No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/23/11 PUBLIC HEARING August 23, 2011 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Bryan Treu County Attorney Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Keith Montag County Manager 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 Weeks of August 22, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Commissioner Meeting for June 28, 2011 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder C. Preconstruction and Construction Agreement for the Eagle County Fairgrounds Sports Complex Rick Ullom, Project Management D. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Child Care Association Facilities Management Representative E. Resolution 2011 -108 Supporting a Grant Application to the State Board of The Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund to Partially Fund Improvements to the Two Bridges Boat Launch Toby Sprunk, Open Space Chairman Stavney complimented Mr. Sprunk for his work on Open Space and getting up to speed with the program so quickly. Chairman Stavney asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that he had no comments. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -E. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. 1 08/23/2011 Resolution 2011 -109 Providing for the Submission of the Registered Qualified Electors of Eagle County, Colorado, of a Ballot Question which would extend Term Limitations for the Office of District Attorney Imposed in Accordance with Article XVIII, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado; Said Ballot Question to be Submitted at the Coordinated Election to be Held November 1, 2011; Prescribing the Form of Ballot Question for Submission at Said Election; Providing for Certification of the Election Question to the County Clerk and Recorder; and Otherwise Providing for the Conduct Thereof County Attorney's Office Representative Mr. Treu stated that the District Attorney wanted another 4year term. All four counties within the Fifth Judicial District had to agree to the same question. Commissioner Fisher stated that although the cost would be minimal, it would reduce the amount of reimbursements from the other participants on the ballot. Commissioner Runyon believed it was appropriate for the voters to decide. Chairman Stavney noted that due to the mix of Hispanic population, by law, ballots may need to be printed in two languages. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution providing for the Submission of the Registered Qualified Electors of Eagle County, Colorado, of a Ballot Question which would extend Term Limitations for the Office of District Attorney Imposed in Accordance with Article XVIII, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado; Said Ballot Question to be Submitted at the Coordinated Election to be Held November 1, 2011; Prescribing the Form of Ballot Question for Submission at Said Election; Providing for Certification of the Election Question to the County Clerk and Recorder; and Otherwise Providing for the Conduct Thereof. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2011 Abstract of Assessment Assessor's Office Representative Mr. Chapin presented the abstract as required per state statute. Letters were distributed to each of the taxing entities throughout the county for budgeting purposes. He stated that there was a 23.4% down turn across the county. The net total assessed value was $3,542,233,420 in 2010. Today the net total was $2,713,407,400. He provided a breakdown by each of the entities. Commissioner Fisher applauded the employees of Eagle County for taking a proactive approach. Commissioner Runyon wondered if Mr. Chapin had any idea whether the numbers would continue to trend down further. Mr. Chapin stated that according to the local professionals the county had not seen the bottom yet. His office would be analyzing the numbers in the coming months. Chairman Stavney believed it was wise to budget conservatively for the next few years. Commissioner Runyon moved that the board accept the 2011 Abstract of Assessment as presented and authorize the chair to sign. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 08/23/2011 Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Delta Whiskey, Inc. d/b /a Splendido at the Chateau • #35- 12299 -0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license in Beaver Creek. 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. Vail Food Services, Inc. d/b /a Eagle's Nest Restaurant #04- 49010 -0001 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license with 3 -opt. premises on Vail Mountain. 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. Vail Food Services, Inc. d/b /a Mid -Vail Restaurant #04 -49011 -0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license with 3 -opt. premises on Vail Mountain. 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. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b /a Osprey at Beaver Creek #04- 85060 -0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license in Beaver Creek. 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. E. Extended Family Stone, LLC d/b /a the French Press #40 -42040 -0000 This is a renewal of a Tavern 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. F. Rio Rancho, LLC d/b /a Rancho Del Rio Liquors #26- 18840 -0000 This is a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store license in Bond. 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. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for May 3, 2011 consisting of Items A -F. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 08/23/2011 APPLICANT: Let the French Begin, LLC d/b /a Gore Range Brewery REPRESENTATIVE: Pascal Coudouy, Owner LOCATION: 105 Edwards Village Blvd., Unit H — Edwards Village Center REQUEST: Transfer of Ownership STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Let the French Begin, LLC has submitted an application to transfer ownership of a Brew Pub liquor license currently held by Gore Range Brewery, LLC. The applicant is currently operating under a temporary permit issued by the local licensing authority, May 17, 2011. LIOUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 2. Whether the applicants are of good moral character 3. If applicant plans to make any physical change, alteration or modification of the licensed premises, whether the premises, and if changed, altered or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Codes, including, but not limited to the following factors: a. the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants; b. the possession, by. the licensee, of the changed premises by ownership, lease, rental or other arrangement; c. compliance with the applicable zoning laws of the county; and d. compliance with the distance prohibition in regard to any public or parochial school. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees have been paid. 2. The state and local licensing authorities have previously licensed the premises where such alcohol beverages will be sold and such licenses were valid at the time the application for transfer of ownership was filed with the local licensing authority. 3. Based on the evidence provided in the CBI report the applicants are reported to be of good moral character. 4. The Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been received. 5. The applicants are over 21 and fingerprints are on file. 6. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, August 12, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication is not required for a transfer of ownership. 4 08/23/2011 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a transfer of ownership and all findings are positive. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request and listed the items of backup submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Fisher asked about the server - training requirement per the alcohol management plan. Mr. Coudouy stated that a staff person that was a certified TIPS trainer would train all servers within 30 days of hire. Chairman Stavney acknowledged Russell Molina's participation at the 4 -H livestock sale at the Eagle County Fair and Rodeo. Commissioner Fisher stressed the importance of holding a liquor license and taking the responsibilities serious. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, incorporating staff findings, approve the transfer of the Brew Pub liquor license from Gore Range Brewery, LLC to Let the French Begin, LLC d/b /a Gore Range Brewery. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Last Course, LLC DBA: Last Course REPRESENTATIVE: Chris and Whitney Armistead, owners LOCATION: 275 Main St. C -106 (Riverwalk) Edwards REQUEST: New — Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Last Course, LLC submitted an application for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License on July 6, 2011. The owners, Whitney and Chris Armistead, combined have over a decade of experience in the food and beverage industry. Last Course is located in the Garnet building next to Lacy's in the Riverwalk at Edwards. The Cafe & Bar will be open Tuesday - Thursday 9 a.m. -9 p.m. and Friday - Sunday 9 a.m. -11 p.m. The cafe will offer pastries, cakes, pies, cookies along with a creative bar menu and a limited selection of bottled beer. ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD: The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the definition of the "neighborhood" include the area within a two -mile radius from the proposed location (275 main Street, Edwards). This area includes but is not limited to Arrowhead, the Reserve, River Pines, Homestead, Old Edwards Estates, and Singletree. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the application. 5 08/23/2011 Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority establish the neighborhood to include the area within a two -mile radius from the proposed location. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD r of the Local Licensing Authority have been provided with copies of the petition submitted by 1. All members o p p p g Y the applicant included is a summary provided by the Clerk's Office. The Board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood, the desires of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and desires, per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12- 347 -301 (2) (a). 2. There are currently three (4) Tavern licenses, (1) Retail Liquor Store License and (7) Hotel and Restaurant licenses issued in the Riverwalk at Edwards. a) E -Town b) Juniper c) Local Joe's Pizza d) Henry's Chinese Cafe e) Main Street Grill f) Woody's Full Belly Kitchen and Pub g) Zino Ristorante h) The Rose OTHER LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the licensee shall possess and maintain possession of the premises for which the license is issued by ownership, lease, rental, or other arrangement for possession of such premises. 2. Whether the premises are within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 3. Whether the fees have been paid. 4. Whether the applicants are of good moral character. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has filed an application on forms provided by the state licensing authority and provided information as required by the state licensing authority. All applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees paid. 2. The applicants are 21 years of age and reported to be of good moral character. 3. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises August 12, 2011 and publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on August 11 and 18` 2011. 4. The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. 5. The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 6 08/23/2011 6. The applicant has submitted proof of possession of premises. 7. Staff received no concerns from other county departments related to security, traffic, parking, zoning, building, food service, taxes or any other issues. 8. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority Proof of server training will be provided upon hiring employees. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a Hotel and Restaurant liquor license. DISCUSSION: Whitney Armistead stated that they wanted to work with the other establishments in Riverwalk and hoped to compliment the other businesses in the areas. Commissioner Fisher noted that a new license had recently been approved for The Rose in Riverwalk, which was offering a similar type of service. Chris Armistead felt that the location of the Rose might attract different clientele. He expressed an interest in working with the other businesses. Ms. Scriver indicated that staff findings were positive and all the requirements had been met. Commissioner Fisher asked about the staff server training. Mr. Armistead stated that staff would be server trained within the 30 -day requirement. He'd hoped to hire staff and have them TIPS trained prior to opening day. Ms. Armistead stated that their focus was on food. Mr. Armistead stated that they did not intend to stay open until 2 a.m. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board find that there is a reasonable requirement and desire for the issuance of this license, therefore approve a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License for Last Course, LLC d/b /a Last Course based on the testimony, petitions, and evidence submitted today and incorporating the staff findings. Such license is to be issued upon the written findings and decision of this Board and upon a final inspection of the premises by the Clerk and Recorder's Office to determine that the applicant has complied with the site information provided today and as may be required by the Colorado Liquor Code. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney 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. Planning Files AFP -3260 Arrowhead at Vail Filing No. 20, Lot 34 Scot Hunn, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 06/28/11 & 7/12/11. File withdrawn by applicant ACTION: The purpose of this amended final plat is to create a restrictive building envelope for future improvements on Lot 34, and specifically to adjust setbacks to allow for the construction of certain subterranean improvements on the southeast corner of the lot. LOCATION: 181 Windermere Circle, Edwards Area 7 08/23/2011 FNZ -3054 Schmidt Residence Stream Setback Variance Request Bob Narracci, Planning Department Ben Gerdes, Engineering Department Terrill Knight, Knight Planning Services Fritz Schmidt, Applicant Rob Sperberg, Attorney NOTE: Tabled from 3/15/11, 4/19/11, 5/10/11 & 7/26/11 ACTION: The purpose for this FONSI 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. 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 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 North: Old Edwards Estates Residential Suburban Medium Density South: Mixed Use Commercial General Development East: Riverwalk Mixed -Use Planned Unit CDOT Interstate Resource Development Development Trave Rest Area West: Eagle River Preserve Resource Existing Zoning: Commercial General 8 08/23/2011 Proposed Zoning= NA Current Devel Single- Family Residence S Conditions Developed Total Land Area. Acres: 2.426 -acres Square feet: : 105,684 square feet • Total Space: N/A Water Public: ERW &SD Private: Sewer: Public: ERW &SD Private: Access: V 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 9 08/23/2011 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 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 10 08/23/2011 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 Y p , 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 8 , 2 q .m FLDM. ` an ` 4 Designation Exceeds Recommendations InCdrporates X1 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X 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 11 08/23/2011 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 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 1 w Fr uM � oc b . l i lil Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Xl X2 X3 X4 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 12 08/23/2011 STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5- 250.B.21 The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. . , , Potential Compatibility Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning Issues Yes No Old Edwards Residential North: Suburban X Estates Medium Density South: Mixed Use Commercial X Commercial General M1Xtii Use Planned Unit East: Commercial X Riverwalk Development West: Eag Rivex Resource 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 property 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 Special Use Permit review and approval. 13 08/23/2011 • Seasonal uses, such as Christmas 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'. 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. a � eo a . v c 8 2 S 2 as 0 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. i �' o a o „ OT 0 0 il y d gg 0 x'' ¢ c § c >E Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement X 14 08/23/2011 N_1 i ot Applicabe 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. 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. he . «w rs y Vl e c4 WCA Exceeds` CLUR Requirements Sat1fi CLUII R uir is X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUI Requirement Not t plicable 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 Y MEETS THE MAJORIT 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. m f. - 4, ..,.. 5 '-',,,. .4.>' -,, '''''' --' , " U , Article 4, Site T) yelo went Stan W;4.1 t . 1 • . �, M� X Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards (D 4 -1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4 -2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3) 15 08/23/2011 X Wildlife Protection (Section 4 -410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4 -430) Wood Burning Controls (Section 4 -440) 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 1) 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 16 08/23/2011 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 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 of the stream, or creates a design that results in greater 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: 17 08/23/2011 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 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. 18 08/23/2011 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. 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: 19 08/23/2011 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) 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 that the board had heard the three -part land use proposal. The board approved the proposed land uses regulation amendment and the companion special Use Permit to allow 50% of the existing residential structure to be utilized as a residence and the other 50% to be utilized for professional office space. The applicant desired the ability to rebuild the structure in its present footprint for insurance purposes. This process was necessary because the FONSI process allowed stream setback variances up to a minimum of 50 feet. Any closer than 50 feet necessitated a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The applicant was requesting some flexibility in the set back around the existing structure. The flexibility did not pertain towards the river. Terrell Knight stated that the applicant would come in with a special use permit in the The item today just addressed the current home, risk and financing issues. Chairman Stavney summarized the request and directed staff to make an exception to the set back as a part of the code for uses that were commercial, public, and not for residential within certain zone districts and dense areas. Mr. Narracci stated that the language had already been drafted. It would allow the board the same flexibility with PUD through the special use permit process. Commissioner Fisher reiterated that less than 50% of the house fell into the setback area and wondered if something were to happen to the existing house whether the applicant would consider building a new residence. Mr. Schmidt stated that if the existing home burned down he would like to have flexibility in the building design of a new home. Chairman Fisher stated that her biggest concern was that it set a precedent and it offered up the opportunity for others who may have river property. She suggested that the square footage remain the same including the garage, approx. 3700 square ft. and no more than 50% would be built in the less than 75 ft. set back. Chairman Stavney agreed with Commissioner Fisher's recommendation. Mr. Narracci stated that the Planning Commission did not weigh in on this request. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve file no. FNZ -3054 Schmidt Residence Stream Setback Variance Request as outlined in discussion and with no more than 50% of the house being permitted to sit in the 50 -75% ft. set back with the details laid out in the form of a resolution. The finding of significant impact was only applicable to only residential structure and not commercial. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 20 08/23/2011 Continuum of Care Retirement Community Messaging (recorded) Jill Klosterman, Housing Work Sessions (recorded) Meet State Representative Millie Hamner Fulford Road and Building Code Greg Schroeder, Engineering There being no further business before t,• e,JEW rd, the me ting w.. adjourned unti�1' s 30, 2011. /I Al i V1 ► Attest ` d�� k ■ 4 A�� Clerk to the Boa d * ‘ * C � 21 08/23/2011