applicant must clearly demonstrate compliance with all the following criteria through the submittal of a report prepared by a resource biologist or other qualified professional. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, the report may be referred to outside agencies for comment, including but not limited to the Eagle County Department of Environmental Heath, Colorado Geological Survey, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, or any other applicable agency. The report must specifically address all of the following: (a) Water Quality. That the setback reduction will not degrade water quality of the stream or ground water. (b) Erosion. That the setback reduction will not impact shoreline and stream banks, or cause erosion. (c) Habitat. That the setback reduction will not degrade fish and wildlife habitat. (d) Scenic and Recreational Values. That the setback reduction will not negatively impact scenic and recreational value associated with the stream. (e) Alternative Design. That the proposal for improvements on the site results in a design that more adequately preserves unique characteristics of the site, protects public view sheds, enhances public recreational enjoyment design greater of the stream, or creates a desi n that results in eater public benefit than would be created by adhering to the 75 foot setback. (f) Other circumstances. That other circumstances prevent adherence to the 75 foot setback, including but not limited, to: lot depth, lot dimensions, existing development; lot topography. Determination. Based upon review of the application material the Director has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is not justified in this instance. If the existing residence were to be destroyed to an extent of 50% or greater of its value, sufficient space exists within the lot to reconstruct a single- family residence in conformance with the 75 -foot stream setback requirement. Further, information provided in the FONSI application did not adequately address the above criteria to warrant FONSI approval. Pursuant to Section 3.340.C.6.(c), Reconsideration of Director's Determination of a FONSI; the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application, the relevant support materials, and any public testimony. After the close of the public hearing, the Board may approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the proposed exception to the stream setback regulation. B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: In the attached response dated February 10, 2011, the Engineering Department offers no comments regarding this application. ECO Trails: In the attached response dated January 3, 2011, ECO Trails is requesting a 15 foot wide trail easement to accommodate the future route of the Eagle Valley Core Trail through Edwards, connecting to the Eagle River Preserve. The final trail design will accommodate and not block the access driveway to the residential property. 25 07/26/2011 Colorado Division of Wildlife: In the attached response dated January 7, 2011, CDOW did not provide comment regarding the proposed regulation amendment and rather, focused on the companion Finding of No Significant Impact stream setback request. Colorado Geological Survey: In the attached response dated January 18, 2011, the CGS does not see any issues with allowing dwelling units on commercial property. A geologic hazard review is still required via the special use permit process. Town of Basalt: In the attached response dated January 3, 2011, the Town offers the following suggestions: c) Require larger properties over a certain size to meet the cap unless they are reviewed through the PUD process so the decision makers get a more thorough review of development proposals on the large commercially -zoned properties that do not want to provide a minimum amount of commercial. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations already require commercially zoned properties (not PUD 's) to obtain Special Use Permit approval for all construction of 22,000 square feet or greater. Historically, the PUD process has been the only way to achieve mixed -use development in Eagle County (other than a residential unit or two in a primarily commercial development via special use permit). The existing Special Use Permit standards provide complete discretion to the appointed and elected decision makers in determining the appropriateness of a given request and whether or not to approve, approve with conditions or deny any Special Use Permit application. d) Exempting stand - alone, single - family and duplex units from the residential cap on properties that receive a special use permit but maintain a relaxed residential cap for multi - family development. The Town suggests a relaxed residential cap around 70% on smaller commercially zoned properties to be consistent with the relatively new mortgage lending requirements that preclude conventional mortgages from the FHA, VA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac on condominiumized residential units that are part of a mixed use buildings containing more than 30% non - residential space. Every Special Use Permit application for residential development on a commercially zoned property will be evaluated on its own merit; including the appropriateness of the amount and type of residential development proposed. It is staff's preference to not create artificial thresholds which may not adequately anticipate all possibilities. The county is not responsible for ensuring that land use development will ultimately be financeable; rather, that is a business decision. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District: In the attached response dated December 30, 2010, The District states that from a building and fire code standpoint they have the tools necessary to evaluate mixed use occupancies that have greater residential activity that the 33 percent cap presently in place. The District wants assurance that the Special Use Permit process will provide the mechanism to ensure that an adequate evaluation and conditions are administered. All Special Use Permit applications are referred to the appropriate emergency service responders for review, comment and recommendation. The District through its review of proposed special uses can provide recommendations regarding water storage, adequate water flow distribution for fire suppression, proper street design and traffic circulation, or any other pertinent comments as may be applicable. NWCCOG: In the attached response dated December 14, 2010, NWCCOG offers no comments on the proposed regulation amendment; Special Use Permit proposal or stream setback variance request. Mauriello Planning Group, LLC: In the attached response dated December 27, 2010, support for the proposed amendment is provided. Newland Project Resources: In the attached response dated December 15, 2010, it is questioned where the 33% restriction originated to begin with and further supports the proposed amendment. 26 07/26/2011 Stan Clauson Associates: In the attached response dated December 13, 2010, it is acknowledged that the proposed amendment would provide additional flexibility in the code but cautions against squeezing out commercial development with more lucrative residential development or interrupt commercial continuity with residential pockets thereby creating less compact development. The Special Use Permit standards allow full discretion in considering the appropriateness of proposed residential development within commercial zone districts. Adjacent Property Owners: 1) Chris & Cathryn Cooper 202 Old County Lane In the attached e-mail dated February 17, 2011, the Coopers question whether the proposed applications should be approved given the manner in which the subject property has been and continues to be utilized. 2) Reed Powers 214 Old County Lane In the attached e -mail dated February 18, 2011, Mr. Powers indicates that he is not concerned with the applicant's existing residence or non - conforming stream setback, however; the reduced setback should not apply to any future development of the subject property. Mr. Powers also notes that the "lot is already an eyesore from the River with Mountain Taxi vehicles and Bachelor Gulch Buses and Vans ". C. PLANNING COMMISSION / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT and/or FONSI] 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 [SPECIAL USE PERMIT and/or FONSI] 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 [SPECIAL USE PERMIT and/or FONSI] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT and/or FONSI] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 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. 27 07/26/2011 2) Any commercial development on the subject property necessitates successful completion of a Special Use Permit or other applicable land use approvals. 3) The applicant shall work with ECO Trails to define and convey to Eagle County a fifteen (15) foot wide trail easement across the subject property for future connection of the Eagle Valley Core Trail to the Eagle River Preserve. The final trail alignment and design must accommodate and not block the driveway access to the subject property. 4) All commercial uses of the subject property shall be discontinued and/or brought into conformance with all applicable requirements of the Commercial General Zone District and land use regulation prior to resumption. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci explained the need for the amendment to the plat. Chairman Stavney asked for site plans with visual photos. If the two properties were one property the amendment would not be needed. Mr. Narracci provided the proposed language. He showed maps of the setbacks and property configuration. The special use permit was also part of the request. Chairman Stavney asked Mr. Terrill Knight why he didn't advise merging the two lots to make the issue go away. Mr. Knight stated that they had been working a long time on how to best handle this. The separate parcels were financed separately. Mr. Schmidt stated that the property in question was combined to become one lot from two. Mr. Narracci stated that Land Use Regulation amendments were not typically brought forth by landowners. However, in this case the proposal met some of the county goals. Chairman Stavney stated that this was a specific site. He wondered if a review of other properties in this situation should be done. He spoke about mixed use. Mr. Narracci believed this was a unique situation and the 33% cap seemed arbitrary. Chairman Stavney spoke about the potential for re- development in Eagle Vail and the possibility could be for developers to change commercial to residential. Mr. Narracci stated that the Board would have to approve that use. Mr. Knight stated that it was the Board's decision on each project. Mr. Narracci stated that this would offer an alternative to existing commercially zoned properties through a PUD process. Zone changes were much more involved and lengthy than a special use permit. Commissioner Runyon spoke about commercial zoning and granting variances within that to change the use percent. Mr. Narracci stated that currently this was not possible. Mr. Knight stated that the uses could not vary. Commissioner Runyon wondered where this type of zoning exists in the county. Mr. Narracci stated that Eagle Vail, Edward's Building Center, Wolcott, Dotsero and El Jebel all had some of this type of zoning. Commissioner Runyon stated that currently in areas without structures, one could build residential rather than commercial. Currently he could only build 33 %. He didn't understand why the banks would not re- finance. Mr. Knight stated that banks want to be sure that if the property was destroyed that it could be re- built. Mr. Narracci continued with the history of the property. The applicant intended to covert the bottom level of the home to provide commercial office space. He reviewed the findings. Chairman Stavney stated that when square footage was considered it was based on the house. Mr. Knight indicated that there were commercial uses and the property didn't fit neatly into a category. Mr. Narracci stated that the existing language was limited to the four buildings on the site. As part of this process, ECO trails requested a 15 foot wide segment for future trail construction and connectivity. Regarding the "finding of no significant impact" the applicant had requested relief from the current regulatory stream set back of 75 ft. to 50 ft. Based upon review this was not appropriate and he could not approve the request administratively. 28 07/26/2011 Commissioner Fisher asked about the re- construction possibilities in the event of the property being destroyed. Mr. Narracci stated that re- constructing any structure in conformance with the 75 -foot stream setback would be possible. The board could overturn staff decisions. Commissioner Fisher wanted to be sure that with the non - conforming use, if the structure burned down it could still be re -built as a single- family home. Mr. Narracci stated that if the board approved the special use as 100% residential this would be the case. In response to Planning Commission concerns Mr. Schmidt converted the bottom portion of the home to commercial. The Planning Commission was concerned about the Riparian and wetland areas. They felt the property should simply be re -zoned to residential. The Eagle County Planning Commission (ECP) recommended denial of the special use permit request. Subsequently the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed regulatory amendment with the condition that the special use language be revised to require mixed - use commercial and residential development. They did not set a minimum ration of commercial to residential. He provided the suggested conditions for approval. Chairman Stavney asked if the trail alignment would be along the river. Mr. Narracci confirmed this. Mr. Knight thanked the board for their re- consideration. There were many opinions on changing the regulations. They did some research on what "natural conditions" indicated. The house was built prior to any zoning regulations. The attempt to re- finance the house brought the issue to bear. He showed previously approved plans for the property. He spoke about the new regulations of 75 -foot setback, which changed plans for the property. Commissioner Fisher asked how far it had gone through the approval process. Mr. Knight explained that the site was quite constrained. He provided paper copies of the site plans. He provided some historical photos of the area, its natural state and the old county road. He showed the Gas House restaurant. He showed the Spur Road and highway rest area, new building and residences. Mr. Schmidt was willing to work out the bike path alignment with the county. He hoped that the regulation change would be approved by the board. Chairman Stavney opened public comment. Mr. Schmidt stated that he felt he was a victim of the county. When the house was built it was setback 30 feet, and now the 75 -foot setback goes through the middle of the house. He would like to build a new house, but now he could not. He appreciated the board's consideration so he could do something with the property. Chairman Stavney wondered when Edward's Plaza was developed why the property wasn't built near the river. He wondered if the owner regretted not building closer to the river. Mr. Knight stated that originally a restaurant was designed out over the river but was not built. Mr. Schmidt had spoken with the Fishing Club and the possibility of a fishing lodge. Commissioner Fisher understood the desire to come into conformity. The board wanted to be respectful of the river, but had been a different mindset back in the day. The mixed -use mindset could be very much alive, but with the western parking lot, whether there was a way to add to the building running the border with the Preserve. The existing home may be an appropriate tear down and when that happens improvement of the river corridor by moving away from it would be advised. Mr. Schmidt believed the 75 -foot setback would prohibited everything. Commissioner Fisher wondered if that stopped the re- financing. Mr. Narracci stated that the first issue was the setback, but also the residential use in a commercial zone district. Commissioner Fisher stated that there were too many eggs in the basket. First was the residential component. The second issue was the setback. Mr. Schmidt stated that the setback removed much of the buildable area. Commissioner Fisher stated that the property could be built up. Chairman Stavney stated that he felt the regulations should be amended to allow building into the river setback if there was a site specific waiver with specific architectural details taking the river into account. 1-le did not agree with approving this for residences. He was not in favor of the FONSI for this request. Commissioner Fisher hoped to honor the river to the greatest degree possible: 29 07/26/2011 Commissioner Runyon agreed with Chairman Stavney about commercial properties and the possibility to build closer to the river depending on architectural design. He was concerned about empirically changing regulations to satisfy a site - specific issue. He did not want to inadvertently allow tearing down the house and a high end house could replace it which is too large. He was worried about unintended consequences. Mr. Narracci responded that changing the cap would not necessarily guarantee any new rights, and any request would have to go through the hearing process for compatibility and compliance with the comprehensive plans. Commissioner Runyon asked what staff's position was on the issue. Mr. Narracci stated that the property could be re -zoned to a residential zone district. This would be against the various area community plans. Commissioner Runyon stated that at some point the desire was for the property to go back to a conforming use. He spoke about the stream setback changes and the fact that through a PUD a variance could be applied for. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the conditions. Mr. Narracci read the suggested conditions. Chairman Stavney asked about condition 4 and whether this was already the case. Commissioner Fisher asked about the raft put - in and take -out area. She wondered what he believed the future would be for this type of activity. Mr. Schmidt stated that he should probably close it off, because there was a liability. Chairman Stavney stated that Colorado does have limited liability laws for people who allow access across their property for access to rivers. Chairman Stavney closed public comment. Chairman Stavney stated he was in favor of adding the amendment to the regulations. Commissioner Fisher wondered if the county had met all of the notifications and acknowledgements. Mr. Narracci confirmed that this had been handled. Commissioner Fisher agreed with all three motions. Commissioner Runyon spoke about limiting the size of the future structure. Chairman Stavney asked that the variance item be pulled and considered separately as he was opposed to allowing stream setbacks for residential purposes. He did not want to set a precedent. Commissioner Fisher wondered about adding a condition in the event the home were destroyed, the board could have the opportunity to review a special use permit. This would grandfather in the 50/50 mix allowed for the property. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment on file LUR 3053, Land Use Regulations amendment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file no. LUR -3053 / Land Use Regulation Amendment. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file no. ZS -3055 Special Use Permit with the proposed conditioned outlined by staff and the additional condition approving the increase to 50% residential on the property in the commercial zone district as allowed by the new regulation and removing, the restriction to which floor would encompass the residential use. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Narracci explained the stream set back request. He stated that this would allow the residential building to be reconstructed in the same footprint and with the same amount of square footage. Commissioner Runyon stated that if the property needed to be re -built it would make sense to re- design the place. 30 07/26/2011 Mr. Narracci stated that the board could be more flexible. If the existing footprint and square footage was not referenced it would be left wide open. Rob Sperling asked if a compromise could be achieved. Commissioner Runyon stated that he was sympathetic to the financing issue, but he was not comfortable going outside of that. He believed the community should have input on the decision making process especially in a historically non - conforming use. Chairman Stavney did not want to create a Trojan Horse. Mr. Schmidt stated he wanted build a ranch style house instead of a two - story. Commissioner Runyon felt the board was being reasonable and sympathetic to the owner's needs. Commissioner Fisher stated that additional alterations needed to be outside of the 50 -foot setback. In the future, the owner would need to substantiate the ratio. Mr. Schmidt asked to be able to encroach into the 75 -foot setback with a future commercial building. Commissioner Fisher stated that there was not enough specificity at this point. The board needed to be as restrictive at this time without being impactful to Mr. Schmidt at this time. Chairman Stavney was not prepared to make a motion and suggested tabling the variance request. He requested more clarity on that specific aspect. Mr. Knight agreed with tabling the file be until August 23, 2011 Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. FNZ 3054, the setback issue until August 23, 2011. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. - Z 22 Rio Grande Waste Management 5 ement g Sean Hanagan, Planning Department Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for an office and Storage Yard. The site will be utilized by Waste Management and will contain an office (currently use by right) as well as contractor /staging area. LOCATION: Accessed from Hwy 131; Wolcott. Section 15, Township 4S, Range 83W FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS -3225 / Special Use Permit PROJECT NAME: Rio Grande/ Waste Management LOCATION: 208 Highway 131 OWNER: Patrick Chirichillo APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Mauriello Planning Group- Dominic Mauriello STAFF PLANNER: Sean Hanagan 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to request a Special Use Permit to continue the existing use of contractor storage /office. The current use has been approved under the current temporary (3 year) Special Use Permit (ZS- 00172). B. SITE DATA: 31 07/26/2011 Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: Land Use Zoning Ownership North: Vines at Vail PUD Private South: Wolcott Yacht Club R Private East: Gallegos Stone R Private West: Residential R Private Existing Zoning: Rural Center (RC) Proposed Zoning: No change Current Development: Contractor storage/office Site Conditions: Pre - existing contractor storage /office Total Land Area: Acres: 1.067 Square feet: 46,478 Total Open Space: N/A Water: Public: Private: X Sewer: Public: Private: X Access: Colorado Highway 131 C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: 1972- The subject property was purchased by Eagle County Trash Removal Services, Inc. (Business pre- dates adoption of zoning in Eagle County -1974) 2003 - AK Trash Removal Services, Inc. (name of company had changed) sells property to BFI/Waste Management 2005- The (neighboring) Vines at Vail PUD Sketch Plan was approved. 2005- Certain properties in Wolcott are included in the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD), including the subject property. 2006- The ERWSD water storage tank Location and Extent application is approved on nearby BLM lands. 2006- The (neighboring) Vines at Vail PUD Preliminary Plan, Zone Change and associated 1041 Permit were approved. 2007- The (neighboring) Vines at Vail PUD Final Plat is approved. 2008- The subject property was purchased by Patrick Chirichillo, current developer /owner of the (neighboring) Vines at Vail PUD 2. STAFF REPORT D. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -250 Special Use Permits 32 07/26/2011 Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5 - 250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 250.B.1] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN h g o . 4 e FLUM 8 ° w Designation 9, 2 ' t7 cry x 3 x 3 x w _ Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X X X X X X X X Xl Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X FLUM —Rural Center (RC) is identified as appropriate in both the Wolcott "Rural Center" FLUM as well as in the Wolcott "Residential Community" FLUM. (See attached maps) 33 07/26/2011 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5- 250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed commercial structure will be located in a Rural Center zone district with similar uses. The property has been used historically as a commercial building and the new proposed commercial use will not change the compatibility of this parcel. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5- 250.B.3] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3 -310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3 -330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The existing zoning for this parcel is Rural Center (RC). The proposed Office /Contractor Storage business fits within the applicable uses of this zone district. The parcel has been used in the past as a commercial building. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5- 250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. 0 pp 0 id U HA a s o z > a. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X X X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 34 07/26/2011 DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5 - 250.B.51 The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The proposed Office /Contractor Storage business unit will have no significant impact on water, air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources and other natural resources. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS cki c ° ° n° $ o 3 y } d v Co 3.1 > U H Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement • Not Applicable STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B. 6] The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS .114 co 8 ft � T 3 U a 0. a. a v� w v� - Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5- 250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 35 07/26/2011 w § c c g 8 Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions 110°W4 (%� P i A W X Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4 -1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4 -2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4 X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 X Wildfire Protection (Section 4 X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4 X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4 X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4 X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4 - 5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4 - 520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4 - 530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4 - 540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non - hazardous Materials (Section 4 - 550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4 - 560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4 - 620) See Condition 8 X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4 - 630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4 - 640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4 - 650) Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4 - 660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4 - 670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4 -680) * X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4 -690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) NOT APPLICABLE EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS E. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering- Please refer to the attachment dated June 9 2011 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: • Eagle County: Attorney's Office, Sherriff's Office Housing, Road and Bridge, Long Range Planning Weed and Pest, and ECO Trails. 36 07/26/2011 • Other: CDOT,BLM, CDOW, WECAD, ERFPD, Wolcott Postmaster, Bellyache HOA, Red Sky Ranch HOA. C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: At their regularly scheduled meeting on July 6 the Eagle County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval accepting staffs conditions with the exception of condition #5, Staff's suggested version of condition #5 can be seen in italics below. "...The applicant shall acquire an access easement or easement agreement from the contiguous Vines at Vail parcel or other neighboring property owner as deemed acceptable to Eagle County and CDOT at acceptance of the new Vines at Vail access...." Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: - Location within a designated commercial (RC) area with historic commercial uses Disadvantages: - Current access does not meet CDOT safety standards D. Board of County Commissioners OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request with conditions and/or performance 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). E. 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. 2. The County will allow for the current temporary non - conforming access for Rio Grande to persist based upon the current level of service. Per the Vines at Vail PUD, a permanent access to Vines at Vail is required, and the Rio Grande access point shall be closed within one year of the Vines 37 07/26/2011 at Vail access being initially accepted by CDOT. Every two years, the county will administratively review the level of service and traffic operations at Rio Grande for conformance. 3. Access to the Rio Grande site shall be allowed based on the applicant's Traffic Engineer's attachment on Trip Generation (See Attachment A). The applicant has stated that the present usage according to ITE trip generation methods consists of 53 daily trips. The applicant also states that currently there are vacancies on the site that may become occupied in the future, giving a total of 103 daily trips. It is also our understanding that the submitted peak hour generators do not trigger any auxiliary lanes. 4. Based on a survey submitted with the previous special use permit at the site, the northwest corner of the Rio Grande building is within CDOT's Right of Way, and the driveway access to the eastern portion of the site utilizes CDOT ROW. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment license with CDOT (see attachment). 5. The applicant shall acquire an access easement or easement agreement from the contiguous Vail parcel or other neighboring property owner within one year of the acceptance at Va ace P g gP P Y Y eP tance of the new Vines at Vail access as deemed acceptable to Eagle County and CDOT. It shall specify that future access for the Rio Grande parcel will be needed through said parcel at the time when the constructed access at the Vines at Vail parcel seeks initial acceptance from CDOT. At this time of acceptance the access point at Rio Grande will be closed. Said easement or easement agreement shall be publically recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office. 6. Temporary mitigation improvements. The following improvements shall be made as a condition of this special use permit: a. To the west of the site, remove the "bench" material directly to the west of the edge of pavement on the Rio Grande parcel and along the CDOT ROW to the south and west, consisting of approximately 360 lineal feet to the northern side of the Gallegos access, thus increasing the site distance. A minimum of l' from top of grade shall be removed. b. Work with the property owner on the west side of SH131 adjacent to the site to keep the area clear of obstructions of the site distance. Any items that are to be stockpiled on the property should be located as far west as practical. c. The existing driveway width is 48'. Narrow the driveway on the northern side; remove asphalt/gravel at the steeper part and revegetate or restripe, allowing vehicles to enter /exit the highway without having to navigate this steeper grade. 7. Any outside storage of trash or garbage shall be placed in wildlife proof containers pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 8. This Permit shall be limited to the following uses: Contractor Storage of vehicles, machinery, materials and other accessory uses customarily associated with these uses and any other uses permitted within the Rural Center (RC) zone district. Outdoor storage of materials shall be limited to the designated areas as indicated on the site plan for this location. Parking of vehicles as a primary use, where vehicles are not related to the permitted and special uses on site is prohibited. 9. Prior to occupancy by tenant /lessee for "wet" uses (where tenant uses liquids as part of business e.g. carpet cleaning), it shall be demonstrated to Environmental Health how wastewater generated from their cleaning operations is disposed. Any improper disposal onto the surface of the ground or into storm sewers or surface water is prohibited and cause for immediate revocation of this permit. 10. All stipulations outlined in the Eagle County Engineering memorandum dated June 9 2011 shall be adhered to. 11. All exterior lighting shall be downcast with shielded bulbs to eliminate glare, preserving protection of the night sky. Further, lighting should be limited to motion - sensor lighting where possible. 38 07/26/2011 12. Parking shall be prohibited from Highway 131 right -of -way unless approval/permission is granted by CDOT for this encroachment. 13. The land owner shall incorporate the conditions of this Special Use Permit as conditions of the lease for any tenant /lessee for the tenure of this Special Use Permit. 14. Any signage for uses on this property shall meet the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; however, signage shall only be permitted on the office building and not on the buildings used for contractor storage, nor as free- standing signs. Exceptions to this condition include directional, traffic and/or parking signs. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the request. The purpose of the permit was to continue the existing use of a contractor /storage /office and maintain the existing access to the parcel until the parcel was developed. Gregg Schroeder spoke about the current access. The existing access was un- permitted. It did not make sense at this point to ask the applicant to complete an access permit. He presented the recommended conditions for the temporary non - conforming access. Mr. Hanagan stated that if the board approved to extend the permit, the historic use would continue. He stated that there were 14 conditions and some changes had been made. Chairman Stavney asked the applicant if they had any issues with any of the proposed conditions. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group spoke about the applicants, issue with condition 5. He explained the use of the property over the last 3 years. He believed that there was a long list of permitted uses allowed without a Special Use Permit and without any conditions. He presented a list of uses by right. He spoke about the discussion between the applicant and the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but believed condition 10 should be deleted because those recommendations had been included in condition 9. As for condition 5, they were not agreeable to doing anything now in tying up the two properties. Patrick Chirichillo stated that there were 3 other potential access points to the Rio Grande property. He believed an easement would restrict future opportunities. Mr. Mauriello believed that the access issue could be addressed in the future with the future development on Vines at Vail. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the rationale behind the 3 -year review period. Mr. Mauriello believed the board wanted a shorter period of time in order to evaluate the progress. He believed that the 3 years had shown that there was not significant concerns with safety. He suggested it now be in perpetuity as it wasn't a very impactful use. Mr. Hanagan explained that both areas were designated appropriate sites for rural center and these types of uses. Compatibility was not an issue. Mr. Schroeder read condition 5 aloud as suggested by the engineering department. They were trying to insure legal access and the legal right to construct something in the future. They were trying to avoid difficult negotiations in the future with the Rio Grande access. Mr. Mauriello explained that the applicant had already agreed to provide an alternative access point when the Vines at Vail were developed. If the Vines at Vail were not developed, the new property owner would begin a new process. Mr. Chirichillo stated that there was nothing different being done on the property. Commissioner Fisher believed that the requirement limited future use of an uncertain property. Mr. Schroeder noted that just because there was a use by right did not exempt any type of access permit improvements. CDOT wants to insure that access points meet the state highway code. Recent review of the intersection indicated that the right site distance did not meet code. Any time there were access points to a highway that were in close proximity there is the risk for safety issues. He explained that permitting could be difficult. Commissioner Runyon asked about condition 2. He wondered if there was a consequence for being out of conformance during the review period. Mr. Schroeder explained that there were a few triggers that could require an access permit to be applied for at that location. Commissioner Runyon had trouble with the language "in perpetuity ". He wanted to insure there was a mechanism that would allow future review. 39 07/26/2011 Mr. Morris explained the criteria for the Special Use Permit and encouraged staff to clearly define the conditions. Commissioner Fisher believed there were opportunities for continued review and she was comfortable with conditions presented by staff. Chairman Stavney concurred with Commissioner Fisher. Commissioner Runyon asked if the Mr. Morris recommended an additional condition. Mr. Morris believed it was important to allow future review based on traffic impacts in the future. Chairman Stavney stated that there was no public input. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the file no. ZS -3225 Rio Grande Waste Management with conditions 1 -14, eliminating condition 10. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business be `.re* • . :; the meeti _ . I' •urned until 1 gust 2, 2011. . i '-t Vi i/ A .,s * Attest:' Clerk to the B r d o�ORAO° Cha' 40 07/26/2011