No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/24/12 PUBLIC HEARING January 24, 2012 Present: Peter Runyon Chairman Jon Stavney Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney' Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Sara Fisher Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of January 23, 2012 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Vail for Animal Services Shawn Markmann, Animal Services C. Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Minturn for Animal Services Shawn Markmann, Animal Services D. Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Gypsum for Animal Services Shawn Markmann, Animal Services E. Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Events for Professional Marketing and Promotion Services Tom Johnson, Public Works Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Robert Morris, Deputy County Attorney stated that he had nothing to note. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -E. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. • Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. 1 01/24/2012 Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: Shop & Hop #3, LLC TRADE NAME: Shop & Hop #3 REPRESENTATIVE: Terry Marcum, Owner LOCATION: 15 Eagle -Vail Road — Avon (Eagle - Vail), CO REQUEST: Transfer of Ownership STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested the transfer of a 3.2% Beer Liquor License. The name of the current licensee is Terrance S. Marcum. The applicant is currently operating under a temporary permit issued by the local licensing authority, October 4, 2011. As stated by Mr. Marcum at the prior hearing, this was an inside transfer, the trade name would remain the same and it would business as usual. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 2. Whether the applicant is of good moral character 3. If the 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 applicant is reported to be of good moral character. 4. The Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been received. 5. The applicant is over 21 and fingerprints are on file. 2 01/24/2012 6. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, January 13, 2012, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication is not required for a transfer of ownership. 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. 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. Commissioner Stavney asked if there had been any incidents. Ms. Scriver stated that there had been no incidents, all documentation had been received and the fees paid. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, incorporating staff findings, approve the transfer of the 3.2% Beer Liquor License from Terrence Marcum to Shop & Hop #3, LLC d/b a Shop & Hop #3. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Black Diamond Bistro, LLC TRADE NAME: Black Diamond Bistro REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa Misakian, Owner LOCATION: The Charter at Beaver Creek —120 Offerson Road, Beaver Creek REQUEST: Transfer of Ownership STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the transfer of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License. The license is currently held by Savage Peak, LLC d/b /a D'oro. The applicant is currently operating under a temporary permit issued by the local licensing authority, October 25, 2011. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 2. Whether the applicants are of good moral character 3. If applicant plans to make any physical change, alteration or modification of the licensed premises, whether the premises, and if changed, altered or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Codes, including, but not limited to the following factors: a. the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants; 3 01/24/2012 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 were 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, January 13, 2012, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication is not required for a transfer of ownership. 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. 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. Staff had no concerns with the application. Lisa Misakian provided details about the menu and type of establishment. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, incorporating staff findings, approve the transfer of the Hotel and Restaurant liquor license from Savage Peak, LLC to Black Diamond Bistro, LLC d/b /a Black Diamond Bistro. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, 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 Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. 4 01/24/2012 Planning Files ZS -3493 Telecommunication El Jebowl Sean Hanagan, Planning Department Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department Nathan Wiser, Applicant's Representative ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for the installation of up to 12 panel antennas and associated radio /electrical equipment on an existing bowling alley structure (El Jebowl). LOCATION: 0200 Gillespie Drive, El Jebel FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS -3493 / Special Use Permit PROJECT NAME: AT &T at El Jebowl Telecommunication site LOCATION: 02000 Gillespie Drive, El Jebel, CO. OWNER: AT &T APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Nathan Wiser 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant requests review of a Special Use permit for the construction of an AT &T Telecommunication Facility on the El Jebowl Bowling Alley. The proposal entails for the installation of up to twelve (12) panel antennas and associated radio /electrical equipment on an existing commercial Bowling Alley structure located at 0200 Gillespie Dr. in Eagle County. Currently the property consists of an existing commercial Bowling Alley along with Verizon Wireless as well as Sprint/Nextel roof mounted antennas. The AT &T antennas will be concealed within stealth equipment shelters in order to reduce the visual impact and all ancillary radio /electrical equipment will be located within a 12x20 equipment shelter. AT &T is seeking a communication site in this area to serve the traveling public along HWY 82 as well as the residents and visitors to the surrounding area. B. SITE DATA: Surroundin l Land Uses / Zonin North: Residential RSM South: Municipal[Eagle County] PUD A, `; East: Commercial [Tree Farm] PUD West: Residential RSM ?sI^ ea ° 10. i. x t ( � Commercial General N/A q �,�R Commercial - Bowling alley. g <, , t F a Pre Commercial Development z #k 11.504 34} ' t °zx 501,114 5 01/24/2012 k �a 1 ' 1044,, spat* N/A ,' rt X 4 E e / I t t! - a xa t+ s' l , 9 s* 'pl. ' „ y + r Yx Y�° Z . V Y+e 4 ^ 1 X21 - B , ,,s .. .. 1� :I G Dri C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: • 2004 - ZS -00123 was approved allowing a telecommunications facility on the parcel. • 2009- ZS -2227 Unanimously approved by RFVRP for Sprint Nextel • 2009- ZS -2227 Unanimously approved by BoCC for Sprint Nextel • 2011- ZS -3493 Unanimously approved by RFVRPC for Verizon 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 fort h 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 t hese Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compli mi ance 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 , r , r �,, �rs ' ., ,.! ' ' -,;': g �„ , t'x °i , t3 k M Y ftveeds eons 6 01/24/2012 *, X X X �t 4 ' X X X Xi +es .. ap A r s' d . i u , fiGh .r;,, ! of Appn b '. x x x FLUM' — Community Center BASALT MASTER PLAN f> `' E h t � � f �trt` y � w. � � f d 9 b � � i � l i *then t 5�� f f lira $ ;. ItoeW ' Coate ' Ree01nmen4 M a y otAp i �l i X X X X X X X' I X' - Commercial use EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN " "* r r t'ttftr * Y6i' , �. 3 " F ks '` gq '' "t-I a r ltt t iWlrp�,`? ". . x5 K`: `' F.',"AE,. 4414..1%1 ,' n,f. ` t4 0PRiP, xd "� a£ ' 1'; ; 4z� 5 ,e I�� �' �� rg�' �t : '^„`5 a �' 4 y. " ri v�x;., remit SSs.* ,a ti -e S a 'w T�.',rc:.°�, �� � a . � a acv � t , ," . .',.,'1,:: a ' , } x c r. u � ���" �b a"� � ��? [! dx �¢i � i v^f"�A ��. s £ '", " � ' � �: �'�;' ��'�{1 ��.::. A ka "�" �[ i xE .r ig � 4. fla#:a4- 1 3, 1 !',473.,10C" 4kt cr yitE "r k t e. i S 4 14 ;�, `�'t z . :11 i ^°. e e� g a y u l ��s�a + r'` �a ' ' >et � wxy7 tt , �, �' :9$2141:. tx�'S � Y^aa s'1 % "ai . �'' 3 4 �,.� t tY' , a �ti} c a '",;`° „a K axe t ` r }94 toa a t r t z 5 i s G er it xi 'u M ^ 0. L .Y6a r? s ;; t ' 9 ; ; xa x L, ,. *. t a .'v �G^ .'' , s ' ' '6' '''' b �, ' ` '' } z "}., r '. b 2u''`IS 3,` t a , 1 G' "`x '* q � :.i`"t� f; si ii ^r {a. 'r w�. i.m'U"i' ' s .' s t'.ka t t ., `Y t ut't$'01.1 � , x 41 r. c+ � " 'y � a Amu i 3 ? i t .a..n ,, v `a," t* �3y��` ® a t '. t *: x ,uv t? „ d' ,, ^. ,[ g r a'Y-c^ }a lit ' �f+"��6 �� .+ ac. � A°LCCV a t Y�t t ? y "� ``'.` , #E } t r tK a 4 1: xi453P' ti; ro 4t t f y "�7 i ' $ u "to r ia >:`4s11 `+ s. `a" 00 iury f £ r " , } t o �' Jt' � a 7 i ,4 S � t r. � h `?fit g � an 'lp �� a � \� y''aa�t 7 � >t. �� { a t 3� y } �{ t. "� z t ^w " d or` t 3 Y , rz . m ^S` A , &k `+, ."„ �s 3 ff .'s ty.., li ; . ,_ v' i Xtagei .,ihz, . ; , u . 5 ex E. . .a,.,ilA '` - . " 1 r r ,r r ; "t,; .. .. V a a; *x t, . . ? `t € 'Ga.3� t1'.,a5.;,,. g vA. ,.k, #mStm § .>'i .}? `. ,,ra .v1, >y k6 ^ .,',,,, ar„ T K P -R S K i . k4a s f a a8 ¢ 6 € f , H A q ? , 4 } p'.cae4 a sae atit v a t g S 3n �r gt R �s s m r aff a,. * ', �.'f .�.! ' N ®a a E .. .l � y,,.a ffilt @,® q 4+ 6� ,>, �": x x x x x x x EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. The proposed telecommunications facility will be located on the roof -top of a privately owned established commercial building with an existing telecommunication facility. Building mounted facilities are preferable to ground mounted monopoles. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 7 01/24/2012 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 new telecommunication facility will be located in a Commercial General Zone district. There are no specific standards for these types of uses found in Section 3 -310 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. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X , Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR: R equirements Not Applicable x x x X x By utilizing concealing "stealth" techniques, the design will minimize the visual impacts on adjacent lands. 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. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUMSTANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 8 01/24/2012 -,,,,,,,,,,,7717,,Z4V,:::01:044ii.T.'°,f,,,E41,-,:.:°,3kki-ft,i;z:,4,.,,,,,„ h ,,,,,,, l v it z iPi,..30:RitiiUt. .°,;,..!!-‘1,.2. '9!'t!.'1..; 1 w .Sates R�� '' X X X X X X X 4 1:.'<:4*.°''''''''''''''':''''''':'::::''''' ' ' ----"---"--- STAND Impact on Public Facil ities. [Section 5- 250.B.6] The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately serve 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 t R 3Q r 'i q : dj > 1 ":a+at� s ECLU •'. �� x x x 1 . ., X X X X STAND Site Deve lopment Standards. [Section 5- 250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the app ropriate standards in Art 4, Site Development Standards. '` , - ' • —' ss #ik €e . € ' t �" S \ d, r A ; Y t 1 u • y} e r # qt r y i '" s ,,, A � 3 ~ t §§ rs ?P ; , K ; : m z' A. a Y €E *h fi s s � a r #.,�. e ,.,'�.k ry r �s*^ 3 in r3' x r r 2 i§ Y ,, a Y : y° q a y s:. 4 A. § { , v s j rrk a s'€ a x'°"r a a 5 • # :' ,f ,- a '41#`,K •'t F , o r „ a . " +a e„t„ «'a j •. 3Y S,;. 41 Y } 3yk. i�, d �x<.,r : n o r ,,,,, , ,, u �. a '"� r , . st S r :. s ,... t F' C \ q 1 : l � ";'k' S E , , ,, , 440.4.1 . , , R a ti r .q l T €r . $t + * i i ti, , ' ; f ; ,(r zE • .c.: e'r . . ,� / , , . . , s ° 4 tee. t kr .? S €k€F t . € i "' v r {k rt C � I r E .: ,v t g t t f fV" !4'4'y g '''' �`a, tt �" v X 1 4 : 1 . .. s t,a ! ''err `' , # t y s} t f 4`� r'' E r6 n � � ti k F � "`RitS k 'o =: ^ : x; * yS "'r sF , ,.t, . . p s {.: - .. € t:: s r s - '01',4441346110J= x *# 4 w n ` ,m ' , ,,, q a a ;� 5 , E *.� k .; tiv, 5t r r ,,,, , Harr `fi ; s s v` �S s , r wer a xa. ;a rc 3 n ? � • :a'r p# d .'a �,. . 44.1 t i ',' 4t 7 f f % ti i Ef' 4 i n ; y 1 . b r s > Y ` . Er `#, q q "to m ' 1 �; ° e S `E t S # c s s a @ , r � � S. 4 6 t s t a ; m f a 4q' e : , : , 1 a :!?: ,t§ s'. r �i ti s t i z , 4 1 9 } tpp '.. �. 0 '" , * .1,4' " S P"�.nS .; aa '� � r: a ''��� � �.� � t. `� ' .x : sCa ' � r r �Nt r b y� `t 7°'� . 5�A � u � �: -: � ^'+�ib `�. % '`€ €P i .:,. j s4 s ��r t Y ._, t " x r + a, rs iignU f g'3h fg m fit^ , ett y 2 ? ' p , a t e . > � a ,.+,`; a . � k - r ` sa t4 `Y $ I s€€µ„ f kR 3 "h " '` ,t g < U 4-r ?'g' o' z 13 i, ri` ,eq u^s d 4 s w'S f t2si`` R ' fg:, °€, l r '`e s t x , r s : r t e L a ,„ ^;" , k " 3 "a ,ru v. #r s , K i s „, i€ , �; v. , . 4 + y } , �r � t h t Y "A i s f 2 p �? h'� 3 t o �;i �,. ,�'U" ''k y , 3"F x 2 r "**:, �� G{ # k ` y t} ' ,, ^`,^, k :fin`", 5 r , y, ES�r" . `• y 5�, . ,•,*2 ' " , R �a w? ?. rc h"Ji sd *�,::`. €E ,.,!, 1i4 �. °w ,, .:..,. 1 ' .._ �.. • . angs t ... �., ,.. . . ` ;w 7xf .*� •r '" „ ,", "w r r = < k x c ©�� Off - Street Parking and Loading Stan dards (D 4 -1) .-- X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4 -2) �.� X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3) I. X Wildlife Protection (Section 4 -410) II X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4 - 430) 9 01/24/2012 X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4 -440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4 -460) 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) NOT APPLICABLE EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Town of Basalt - Please refer to the attachment dated November 18 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 :, Engineering, and Environmental Health • Other: Holly Cross Electric, Qwest /CenturyTel, C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: At their regular meeting on December 22n 2011, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve Special Use Permit ZS -3493 to include staffs suggested conditions (1 -3). Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: - Location within an existing telecommunication site. - Concealing techniques will minimize visual impacts to the public. - Improved cell service to the community. Disadvantages: - No real disadvantages are apparent with this requested use. 10 01/24/2012 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 � 1� g Y p ( pp master . lans p ) 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. Applicant (AT &T) shall notify the Director of Community Development when altering or modifying equipment on the telecommunications facility. Any increase in number of antennas, or expansion of the equipment shelter, may necessitate a new Special Use Permit 3. This Special Use Permit shall be valid for a period of not more than three (3) years prior to actual implementation of the permitted use. Upon implementation of the approved use, such permit shall remain valid, in perpetuity, and shall run with the land thereafter unless an expiration date or exception has been placed upon the permit by the Board of County Commissioners. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the request. AT &T was asking for permission to enhance the service in the area. They were adding a small 12 x 80 foot structure with antennas inside. There would be little change in appearance. Roaring Fork and Valley Regional Planning Commissions voted unanimously to approve the request. Commissioner Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney approved file no. ZS - 3493 Telecommunication El Jebowl, Including the three staff suggested conditions. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 11 01/24/2012 SMA -3512, ZC -3513, ZS -3514 White Morris Conservation Subdivision Sean Hanagan, Planning Department Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department Tambi Katieb, Applicant's Representative ACTION: Conservation Subdivision of a 10 -acre parcel to include two lots under separate ownership as well as a conservation tract of 9 acres. LOCATION: 460 Kings Lake Road, Basalt Area FILE NO./PROCESS: SMA - 3512 /ZC- 3513/ZS -3516, White Morris Conservation Subdivision PROJECT NAME: White Morris Conservation Subdivision LOCATION: 460 Kings Lake Road OWNER: Daryl & Rebecca White/Matt & Andrea Morris APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Tambi Katieb 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This proposal is for a Conservation Subdivision consisting of: a. Two (2) single family >1 acre building envelopes b. 9 -acre conservation tract. The primary component of the request is a zone change to the exiting 10 acre parcel of land. The proposed zone change would Re -zone the property from Resource(R) to Agricultural Limited (RL). A rezone is needed for the applicant to meet the minimum acreage for the Conservation Subdivision. Within the Resource zone a minimum of 70 acres is required to be eligible for a Conservation Subdivision while within the Resource Limited zone only 45 acres are required for Conservation Subdivision eligibility. Without the Zone Change approval the parcel would not meet minimum size requirements and thus not be allowed based on current Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In addition to the Zone Change a Minor Type A Subdivision and a Special Use Permit are being applied for as part of this Conservation Subdivision application. These files are required within the Conservation Subdivision section of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R South: Existing Use(s) Zoning USFS R East: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R Existing Zoning: Resource non - conforming (35 acre minimum parcel size) Proposed Zoning: Agricultural Limited (5 acre minimum parcel size) Current Development: Single family residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit (detached) 12 01/24/2012 Generally sloping South to North. The Frying Pan River adjacent to property on the Site Conditions: Northern boundary. Steep hillsides found on the South side of the property. Two single family home exists on the property. Total Land Area: 10 acres 435,600 square feet Total Open Space (Conservation 9 acres 392,040 square feet Tract) Proposed Water: Private well (spring) Sewer: ISDS Access: Via Kings Lake Road C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: 1963 Parcel in existence in county records 1974 region zoned Resource by Eagle County 2007 SUP approved for ADU D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: At their regular meeting on December 22 2011, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the White- Morris Conservation Subdivision by a margin of 3 to 1. The g outstanding concerns were focused on • Joint ownership of conservation tract and its effectiveness with regard to true protection of lands within the tract. • Unbuildable lot area designated for tract. • Special Use approval for the current ADU provided owner their "benefit ". • Possibility of ADU (1800square foot) expanding to the maximum 5000 square feet. 2. STAFF REPORT Zone Change: STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5- 24.0.F.3.e (9)] -. The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surround lan uses. hl N North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X RP South: Existing Use(s) Zoning USFS (USFS) X East: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X The general character of the area is rural residential in nature and consists of mostly residential and open space parcels. The majority of parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned either Resource Preservation (RP) or Resource(R). The Southern boundary of the White -Morris parcel borders land held by the USFS. Compatibility with other non - conforming Resource zoned properties in the area is not of major concern. 13 01/24/2012 The compatibility with Resource Preservation zoned properties should be improved with the designation of a conservation tract. Resource Preservation (RP) zoning is intended to severely restrict development with the intent of preserving natural rural lands. Density in Resource Preservation (RP) zone parcels is limited to a development per 80 acres. The proposed Conservation tract would allow a density of zero dwelling units per 9 acres. Effective clustering of the building envelopes improves the appearance of density compatibility by giving the impression of lower density development and concentrating visual impacts in areas outside the view corridor. A true Conservation tract would be as contiguous as possible and also lend to the impression of a lower density development. The Western and Eastern surrounding parcels are residential and zoned Resource (R). Many of these are properties are non - conforming in that they are less than the minimum 35 acres in size. These properties have a density greater than the zoning would normally indicate and therefore the subject parcel would be less likely to demonstrate any compatibility issues with the proposed Conservation Subdivision density. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (10.)] — The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN t+ 0 J i A . ._ t - c i . A A a 6 ` A .,a x 4 v gi „ Y t 1 t Exceeds Recommendations incotporates Majority of X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 Recommendations ' Does Not blootPorate Incorporate : . Recommendations Not Applicable X i X1: Development • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County ". The subject property, in its current state, is predominantly natural and the proposed subdivision would maintain a high quality riparian area on the Southern portion of the parcel. • "Work to identify and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services ". The subdivision proposal attempts to preserve open space by placing 9 acres of land in a Conservation Tract. The other indicators are not applicable to this type of proposal. • "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". NM • "Promote compact, mixed -use development within or adjacent to existing community centers. N/A • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". N/A • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy. N/A • "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher - density development". There is no plan to allow public access to the property 14 01/24/2012 • "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". N/A • "Analyze development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map ". The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Existing Residential. • "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing ". No commercial development is proposed. • "Design and locate development to minimize and /or mitigate identified impacts ". No new development is proposed with this application. X2: Economic Resources • "Ensure that commercial /retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". The proposed Conservation has no proposed retail/commercial development. • "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance ". N/A • "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population ". The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. • "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed - use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities ". The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. • "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". The project does not target retirement housing "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area': No commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision. • "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population" No commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision. • "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties" No Service commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision.. • "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents ". No commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision. • "Encourage live -work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed -use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation" The proposed development is not located near existing employment opportunities. • X3: Housing • "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers ". N/A • "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing ". N/A • "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines ". N/A • "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications. N/A • "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications ". N/A X4: Infrastructure and Services • "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub ". N/A • "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development" N/A • Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements N /A. • "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". N/A • Encourage transit oriented development N /A. • "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking': N/A "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure': N /A. • 15 01/24/2012 • "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings" N/A • "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls': N/A • "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design': N/A • "Promote live -work arrangements where appropriate". N/A • "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars': N/A • "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards': N/A • "Assure adequate access for emergency responders': N/A • "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". • "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity" N/A • "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants': A 1041 Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be not be required. • "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development': N/A • "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". N/A • "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county': N/A X5: Water Resources • "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development': The application includes a well permit for the springs on the property • "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development': N/A • "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews': N/A • "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination" N/A • "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible" The development will minimize impervious coverage whenever possible. • "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources': N/A • "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods': N/A • "Evaluate efficiencies of non potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas': N/A • "Implement water reuse and recycling systems" This concept is not proposed. • "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". N/A • "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application" N/A • "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". N/A • "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan N/A • "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan" N/A • "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of stormwater runoff and work to identify and treat other non point sources of pollution" Best Management Practices will be required with regard to grading activities. • "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development': N/A • "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals': N/A • "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". N /A. • "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". N/A X6: Wildlife Resources • "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man -made barriers to wildlife migration" The parcel is not located in a mapped migration corridor. • "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat': No new development is proposed. 16 01/24/2012 • "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". The use of best management practices will be utilized • "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat ". The subject property is not critical wildlife habitat. • "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials" Wildlife - proof refuse containment receptacles are currently required throughout Eagle County. • "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments ". N/A • "Encourage high - density development within existing community centers ". N/A • "Minimize site disturbance during construction" N /A. • "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". N/A • "Require wildlife proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions ". Wildlife - proof refuse containment will be required on - site. X7: Sensitive Lands • "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". N/A • "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible" N/A • "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification" N/A • Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". N/A • "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". N/A • "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process ". The subject property is previously developed parcel • "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved ". The conservation tract contains both quality riparian areas as well as a heavily forested hillside • X8: Environmental Oualitv • "Assure access to multi -modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". N/A • "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". Pease refer to housing section above. • "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting ". N/A • "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". N/A • "Require periodic watering and track -out control devices at all construction site access points". These grading mitigation efforts are mandatory. • "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting ". N/A • "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees" N /A. • "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals ". N/A • "Promote transit - oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles" N/A • "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". NM • Implement energy efficiency guidelines. N/A • Implement energy saving techniques. N/A • X9: Future Land Use Map Designation The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Existing Residential. E. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -250 Special Use Permits 17 01/24/2012 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 F d . , 1 ` y z at €9 6 r �� h" Exceeds Recommendations IneorpootteS aj�' �. Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 ReeolaMen4atious I Does Not Irate i, lommendatioi , ,. - otAPplivable , " X Please see discussions within the Zone Change section beginning on page 4 of this staff report EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN k a +, t i t s i� i 1 > k t Y€ , a "x S a 3 d " � ¢ ':A' 3�' " �' i k e 6 z k 1" ` dG "C "+' c a c�.�'� Nax3 '"� ��� i � � '� �`<.� EE i " k .! l � e e � s 1 B.R - '-` 4 14' ( ,' "' p A s : r "4 X X X X X `.c tlE '1„::' 6 1!!'''',:'4141 �N C 11 i "v m r€Fga� ;a € sza xi , ... . 18 01/24/2012 X 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. m sn 84111oundingLand' I ke North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X South: Existing Use(s) Zoning USFS (USES) X East: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X The general character of the area is rural residential in nature and consists of mostly residential and open space parcels. The majority of parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned either Resource Preservation (RP) or Resource(R). The Southern boundary of the White -Morris parcel borders land held by the USFS. Compatibility with other non - conforming Resource zoned properties in the area is not of concern. The compatibility with Resource Preservation zoned properties should be improved with the designation of a conservation tract. Resource Preservation (RP) zoning is intended to severely restrict development with the intent of preserving natural rural lands. Density in Resource Preservation (RP) zone parcels is limited to a development per 80 acres. The proposed Conservation tract would allow a density of zero dwelling units per 9 acres A true Conservation tract would be as contiguous as possible and also lend to the impression of a lower density development. The Western and Eastern surrounding parcels are residential and zoned Resource (R). Many of these are properties are non - conforming in that they are less than the minimum 35 acres in size. These properties have a density greater than the zoning would normally indicate and therefore the subject parcel would be less likely to demonstrate any compatibility issues with the proposed Conservation Subdivision density. 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. C. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT 19 01/24/2012 ECLUR Section: 5 -290 Minor Subdivision Section Purpose: A Minor Subdivision shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 -290 for Type A Subdivisions. A Type A Subdivision is a subdivision creating not more than three (3) lots within property that has not previously been platted Standards: Section 5- 290.G.1 STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 290.G.1.a] — The proposed subdiv shall be consistent with the Eagle County Compre Plan and the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN r P Exceeds • Recommendations hicorliotates Majority of ' X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 Recommendations Does Not; Incorporate ? emendations Not Applicable X Please see discussions within the Zone Change section beginning on page 4 of this staff report EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN tie 3 � " .' t +. , , ,ti b ` o, 4 ,A� , ,. ,:--,,, ',-,,,...-,....,,,,..- 7 ' ' .` ' ' I,' ' '', I `;'''.", ' `'f :'-' " ft ';', :' ^,,;',.: V ' ' '' ?t ,-.,--: i,' : i ' ', - ..., ' ';''.:', :::: ,-;:-',i;l:',::.;:: ''',-(..,4r:".4`,44ViVt.',1''''' ''f-'4''''''.^"'Il';'1 ' M'''' . ' ° ' ''''''' 1 n'4 i* .,t �,s 4. . ku»a, t � ,n v �� , <. m �✓ r R 3 ` . t .,;;',:', s a X X X X X X € T ''� 6:® i' '' P P 4 8i i r ,-;,=,:......., V4 '4.--' l " dk t S Sk9i4�t 3i wk This property is not in an area identified as "unique landform." STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5- 290.G.1.b] The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 20 01/24/2012 ' 1? '' 3 . € l s . at s >f,.I" . , aF ''^ sa "� . 'y f Z a �f t f , ° A y,"5, `u'�`' �t a' k aI' A . a` a . e 7 ' A:" r * '''''-'" ' '''''' ' - 7 '; VATiff4 : , ``+ h s a' s ^rr a 4 s < " - e :;.:'1', 'a $� a 4 , ,..,. 7 w : 5 `'s e �r,s #asE`e l : 'il *�k 4n }.. , �� e 7 a fv 1 s E '` f .� x'. 'S 'f� L IM�� „ ' ), „, a, 41 -` -. :.:. *`-`� ""' €J}SER' # + `~§ I�av"f #�:. 1 ' auR � tt S tE a�"ts k, a :''� s n s {� #'SkaF� a.{x 7s c fa L�,a v°n� u S, a 7 � :7'yy' > „ '�'.�"”" r �e � +.a ^; n „ �" ,�3V`"a i sR d �' �''s �, "aivfi l �� aa`s�s. t'„` �, z t � e `` r ,e� i' cxx. ". 3<r' ?a +st# E i€a �°It C .! s 1 , 1110 1 44 1 202M1441' 3.:.°a �, `L.w € " •� w e a t ."s5 a, 3 w ^ ,104 4 3 +, `*F a mw.z 1 „„,� ' s x' , , :..""" "' ".4 & liS `�� i*i � �',w° .! , :s v t #i a a MY;E I L,ioI ,;s °n d Ve 44' :A as "d. :.. i� V`a ..1 = I s"t � � v y s *s � €w v As �y�& k xv. � ' €a �*.. s '+t 5 � 5�,+, x,�,r " a ,. -� �;' �r ' " " i f 1 y p ^ . } €" e�"ts a7�. ' `skf ^ sns it ,i 'C �, , ,i,;f x. ' <;:. S` f l 3 �"� y s`t ` `i 7 -, y ' a ,a 1,- ' . , t c"^I a .s - „.a ^'�d,°"x �. '.tku k P e t l s r ax A r s 't” ,K„=;e�� S' v ' + 1 { ,.., a b { ,{ ; fEk 'h k ` >t 6Ga ,` + a 1 rx ""'s. 4 `. { Pw �6"; iF tSt' `� ,1s !.TSY.` h y >3 Si t S' 7 " i h „t 'F zd€a?''3?; P �` �.�' i+. , § # s 3e €,�:^; €E:;t`s�#^P ^s`n ri" s '[ aka a y a n e c :." s - s $ a ifi -'` `S `'�t 44 ,, !, 5 n a i,.>« � # s €s i� # s w .; f , 3` Y`w � k 'z k� �; ,� t'; Y^ y�t ,. s� �{ s = a '� < r s 1, a r4 :¢ S 7� a 2 `k :: t t`'' r° t. ' 'A 5f e "J •� s s ^ - -1 -.r • ." 4 5 : ? s�'� x e i - k^a, }t et as ~tr x F�" �a�.� taps zi f9p ;S t �,, a s`? T � s k � "" � � t a : � ,z. c x e � 4 d # .ex" d > i N • s 5" t 4 -.�§„ rs "'a a� a I k R , ,. 4 t i a �`, x a -ai` a ".- +. 'N `'`'` .'' 4 NF a � s �ssE 'a ; �. t F � ` ��€ �- �h4� "t•n'�3 us t 3 �„a a s � s s", V t�, ��^7 ^'s a3 -., 7 G. ,. y �� n a�`�,E � ��., ± �� s ' � ,$ , ._ . u ;, 6 k �'ac of : u y q t .; 'KE.t x e w s ,i a `:, k as" 7, s f . v s 4 t' :F � `1: ,, k ' S• .,..• .'1 , € •n' 1,-: ` ., -,', *�.a^" t, .. s`*.. , , . `. - - «s^•F., ..y o -*k' , a .° €P,'S•`t, P;t kaoaw 6 ,,,e' S'�` ura ,At .a?. �`%ylt, "G , --, ','7: -' 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) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4 - 440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4 - 450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4 - 460) 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) EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5- 290.G.1.c] The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog "pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. 21 01/24/2012 (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under -sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un -served area. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5- 290.G.1.d] The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human -made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future improvements to the area. The areas subject /restricted to construction are developable. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5- 290.G.1.e] — The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Surrounding Land ViJ 3 4/ s �� 5 s s�T No North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X RP South: Existing Use(s) Zoning USFS (U S) X East: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential R X Please refer to the above discussion found on page discussion on page 5 of the Zone Change section. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements Agreements. [Section 5- 290.G.1.f] — The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. No improvements are necessary which need to be collateralized through an Improvements Agreement. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 22 01/24/2012 STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5- 290.G.1.g] — Its conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS D. REFERRAL RESPONSES: • Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to the attached responses dated December 15 2011. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: • Eagle County: Assessor, Attorney's Office; Environmental Health; Housing Division; Road and Bridge Department;; Sheriff's office; Weed and Pest; Wildlife Mitigation Specialist. • United States Forest Service • Colorado State: Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOYWO • Basalt Fire District, Basalt Water Conservancy District, Town of Basalt • Eagle County Historical Society E. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The White -Morris Conservation Subdivision is the first Conservation Subdivision proposed within the Frying Pan region of Eagle County. As the first Conservation Subdivision in the region, the proposal will help to set a precedent for future Conservation Subdivision proposals. The primary component of the White -Morris request is a zone change to the exiting 10 acre parcel of land created in or around 1963. The proposed zone change would Re -zone the property from Resource(R) to Agricultural Limited (AL). A rezone is needed for the applicant to meet the minimum acreage for the Conservation Subdivision. Without a successful Zone Change the proposal cannot move forward. The applicants do not possess enough acreage to meet the minimum for the Resource (R) zone district. Within the Resource zone district a minimum of 70 acres is required to be eligible for a Conservation Subdivision while within the Agricultural Limited zone only 10 acres are required for Conservation Subdivision eligibility. A successful rezone to Agricultural Limited (AL) would allow White - Morris to proceed. In addition to the Zone Change a Minor Type A Subdivision and a Special Use Permit are being applied for as part of this Conservation Subdivision application. These files are required within the Conservation Subdivision section of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. If approved; • The Conservation Tract that results could provide a public benefit to the citizens of Eagle County by preserving a high quality riparian area. • The proposed subdivision would place a 9 acre tract of land in a Conservation Tract that will remain in perpetuity. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 5. Approve the Conservation Subdivision 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). 23 01/24/2012 6. Deny the Conservation Subdivision 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). 7. Table the Conservation Subdivision request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve the Conservation Subdivision 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). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan showed a slide show with maps, summary of the request and site data. The proposed zoning is agricultural. Commissioner Stavney asked about photographs from the site and wondered why it was zoned agricultural. Mr. Hanagan indicated that agricultural limited was the appropriate zone district. In order for it to be a conservation subdivision, it would have to be agricultural. Chairman Runyon wondered why this could not be other than an agricultural subdivision. He asked what the benefit would be. Conservation subdivision was intended for larger tracts. Mr. Hanagan indicated that the area was unique — resource zoning was applied by default. This was a 10- acre lot in a minimum 35 -acre subdivision. Traditional subdivision would be appropriate or allowed unless they rezoned. The owner was willing to give up 9 acres of high quality acreage in exchange for the conservation subdivision idea. They proposed two lots, each one acre with the first having the main house and the second the accessory dwelling unit. Both units were capped at 5000 square feet. He explained the benefits of this type of zoning. It did not require an up -zone from resource to agricultural limited. Commissioner Stavney asked for clarification of the up- zoning. Mr. Hanagan indicated that in this case it would not allow additional units. The Planning Commission in the Roaring Fork Valley voted 3 to 1 against this file. Commissioner Stavney wondered about the advantages of doing this type of change in zoning. Mr. Hanagan indicated that it would allow separate ownership of the lots. Mr. Montag wondered about the infrastructure and driveways. He spoke about a letter from an adjacent landowner and the potential of a fourth residence having to utilize the driveway. Mr. Schroeder spoke about the lots. The question resolved around the road standards. After 3 lots, the 4 lot triggered a road standard. Future lots to the east would require a road standard or variance from improvement standard before the building permit. Commissioner Stavney asked who shared the access. How many other owners could be affected by this proposal. Mr. Schroeder stated that there were two additional owners to the east of the property. The infrastructure was already in place. Mr. Morris stated that more than three primary residences triggered the application of the road as opposed to driveway standards. In addition, to the three primary residences, 3 ADU's were an option in these sub sized lots. He felt that the neighbor's concerns were misplaced. 24 01/24/2012 Chairman Runyon wondered if the ADU was severable from the main unit, whether it would become a primary dwelling unit. Mr. Hanagan explained that it would become the third and the fourth was the property to the east. The ADU would be counted as a dwelling unit. Mr. Montag spoke about the neighbor's concern. Commissioner Stavney spoke about creating the fourth lot and the fact that it would trigger the need for a variance. Mr. Morris stated that a fourth lot with a primary dwelling unit would trigger road improvements. Mr. Hanagan spoke about the improvements that had already been made in the amount of about $750,000. Chairman Runyon spoke about secondary access with four or more houses. Mr. Hanagan had the sense that an additional bridge would not be required and there had been no discussions about a fifth unit. Commissioner Stavney clarified that Mr. Harding was the Basalt Fire Marshall. Tambi Katieb spoke on behalf of Mackey Morris, owner of the property about the fact that with or without the application there was already another lot in play and it would require a variance. Mr. Schroeder concurred that anything happening in the future with any of the lots would require a variance. Mr. Morris stated that in this proceeding a variance could not be granted in anticipation of a future development. Mr. Hanagan spoke about one condition and reminded the board that there were three separate files requiring three separate approvals. Mr. Katieb explained the application purpose. In doing this type of re- zoning it preserved 90% of the land from development. He spoke about the mid- valley master plan. There were two -acre lot minimums up and down the valley. There were resource properties, agricultural residential properties and non - conforming properties in the area. He showed an overview map with pasture areas. The applicants were very conscientious about the site of the residences so that trees would not be disturbed. He spoke about emergency service access. He reviewed the subdivision plan. If this was approved the attorney's would have to work out the management details. He showed how the property would translate into a final plat. Benefits of the application included restrictions on use, riparian features protection in perpetuity; it is consistent with previous comments / concerns and provided a template for future conservation subdivision applications allowing conservation at no cost to taxpayers. The county would need to work out the type of documents for the management plan going forward. Commissioner Stavney stated that the county would not be going out on the property on a regular basis. Mr. Morris stated that the management plan would detail the provisions for access. The county did not like to get into that business, but local Land Trusts were unlikely to take on such a small parcel. This would be the first conservation subdivision, which the board would have approved if they approve it. The Stump subdivision had been abandoned by the Stump family over the realities of keeping the conservation portion of the land preserved. The county was trying to be cooperative. Commissioner Stavney stated that the covenants would replace what would normally be handled in a conservation easement situation by a third party. Mr. Morris stated that there were no tax benefits to this scenario. Chairman Runyon stated that this was no more permanent than open space by a PUD. Mr. Morris stated that technically the owners of the residential parcels would have enforcement rights that would not be available to them with an open space PUD. Chairman Runyon spoke about the potential that one individual owned both properties and he make an agreement with himself and it seemed somewhat problematic in any sort of enforcement sense. Since Land Trusts are not interested in such small parcels, he wondered about the Land Use Regulations. Mr. Katieb stated that was not the owner's goal. Mr. Morris spoke about giving the right of enforcement to adjacent property owners. The board could decide that the only acceptable way to permanently preserve the land was to enact a conservation easement and find a land trust to manage it. Commissioner Stavney stated that he did not disagree with Chairman Runyon. With small associations, they were likely to doggedly enforce provisions of open space. The conversation about conservation subdivisions needed to be had again. 25 01/24/2012 Chairman Runyon stated that he believed it was not the owner's intention, but the property could be sold 20 years from now and the new owner could buy both and there was no demonstrable permanency that couldn't be gotten around. Mr. Katieb stated that if the file passed they would investigate how to protect the open spaces permanently. Mr. Morris suggested an additional condition prior to final approval of plat and resolution. He suggested; approval of the conservation subdivision is conditioned upon approval by the county attorney prior to adoption of a resolution of approval of the conservation subdivision of covenants and/or a management plan or other arrangements sufficient to assure permanent preservation of the open space. Mr. Katieb showed additional aerial photos of the riparian and upland interface. He spoke about compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Recommendations and the master plan. It had the support of Basalt fire and the neighbors. It included efficient layout and design and was a positive example of incentives for conservation on the Frying Pan for existing residential uses. They proposed protecting 90% of the land rather than the minimum 67 %. This allowed a non - conforming property to be more conforming to county regulations. Mackey Morris spoke to the board as owner of the property. He bought the property in 2005. At that point, the road was 50 years old and had never been improved. They walked into the place and it was wild and untouched. He and his wife made improvements that benefited their neighbors including replacing the bridge to double its capacity. They also improved the turning radius to the old road to allow for emergency vehicles. The property has been left primarily in its natural state. It is a phenomenal piece of property. He owned a painting business and business was certainly slow. He may need to sell the property. It would be easier to sell the property to two separate owners and their desire was to sell it in a protected state. Chairman Runyon spoke about the need to get this re- zoning right because the new owners were not yet known. He was inclined with a fourth or fifth owner requesting an application to grant a variance, however, he would like to see current and future owners share in the cost, yet the current owner would be given credit for money already spent adjusted for inflation. Commissioner Stavney stated that although it made sense it was a bit complicated. Mackey Morris clarified the situation and the fact that other owners would also have had to improve the bridge and the road. He put a 5000- gallon water storage tank buried on his property. Commissioner Stavney stated that in the future the board would not likely require another bridge across the Frying Pan River. Chairman Runyon stated that commissioners 20 years ago would probably think the current board was crazy, and 20 years from now the board may think this current board was crazy. Mr. Morris stated that the suggested agreement could be done, however it was a question of how much credit should be given to Mackey Morris for expenses that benefited the neighbors. Commissioner Stavney spoke about two new future owners. He felt like this would be over regulating and burdening future owners. Mackey Morris stated that he has put in approximately $750,000.00. Mr. Katieb had no issue submitting a letter documenting improvements the current owner had made. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Mackey Morris spoke about the neighbors and cost sharing agreements. The owner that caused the damage would repair any damage done to anyone's easements. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file no. ZC -3513, with one condition as presented by staff. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file no. SMA 3512, with one condition as presented by staff. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file no. ZS 3516, with the first condition as presented by staff and the second condition spoke of by Bob Morris earlier. Approval of the conservation subdivision is conditioned upon approval by the county attorney prior to adoption of a resolution of approval of 26 01/24/2012 conservation subdivision of covenants and/or a management plan or other arrangements sufficient to assure permanent preservation of the open space. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Morris stated that the board would have an opportunity to review the conditions when the resolution came before the board for approval. Work Sessions (recorded) Vail Valley Partnership Sports & Event Coalition Chris Romer, Executive Director Economic Council of Eagle County Board of Directors Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership There being no further business before the a j ; e meeti . .,. journed until J / uary 31, 2012. 4 mow ( to A Attest: . .i ,:. . o. . r(� a Clerk to the Board ' * ' * Chairm. le Qo _ 27 01/24/2012