No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/22/13 PUBLIC HEARING January 22, 2013 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Sara Fisher Commissioner Jill Ryan Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Ayres-Oliver Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Commissioner Fisher was not in attendance for the morning session. Consent Agenda Chairman Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of January 21,2013 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the Minutes for the December 4 and December 11, 2012 Meetings of the Board of County Commissioners Teak Simonton, Clerk&Recorder C. Approval of the 2013 Office Supplies Bid Finance Department Representative D. Resolution 2013-008 Setting a Hearing upon Appeal of Denial of a Petition for Exclusion of Rothkopf GP Property from Cordillera Metropolitan District Attorney's Office Representative E. Second Amendment to Contract between Eagle County and Clever Devices for Purchase of GPS Hardware, Software and Installation Services Kelley Collier, ECO Transit F. Third Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Clever Devices for Additional Components and Services Kelley Collier,ECO Transit G. Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Colorado Department of Transportation and Eagle County for Two Buses Kelley Collier,ECO Transit H. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Garfield County for Winter Maintenance of Certain County Roads Gordon Adams,Road&Bridge Chairman Stavney asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that item D was setting a hearing upon appeal of denial. It was a record of appeal and the board was merely looking at what the Cordillera Metro did at their hearing. 1 01/22/2013 Mr.Montag asked Gordon Adams to talk briefly about item H. Mr. Adams stated that the county was trying to reduce duplication of services. The county would provide snow removal services on certain roads and bill Garfield County. Eagle County currently had a verbal agreement with Route County for Poppy Creek Road. Ms. Collier spoke about item G. The agreement was for the purchase of two buses. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-H. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Agreement between Eagle County Landfill and Vail Honeywagon Enterprises, Inc. for Transport of Recyclable Material Ken Whitehead, Solid Waste and Recycling Mr.Whitehead explained that the service was fee funded. In November,they sent out a request for proposals for vendors to provide this service. They received 3 proposals. All 3 firms appeared to be qualified and capable of doing the work requested, however,Vail Honeywagon Enterprises, Inc.was selected for the contract as they had a proven service record in the Eagle Valley for 34 years. Don Vandevander, General Manager of Mountain Refuse,Inc. of Gypsum spoke. He questioned the bid proposal by Vail Honeywagon. He spoke about MRI's experience with other municipalities. He wondered if the county was willing to spend more to keep the current vendor. He hoped the board would review the RFP and reconsider the contract. Chairman Stavney believed the county valued market competition. Vail Honeywagon was a local vendor and had 34 years of experience. Staff was not required to get bids. It was difficult balance but relied on staff to make the choice between dollars,relationships and experience. Commissioner Ryan explained that she wanted the best value for Eagle County,which doesn't always mean the lowest price. She stated there were two qualified vendors,noting that MRI operates in many locales regionally,but that she preferred Vail Honeywagon because they had been the previous contractor. She also noted that the references provided by MRI were dated. Chairman Stavney stated that this was annual process and encouraged MRI to continue bidding. Mr.Vandervander believed his company had enough experience to handle municipal contracts and requested that there be more clarification in the bid process in the future. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the agreement between Eagle County and Vail Honeywagon Enterprises, Inc. for Transport of Recyclable Material. Chairman Stavney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals 2 01/22/2013 A. Henry's Chinese Café,Inc. d/b/a Henry's Chinese Café #42-98922-0000 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. B. Black Diamond Bistro,LLC d/b/a Black Diamond Bistro #42-99381-0000 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 and proof of server training has been provided. C. WVR Colorado,LLC d/b/a The Terrace #28-72258-0000 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 and proof of server training has been provided. Other D. Vail Food Services,Inc. d/b/a The 10th #04-49011-0006 Report of Change/Manager Registration The applicant wishes to register Jennifer Mejia as the new manager,replacing George Bigley. Ms. Mejia was reported to be of good moral character and has no criminal history based on his background record. E. Vail Food Services,Inc. d/b/a Game Creek Club #04-49011-0009 Report of Change/Manager Registration—The applicant wishes to register Peter McGuire Jr. as the new manager,replacing Jennifer Mejia. Mr.McGuire was reported to be of good moral character and has no criminal history based on his background record. F. The Lost Cajun—Edwards,LLC d/b/a The Lost Cajun #47-00606-0000 Resolution 2013-009 Approval of the Hotel and Restaurant liquor license application for The Lost Cajun-Edwards, LLC d/b/a The Lost Cajun, located in Edwards, CO. The hearing on the application was held on December 11, 2012. G. Vail Valley Pharmacy,LLC d/b/a Vail Valley Pharmacy #47-00317-0000 Resolution 2013-010 Approval of the Liquor-Licensed Drugstore liquor license application for Vail Valley Pharmacy, LLC d/b/a Vail Valley Pharmacy, located in Edwards, CO. The hearing on the application was held on December 18, 2012. Commissioner Ryan moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for January 22,2013 consisting of Items A-G. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. 3 01/22/2013 2013 Investment Policy Karen Sheaffer,Treasurer Ms. Sheaffer stated that the policy was a recommendation of the Colorado State Statutes that every Board of County Commissioners accept the investment policy each year. It was the same policy since 1992 with some changes. The investment advisor with Cutwater Management Asset maintained the policy. There wouldn't be any changes made without a discussion with the board. The policy was made up of monies that were not being currently expended. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the 2013 Investment Policy. Chairman Stavney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Work Sessions (recorded) Vail Valley Partnership Update Chris Romer,VVP Executive Director Planning Files PDA-3869 Beaver Creek PUD Amendment Scot Hunn,Planning Dominic Mauriello,Applicant's Representative NOTE: Tabled from 10/30/12 and 1/15/13 ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development(PUD)Amendment is to amend the PUD Guide document, last amended in 1994,to change the land use designation of Lot 1,Tract M,Beaver Creek 4th Filing, from"Resort Services"(RS)to"Resort Commercial One"(RC1); specifically to permit residential uses on Lot 1 in the future. LOCATION: Beaver Creek PUD; Tract `M',Lot 1 (Fire Station Site); 185 Elk Track Road' FILE NO./PROCESS: PDA-3869,Beaver Creek PUD Amendment PROJECT NAME: Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development LOCATION: Tract M,Lot 1,Filing No.4 OWNER: Beaver Creek Metropolitan District APPLICANT: Beaver Creek Metropolitan District REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group, LLC. STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn STAFF ENGINEER: Ben Gerdes SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant requests review of an amendment to the Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the following purpose: 1. To change the land use designation for Lot 1, Tract M (current site of the Beaver Creek Fire Station) from "Resort Services"(RS)to"Resort Commercial One"(RC1), specifically to permit certain residential uses. BACKGROUND: In 1978, Beaver Creek became the first Planned Unit Development approved in unincorporated Eagle County. However,the PUD Guide for Beaver Creek was not approved until 1983.The PUD authorizes 3,161 dwelling units 4 01/22/2013 and 380,000 square feet of commercial uses on 2,161 acres of land. Since 1983, the PUD has been amended twice; once in 1988 and again in 1994 to address changing conditions and specific land use designations within the PUD. Land Use Designations The Beaver Creek PUD Guide divides the PUD into six(6) land use designations: Resort Commercial(RC); Resort Commercial One (RC1); Resort Services (RS); Residential Medium Density (RMD); Residential Low Density (RLD); and Open Space Recreation (OSR). Each of the land use designations allows for a range of "Uses by Right". As well, OSR allows for myriad uses via special use permit. According to the PUD Guide, any change in land use designation of any land within the PUD shall constitute a "substantial modification, removal or release" from the provisions of the PUD. The current request to change the land use designation on Lot 1 is directly linked to the history of Tract M (Lots 1 and 2), and is precipitated by changing conditions and needs of the resort. Lots 1 and 2 were created in 1984 when Tract M was subdivided. Originally designated Resort Services (RS), Lot 1 and adjacent Lot 2 provided land for resort support and operations facilities, including the Fire Station (on Lot 1) and the Beaver Creek Service Center (on Lot 2, where resort operations such as snow cats and warehousing resided until the mid-2000's). The land use designation for Lot 2 was amended from Resort Services to Resort Commercial One-to allow for residential uses - in 1994 as part of a larger PUD amendment proposal. As part of that amendment, Tract M was allocated with 38 dwelling units. Lot 2 has since been sold and developed(in the mid-2000's) into 26 residential units under the name"The Custom Homes at Village Walk", while the Beaver Creek Service Center was relocated to another location to the south of Tract M. However, the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District (Applicant and owner of Lot 1) continues to own the Beaver Creek Fire Station, while contracting with the Eagle River Fire Protection District to provide fire and emergency services. There are currently twelve (12) dwelling units allocated or remaining for Tract M and the Applicant proposes to change the land use designation on Lot 1 to provide for flexibility in the future. As described within the application, "The Beaver Creek fire station is becoming inadequate to serve the needs of Beaver Creek It was built nearly thirty years ago, it cannot accommodate the size of fire trucks needed, and the physical state of the building is rapidly deteriorating. The BCMD Board is exploring its options for a new fire station, which is estimated to cost between $4 and$5 million. One option would be to rebuild on the current site and fund the new building with a bond issue, to be repaid by property taxes. Another option would be to find a new site for the station and sell the current land to a developer. The proceeds from that sale would fund the new station, without the need for taxpayer money." Amending the PUD to change the land use designation on Lot 1 to RC1 allows the flexibility sought by the Applicant. For instance, RCI permits those uses allowed for within the RS land use designation, in addition to residential and commercial uses. The purpose of the Resort Services land use designation is: "To provide support functions and facilities for resort operations and recreational activities and facilities consistent with the needs of a year-round resort." Uses by right in RS include resort operations space and facilities, as well as residential uses associated with caretaker and employee housing needs of any such facilities. Historically, this is exactly how Lot 1 has been used, with a fire station and living quarters for on-duty personnel. This designation also allows for recreational amenities and facilities. There are no setbacks required except those adequate to accommodate such things as utilities, easements and drainage.Building heights are limited to thirty-five(35')feet. Resort Commercial One allows for a wider range of residential, commercial, recreational and operational uses. The purpose of RC1 is: "To provide a flexible zone allowing for transition from Resort Services uses to Resort Commercial uses as the Resort matures." 5 01/22/2013 As a transitional zone, RC 1 allows for a range of residential and commercial uses permitted as "Uses by Right" in the Resort Services and Resort Commercial land use designations,including: •Hotel and lodge rooms; •Apartment accommodations; •Commercial space; •Condominiums; •Single-family,primary/secondary, duplex and townhouse structures •Timesharing •Recreation amenities •Resort operations space and facilities Setbacks in RC1 are the same as Resort Services, where there is "no minimum setback except to accommodate utilities, existing easements, drainage, access,fire code regulations and flood plain of live streams." The height limitations within RC1 are forty-five(45') feet. However,the Applicant proposes to limit building heights on Lot 1 to thirty-five (35') and to enforce a twenty-five (25') foot setback from Beaver Creek, similar to the residences constructed on Lot 2. Input from Adjacent Property Owners As referenced within this report, Eagle County has received official correspondence from Goodman and Wallace, P.C., representing The Custom Homes at Village Walk Home Owner's Association with regard to the matter of future development standards and controls on Lot 1. Such correspondence reflects the concerns of the HOA (compatibility of uses and density for any future re-development of Lot 1, access issues and construction mitigation) and, therefore, has prompted several revisions to the proposed new PUD language specific to Tract M, Lots 1 and 2(see attached letter from Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group,LLC, dated October 1,2012). Staff believes the revised language provides additional and appropriate development control for Lot 1 —to be more in keeping with existing development on Lot 2. The revised PUD language addresses issues related to future development density(capping density on Tract M to 32 dwelling units in total, including 26 existing units on Lot 2 and allowing six additional units on Lot 1); construction mitigation; use restrictions (significantly limiting the range of potential uses normally allowed as "Uses by Right" in the RC1 land use designation); and, future access (requiring future access for ski resort operations across Lot 1, which will alleviate traffic which currently accesses Beaver Creek Mountain facilities via The Custom Homes at Village Walk). Planning Commission Deliberation The Eagle County Planning Commission met on two separate occasions to consider the proposed amendment: once on October 17, 2012, and again on December 19, 2012 to consider the request. At their regular meeting of October 17, 2012, the Planning Commission considered the request, with certain members expressing concern regarding the change in zoning for Lot 1 relative to the potential relocation of the Beaver Creek Fire Station. Members questioned the potential impacts to designated Open Space within the PUD if the Fire Station were to be relocated as a result of re-zoning Lot 1. Therefore, the hearing was tabled at the request of the Applicant in order to allow the Applicant sufficient time to provide the Commission members with additional information specific to potential new sites for the Fire Station (if the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District elects to pursue relocation in the future). At their regular meeting on December 19, 2012, the Applicant presented information regarding designated open space within the PUD (the amounts and the two different types — `Open Space Recreation' and `Open Space Greenbelt'). Importantly, the Applicant presented three potential sites throughout the PUD that the Metropolitan District has investigated (based on availability of property) within the Core area where the Fire Station could be relocated. Of the three sites,the most viable property identified by the Metropolitan District at this time is generally located near the existing Beaver Creek Service Center, south of the Beaver Creek residential area and just north of an existing water tank located along a service road. The new site would be located within the "Open Space 6 01/22/2013 Recreation" zoning designation, which permits myriad `Resort operations space and facilities' improvements such as a Fire Station(necessary for the proper functioning of a ski resort)as a use `by right'. The Planning Commission considered such new information and inquired about access to the site using the existing service road which is currently used for access to the water tank (by the Upper Eagle River Regional Water Authority) as well as the viability of construction on the potential site (given access grades, distance to water and wetland bodies, as well as geologic or soils conditions, etc). After hearing from the Applicant with regard to pre- planning activities such addressing the conditions of the existing service road and conducting geotechnical investigations (to be undertaken in the event that the Fire Station is relocated to the site), the Commission deliberated regarding the amendment as well as the future site of the Fire Station. Certain Commission members expressed general concerns with regard to the potential relocation of the Fire Station, response times, and the potential loss of open space. However, the staff attorney advised the Commission members to consider the PUD Amendment on its merits. Specifically, staff advised that any action by the Commission regarding the request for amendment not be conditioned on any potential relocation of the Fire Station (as such relocation is not being applied for at this time). The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment request, adding one condition: that the County(either via building permit review or Location and Extent) review any new development permit for a relocated Fire Station. SITE DATA: Land"Use ;Zoning North: Residential PUD—RC1 The Custom Homes at Village Walk _ South: Vacant/Ski Resort Resource Protection(RP) USFS The Custom Homes at Village East: Residential PUD—RC1 Walk West: Vacant/Open Space OSR-Greenbelt Beaver Creek(riparian area) Existing" ning: N Beaver Creek PUD—Resort Services(RS) d Proposed°Z011111#: Beaver Creek PUD—Resort Commercial One(RC1) Beaver Creek Fire Station „ Fire Station; Parking area; sod/drainage improvements; undeveloped natural areas; Site Conditions: existing access road. To tad Area Beres:' , 1 3.012 acres Square fett: ,, 131,203 sq.ft. T lbpeit ce: „„ N/A Water:Flic Metro Private: N/A Sewer: Pu l .: " Metro Private _ N/A A' ss,: Elk Track Road REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to eleven (11) agencies/entities for review on August 3, 2012. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this report,as well as a list of all agencies which did not provide any referral response: Eagle County Engineering Department—The Eagle County Engineering Department had no comment. The Custom Homes at Village Walk Home Owner's Association—Please see attached letter from Goodman and Wallace, P.C., representing the HOA, as well as the supplemental response letter from Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group LLC, which sets forth agreed upon terms (revised PUD Guide language) to address the concerns of the HOA. NO REFERRAL RESPONSE - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no written response received as of this writing: Eagle County: Assessor's Office; Attorney's Office; Environmental Health;Wildfire Mitigation Specialist. 7 01/22/2013 Colorado State:None. Federal: USFS Service Districts: Eagle River Fire Protection District. Other: Town of Avon; Vail Resorts, Inc. Home Owners Associations: Beaver Creek Home Owner's Association; The Custom Homes at Village Walk Home Owner's Association. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The proposed amendment was specifically referred to the Home Owner's Association for The Custom Homes at Village Walk. Likewise, adjacent property owner notification was sent to all home owners within the Beaver Creek PUD. The file has been thoroughly vetted with those parties most affected and, with the exception of several well- thought out revisions to the proposed PUD language for Tract M (as proposed by the Home Owner's Association at The Custom Homes at Village Walk), staff suggests the proposal meets the required findings for a PUD Amendment and generally presents no adverse conditions needing mitigation (beyond typical development standards and requirements that will be imposed via the Beaver Creek Design Review process and the Eagle County Building Permit process). Although the Applicant has provided concept sketches of potential future development scenarios for Lot 1 as well as conceptual information regarding a potential new Fire Station location, staff believes the PUD Amendment should be judged on the merits of whether or not the standards for a PUD Preliminary Amendment are or can be met. Future development scenarios, while helpful in considering the likelihood and feasibility of future development, will ultimately be scrutinized through the Beaver Creek Design Review Process, as well as the Eagle County development review(building permit)process. Therefore, staff believes it is important to consider the proposed change in land use designation (and the proposed limitations to be placed on any future development on Lot 1) in general context to the site's appropriateness for residential uses, and/or continued resort services uses, given: the overall intent of the Beaver Creek PUD; the historic fire station uses; the historic impacts from Tract M such as traffic; and, the uses on adjacent properties. With such factors in mind, staff considers the proposed change in land use designation to be compatible with surrounding land uses. Further, the change will allow the Applicant the flexibility to pursue the best option for replacement of an aging,yet important resort services facility within the Beaver Creek Resort. Staff finds that all standards for a PUD Amendment have been or can be met and that, as proposed, the revised PUD language for Tract M,Lots 1 and 2,will place the appropriate controls on future development and use of Lot 1 to ensure compatibility, continued access for Beaver Creek Resort operations through Tract M, and continued protection of Beaver Creek. SUGGESTED FINDINGS: Staff suggests the application meets the following fmdings necessary for the approval of any PUD Amendment: (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment DOES NOT effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or the public interest; (3) Benefit.The PUD Amendment IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. BoCC OPTIONS: 8 01/22/2013 1. Approve the [PDA-3869] 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 [PDA-3869] 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 [PDA-3869] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff 4. Approve the [PDA-3869] 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. 2. The Applicant shall incorporate PUD Guide language revisions detailed within a letter to Scot Huhn, from Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group LLC, dated October 1, 2012 with regard to items "a" through "f',Tract M,under Section VI—"Assigned Land Use Designations"of the PUD Guide document. 3. The Applicant shall provide a revised PUD Guide map exhibit showing all development areas and corresponding land use designations, and specifically referencing the change in land use designation for Lot 1, with any final draft PUD Guide to be recorded. 4. Any new Fire Station location should be reviewed by Eagle County at the time of relocation and site selection. APPENDIX A NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-240 F.3.m—Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD; Section Purpose: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes that; (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or the public interest; (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. 9 01/22/2013 Standards: Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5-230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard,a negative finding must be made for that Standard. STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] —The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1)person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] — The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] — The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations",for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Variations Authorized [Section 5-240.F.3.f. -provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] — Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 10 01/22/2013 (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] —The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. riComprehensive Sign Plan Provided? X Yes No STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] — The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to 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 STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] — The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvement Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way,private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. 11 01/22/2013 (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular,pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts Snow Storage Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement Deviation/VIS Requested STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(9)] —The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 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 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] — The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of 12 01/22/2013 benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing Plan Provided? X N/A Yes No STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(12)] —The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]• — The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS DISCUSSION: Mr.Mauriello spoke on behalf of the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District(BCMD). He introduced the General Manager, Clyde Hanks. Present—BCMD Board Members, Ernie Elsner,Luke Reagan,Mike Balk,Jim Power, and Tim Baker, Executive Director of the Beaver Creek Resort Company was also present. Mr.Mauriello presented a PowerPoint presentation. The amendment would allow residential uses on the fire station site. The idea was to sell the property and fund a new fire station elsewhere. The station was 30 years old and was not large enough to handle a ladder truck on site. The property was currently zoned Resort Services. The amendment would change the zoning to Resort Commercial I. The new zoning would allow hotels, lodges, and residential. BCMD mailed letters to all owners within Beaver Creek and met with the property owners most affected. The plan would limit density to 6 dwelling units, address drainage issues and allow for a new access easement for Mountain Operations. There would be no construction traffic on Village Road. He presented development concepts. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the file. When considering locations for the new fire station, fire service and response time were key issues. The new proposed site for the station was up the street from Elk Track Road, adjacent to some resort services. It would add about 90 seconds to the response time. Mr. Hunn stated that the criteria had been met.The applicant would have to return for a building permit. Commissioner Ryan wondered if the increased response time would be a public safety issue. Mr. Hanks stated that they were well within their response guidelines. Mr. Balk stated that insurance premiums would change. Mr. Elsner believed that having a ladder truck was an important addition to the Beaver Creek core. Mr.Power expressed support for the proposal. Chairman Stavney believed that Beaver Creek Metro was currently getting a great deal with Eagle River Fire but understood that having their own ladder truck would allow them to be better prepared to handle fires in the core of Beaver Creek. He hoped that there would be future conversations with the Eagle River Fire regarding risk management. Mr.Montag asked about suggested condition number 4 regarding review by Eagle County. Mr. Hunn stated that the Planning Commission requested the condition. It related to building permit review. 13 01/22/2013 Mr.Montag wondered if it would be necessary to amend the current service plan. Mr. flanks stated that the service plan would not be amended in any way. Commissioner Fisher asked about any feedback regarding the increased response time. Mr. Hanks stated that the topic had been discussed but seemed to be a non-issue. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve file no. PDA-3869 Beaver Creek PUD Amendment with conditions. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-4011 Cowboy Trucking Bob Narracci, Planning Daniel Martinez,Applicant NOTE: Tabled from 12/18/12 ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to allow a Home Business for Cowboy Trucking. Cowboy Trucking provides hauling services for construction materials, soil, concrete,rocks, asphalt, etc. The Home Business entails a home office and storage of vehicles associated with the business when not in use elsewhere. LOCATION: 2558 Gypsum Creek Road, Gypsum area REFERENCE: Staff report in 12/18/12 minutes DISCUSSION: Chairman Stavney stated that after visiting the property he did not believe the business would have any visual impacts to the area. Mr.Narracci stated that the town of Gypsum requested that if any gates were installed at the entry,they be set back from the road.The board could make this a condition. Chairman Stavney spoke about the 8 conditions. Mr.Narracci stated that the Planning Commission suggested condition 4. Chairman Stavney was uncomfortable with dictating that the applicant build anything. He was comfortable striking condition 4 and making it about the gate instead. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve File No. ZS-4011, Cowboy Trucking Home Business Special Use Permit including the 8 suggested conditions and directing staff to re-write condition 4 as discussed. 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) That the applicant finalize grading permit (GRAD-8-08-2161) for the retaining walls and excavated area on the subject property. The permit was processed by the Engineering Department in 2008, but was never issued by way of the previous property owner paying for and picking up the permit. Therefore, the applicant shall complete the grading per the permit, or shall submit a revised permit if there is a change in the grading. If the applicant is submitting a building permit,the grading portion can be encompassed within the building permit. 14 01/22/2013 3) A onetime Road Impact Fee payment of$2,437.33 must be paid to Eagle County prior to the home business commencing. 4) If required by the BoCC that the applicant construct a garage/shop large enough to park, store and maintain all eight of Cowboy Trucking's dump trucks, then the garage/shop structure shall be constructed by November 30th, 2013. The Eagle County Planning Commission recommends that the applicant be required to construct a two-bay garage/shop on the screened portion of the subject property in which the dump trucks can be maintained, and all equipment, fluids and materials necessary to maintain the vehicles will be stored; also to be erected by November 30th, 2013. 5) This special use permit does not allow dumping, or storage of materials [construction materials, soil, dirt, concrete, rocks, asphalt, etc. which are hauled by or related to Cowboy Trucking on the subject property. 6) Pursuant to the Environmental Health Department comments, the applicant is required to have the existing On-site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) inspected by a NAWT certified inspector or Professional Engineer who is well-versed in OWTS, to demonstrate adequacy of the existing system to serve the residential and home business use. If it is required by the BoCC that a garage/shop structure be erected, and if the building is anticipated to be served by an OWTS, it may be subject to registration with the EPA under their Class IV Injection Well program. 7) Pursuant to the Environmental Health Department comments, the applicant shall provide to Environmental Health, a hazardous materials management plan which includes what types of hazardous materials relative to the Home Business are stored on-site, where they are stored, how they are properly used, disposed of, and mitigated in the event of a spill. This hazardous materials management plan shall also be provided to the Gypsum Fire Protection District. 8) Administrative compliance review of this special use permit shall occur in three years, which is December 18, 2015. If the home business is found to be operating in compliance with the terms of this special use permit, then this special use permit shall be deemed approved for the life of the Cowboy Trucking business. In the event that the Home Business is found to be out of compliance with this special use approval, then Eagle County may initiate the process to revoke the special use permit as delineated in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting • . ourned until Jan;ry i 9, 2013. Attest: alb / i �. =" c �i►1 �� Clerk to the Boar. * w` * Chairm 15 01/22/2013