The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 05/13/14 PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 2014 Present: Jill Ryan Chairman Sara Fisher Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Ayres-Oliver Assistant County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Ryan stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 1. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of May 12,2014(Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance 2. Resolution 2014-036 Concerning Appointment of Tyson Ivie as Eagle County's Second Veterans Services Officer Megan Burch,Human Services 3. Second Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Vision Security, LLC for Fire and Security Systems Monitoring and Support Ron Siebert,Facilities Management Commissioner Fisher asked Mega Burch to talk about item 2. Ms. Burch shared some of the physical achievements of the current Veterans Services program. Pat Hammon introduced her new associate Tyson Ivie. She was pleased with the amount of money she was able to bring in for the county. It had been an honor to work with the veterans. It was a comfort to bring in someone young and able to talk to the younger veterans. Mr. Ivie stated that he was excited to help other people and couldn't wait to become more involved. This was a great opportunity for him and he was excited to get the word out and make a positive difference in people's lives. He served in Iraq 2006 until March of 2007. He was injured after 6 months. Ms.Hammon stated that veterans could call or email her for information about the program. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO 2014- A RESOLUTION CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF TYSON IVIE AS EAGLE COUNTY'S SECOND VETERANS SERVICE OFFICER 1 05/13/2014 WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statute § 28-5-801 mandates that the board of county commissioners of each county in the state appoint a veterans service officer for such county for a two-year term on such terms and conditions as each county may determine are appropriate; and WHEREAS, Eagle County has determined that Tyson Ivie is a person duly qualified to hold appointment by the County as its second Veterans Service Officer; and WHEREAS, Eagle County desires to appoint Tyson Ivie as Eagle County's second Veterans Service Officer; and WHEREAS,Tyson Ivie has agreed to accept the appointment as Eagle County's second Veterans Service Officer; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, Colorado, THAT,the Board of County Commissioners hereby appoints and confirms Tyson Ivie as its second Veterans Service Officer to serve in such capacity on such terms and conditions as the Board may determine are appropriate; and THAT,the Board of County Commissioners finds determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the public health safety and welfare of the citizens of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. Commissioner Chandler-Henry read the resolution into the record and moved that the board approve the appointment of Tyson Ivie as Eagle County's second Veterans Service Officer. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ron Siebert spoke about item 3. Vision Security provided all the fire and security systems for all locations. This was a renewal for another year. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda for May 13, 2014,as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Ryan opened public input. Taylor Joseph Gardarian stated that he was born in Vail in 1984 and lived in Eagle since 1987. He talked to Sheriff Joe Hoy and was told he could search the government for information. He asked if the board would be willing to provide a definition of"time"that should be used with citizens. This was for official business. Chairman Ryan stated that she did not understand the question. Bryan Treu stated that public input was an opportunity for the public to address the board not to ask questions. If he had something to say,he should do so. Mr. Gardarian stated that his definition of time was based on the understanding of torsion. He was going to seek out this information from the Governor and would be documenting that the Board of County Commissioners in Eagle County was unable to give him a response. 2 05/13/2014 4. Treasurer's First Quarter Interest Report Public Trustee's First Quarter Revenue / Expense Report Karen Sheaffer,Mari Renzelman and Carrie Van Beek Treasurer&Public Trustee's Office Ms. Renzelman presented a PowerPoint that indicated that the first quarter totals,totaled $139,610.19, about 38%of what was budgeted for the year. Ms. Sheaffer believed that interest rates had crept up a little bit. It was her strategy to get the money in the bank as soon as possible.They kept a steady routine and hoped for the best. Ms.Renzelman stated that the totals were about$300,000.00 behind 2009. Chairman Ryan believed it was good news that things were going in the right direction. Karla Bagley presented the Public Trustee report. Revenue totals for the first quarter were $25,302.20, expenses were$46,515.78. Foreclosure numbers had dropped drastically in Eagle County and statewide. There were only 17 for sales this year. There were currently 104 active foreclosures. 5. Resolution 2014-037 Approving the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines Jill Klosterman and Tori Franks, Housing Ms.Klosterman stated that the current guidelines were approved in 2009. The guidelines were just one tool in their quest to increase the number of affordable housing units throughout the county. It was a policy document that could be changed in the future. She believed the document provided enough flexibility to realize every development project was different. The process began in 2011. A Housing Needs Assessment was performed in 2012. Public meetings were held to discuss the current draft. They met with the Eagle County Planning Commission,Roaring Fork Planning Commission,and the County Commissioners. 50 written and verbal comments were also collected from the public.The guidelines provided a policy for developers. They also provided technical procedures for developing,purchasing, owning, selling, and renting affordable housing units. The Needs Assessment would be updated again in 2014 and incorporate any changes into the Administrative Procedures update in spring 2015. The Needs Assessment Findings indicated that the Affordability Gap had shifted primarily because the housing prices had changed and more rental and senior housing was needed. She presented the substantive changes to the guidelines and mitigation methods.The Planning Commission suggested that the mitigation rates to be higher. The Roaring Fork Planning Commission thought the initial sales prices seemed too high. Ms.Franks spoke about the policy over time. The inclusionary housing proposed for 2014 was housing at the higher rate of 25%of units or 15%of total square footage at target; 100%AMI. She believed that reverting back to the 2005 levels made sense. Chairman Ryan opened and closed public comment. Commissioner Fisher appreciated the ongoing effort. Gerry Flynn, Owner of Polar Star Properties spoke. He supported affordable housing and had followed the process since 2007. He believed the affordability gap had shrunk. The proposed guidelines prevented any development with the exception of a mixed use projects. He supported the guidelines but believed the calculations did not work. He encouraged the board to wait and review the calculations. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered how the proposed payment in lieu compared to the 2009 guidelines. Ms.Klosterman could not provide a number but stated that they were lower. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed this was a long and difficult process.The amount of public input was robust and helpful. She was excited about the connection with the American Community Survey through the Census Bureau. Currently 45%of the people in the county were cost burden. It was incumbent upon the county to try to have some impact on that. There was some ability to negotiate based on the type of project. She was excited about the list of incentives within the guidelines. The mitigation 3 05/13/2014 rate was lower and better for developers. The multiple methods of mitigation were good. The guidelines promoted development that brought in middle class workers. She was in favor of approving the guidelines and recommended that there be a task force in place and doing some tweaking in the future if necessary. Commissioner Fisher stated that she appreciated Mr.Flynn's comments and encouraged him to continue to participate and provide input. She supported the proposed guidelines. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the previous guidelines were based on a housing needs assessment that talked about catch up and keep up needs. The new guidelines looked at current impacts. Chairman Ryan thanked the Housing Department and she supported Commissioner Chandler- Henry's comments. She believed the proposed guidelines were stronger. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution approving the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 6. Resolution 2014-038 Approving the Amended and Restated Eagle County Regional Airport Rules and Regulations Greg Phillips,Airport Mr.Phillips spoke about the planning and considerations for the airport rules and regulations document. The process included a community outreach process. He spoke about some of the fmal comments received during the process and the changes made as a result of those comments. He believed it was a strong document for the organization and recommended approval. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed the document was a good exhibit of why the airport was so well regarded and such a professional airport. The document had been well reviewed and well written. Commissioner Fisher thanked Mr.Phillips for his ongoing efforts and public outreach. Chairman Ryan opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Chairman Ryan thanked Mr. Phillips and Chris Anderson for their hard work. The guidelines were last updated in 2002 and it was time they were updated. The document reflected evolved policies, regulations, and activities. She thanked the stakeholders that participated and acknowledged Mr. Phillips efforts to provide transparency. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution approving the amended and restated Eagle County Regional Airport Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office 7. Special Event Permit-Eagle Valley Land Trust APPLICANT: Eagle Valley Land Trust REQUEST: Special Event Permits EVENT: "Campout for the Cause" DATE OF EVENT: May 23—25, 2014 REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Conklin,Eagle Valley Land Trust Scott Stoughton,Bonfire Entertainment 4 05/13/2014 LOCATION: Ranch Del Rio -4199 Trough Road,Bond STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver STAFF CONCERNS/ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested permits for a 3 day music, yoga, camping event being held at Rancho Del Rio in Bond on the following days: Friday,May 23 from 2 p.m.to 2 a.m. Saturday,May 24 from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. Sunday, May 25 from 10 a.m.to 2 a.m. The event is family friendly. There will be SUP demos, face painting, yoga for kids, and multiple workshops. The applicant hopes to attract 1000 attendees per day. Lonestar Security and staff will control the front gate and bar entrance. Alcohol will be stored in lockable vending trucks onsite with overnight security posted. There will be at least 2 licensed food vendors. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on May 2, 2014, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk Office. 4. The applicant has provided a detailed alcohol management plan and proof of server training. 5. Eagle County Sheriff's Office and other Emergency Service Providers have been notified. 6. The property owner has gone through the Limited Review process and obtained a Mass Gathering Permit. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. This was an annual event and staff had no concerns. Mr. Stoughton went over the details of the event. Mr. Conklin spoke about the efforts of the Eagle Valley Land Trust and was excited to be a recipient of the charity. They were familiar with the ins and outs of the liquor licensing process due to their involvement of Ed Fest the couple of years.He was confident it would be a well-run and organized event. They would be providing promotional material about the Eagle Valley Land Trust's mission during the event. Chairman Fisher believed that Mr. Stoughton had done a great job in the past. She wondered if tickets would be available the day of the event. Mr. Stoughton stated that they had a strong network online for ticket sales but people should be able to get tickets the day of the event. Chairman Fisher stated that the biggest concern she had was the location and liquor being available until 2:00 a.m. She wondered if it would be responsible to have a medical provider/services located in the district during the event hours. Chairman Ryan asked about the plan for emergency medical treatment. Mr. Stoughton understood the concerns. They had a zero tolerance for people entering the event under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The onsite crowd would be managed by Lonestar Security. Staff and volunteers constantly monitor the crowd and all their bartenders were server trained and well aware of over service. There would be emergency medical technicians available to deliver immediate medical treatment and they would notify 5 05/13/2014 the local ambulance districts. It was well marketed that this was a camping onsite event. He believed their lines of defense were in place and they were doing everything possible to keep everyone safe. Chairman Fisher appreciated the input and foresight. She suggested notifying Grand County as well. Mr. Stoughton stated that he would communicate with the other jurisdictions. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed it looked like a great event and she appreciated the detailed planning. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permits requested by Eagle Valley Land Trust for"Campout for the Cause"being held at Rancho Del Rio on May 23 from 2 p.m.to 2 a.m., May 24th from 10 a.m.to 2 a.m., and May 25 from 10 a.m.to 2 a.m.,2014. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Housing and Development Authority 8. Agreement between Lake Creek Village,LLC and TurtleVida,LLC for Landscape Services Jill Klosterman and Bill Wright,Housing Ms.Klosterman spoke about the request. There was a bid process and 6 bids were received. They chose Turtle Vida, LLC because their price was low;they did the work last year and were a local company.The contract was for one year. Chairman Fisher stated that the Lake Creek Village continued to look better every year. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and re-convene as the Board of Health. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and re- convene as the Eagle County Board of Health. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Board of Health 9. Resolution 2014-039 Adopting the Eagle County Public Health Agency On-Site Wastewater Treatment System Regulations Ray Merry,Public Health and Environment Mr. Merry stated that the resolution would adopt the new regulations for on-site wastewater treatment systems. There was a hearing on April 29, 2014 that outlined the regulations. The state regulations triggered the update. Chairman Fisher appreciated the Public Health Department's continued efforts to stay focused on providing the highest level of service to the community. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution adopting the Eagle County Public Health Agency On-Site Wastewater Treatment System Regulations. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Health and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. 6 05/13/2014 Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning File 10. Van Dyke Accessory Dwelling Unit Sean Hanagan, Planning Ben Gerdes,Engineering Gary and Gail Van Dyke,Applicant Bill Nutkins,Representative-Nutkins Design Group FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-4681 /Special Use Permit PROJECT NAME: Van Dyke Accessory Dwelling Unit LOCATION: 863 East Lake Creek Road OWNER: Gary and Gail Van Dyke APPLICANT: Nutkins Design Group REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Nutkins STAFF PLANNER: Sean Hanagan STAFF ENGINEER: Ben Gerdes, Senior Staff Engineer I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant requests review of a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located in an existing garage at 863 East Lake Creek Road. II. BACKGROUND: The proposed unit will be detached from the main home and will comply with setback, height and parking requirements. The property will stay under the ownership of Gail and Gary Van Dyke, the applicants, and is not eligible for further subdivision. Zoning for the property is Resource (R) which allows for 1,800 square foot ADUs as a use by right with lots of 35 acres or greater; however, because the property is 5.6 acres, the property is a legal, non-conforming lot, therefore any ADU request must go through the Special Use Permit process. Water is provided by a private well and an on-site wastewater treatment system(OWTS) will be installed when the ADU is constructed.The new OWTS will meet current standards and will service both the ADU as well as the main residence. The Eagle County Environmental Health Department has indicated that additional information regarding the OWTS is required prior to any building permits are issued for the property. The site is accessed via East Lake Creek Road and a 25' setback is required from the road.Parking will be available in the garage contained within the ADU as well as in the driveway. Staff believes the site complies with adequate access and parking requirements. III.SITE DATA: Future Land Use Map The subject property is located within the Edwards Area Community Plan area in unincorporated Eagle County. The Future Land Use Map (2003) shows the property as located within the "Residential Rural Density'. land use designation. FLUM indicates this density should be less than one unit per 10 acres. The ECLUR contemplate ADU's as an allowed use on parcels as small as 1/3 of an acre. The subject parcel is unique in that it has split zoning. The portion that the ADU is to be located on Resource zoning while the other portion to the east is zoned Rural Residential. The map below shows two separate parcels 7 05/13/2014 but according to ECLUR and State Statute the two parcels(both non-conforming)under single ownership are considered merged creating one single parcel. Please see attached Merge/No-merge table found at the end of the Appendix section. Surrounding Zoning: Resource. The purpose of the Resource zone district is to maintain the open rural character of Eagle County and to protect and enhance the appropriate use of natural resources and agricultural uses in the County including water, minerals, fiber and open land. This is accomplished by limiting residential development to very low density single-family uses on lots of thirty-five (35) acres or larger, or by encouraging clustered development on smaller lots within those portions of a property that do not contain environmental resources or natural hazard areas and by maintaining the remainder of the property as common open space or ranch land, and by limiting new commercial development to uses that have a resource orientation and to small recreation areas that comply with Master Plan policies for such uses. SUGGESTED FINDINGS: Staff suggests the application meets the following findings necessary for the approval of any Special Use: (1) Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use IS in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure management. (am 11/08/05) (am.05/08/12) (2) Compatibility. The Special Use IS generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. (am.05/08/12) (3) Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES 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. (4) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES reasonably avoid adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands including trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, or otherwise create a nuisance. (am.05/08/12) (5) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. (6) Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use WILL BE adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools,police and fire protection,and emergency medical services. (7) Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES or can be made to comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. (8) Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. North: Residential Resource South: Residential Resource 8 05/13/2014 :.: East: Residential Rural Residential West: Residential Resource Resource/Rural Residential _ i r ,'t '`.:',�i e .:'io- N/A(no change requested) a :0 N`"'"t ,, , ;,; Residential structure _ Residential building site t t a � t� �,;`' +��sPi, g Tom ; ', € ,. ,,:E ,i3`,i,41,' i. . ,..='..ts 5.6 :" , ....f',` 217,364.4 sq.ft. _ 7,L `etil'4 ,m'r N/A Private 'srt t psSG `. N/A N/A Pri,,{{ tx;s', Septic _ East Lake Creek Road 1 IV. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent for review on February 12th 2014. 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: Eagle County Engineering: -"Plans should confirm the height of the proposed retaining wall. The plans should include a note stating that if the wall does exceed four feet that engineered drawings and a building permit will be required. Eagle County Environmental Health Department: -"Please identify an alternate location for the OWTS in the event the primary soil treatment area fails." -"A person must not connect more than one dwelling, commercial, business, institutional or industrial unit to the same OWTS unless such multiple connection was specified in the application submitted and in the permit issued for the system." V. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The proposed special use to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit is in general conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The Applicant has provided adequate evidence that the use can be served with public water and, with additional information from the Applicant regarding the OWTS, staff believes the site can be adequately served by wastewater services. Staff has identified no further issues or areas of non-conformance requiring additional analysis or dictating conditions of approval. From the standpoint of compatibility, staff believes the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding residential structures and uses in the area. Specifically, staff believes the ADU use will be provided adequate access, parking and facilities(similar to other residential uses in the area). Public notice was provided and staff has received no comments from adjacent property owners or other residents of the area concerning the request. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION: At their regularly scheduled meeting on April 16th, 2014 the Eagle County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this Special Use Permit with no additional conditions. The majority of the discussion was focused on the uses by right in the Resource zone district. Commissioner Warner initiated a discussion with the possible intent to limit the ADU to a size commensurate with the zone district that best represented the parcel size. In the end it was agreed that 1800 square feet was in fact an appropriate size for the subject parcel. 9 05/13/2014 VII. COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve [File No. ZS-4681] 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 [File No. ZS-46811 if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table [File No. ZS-4681] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve [File No. ZS-4681] 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). VIII. 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. APPENDIX A NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district,but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section,this Division,this Article, and 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 10 05/13/2014 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. Staff believes that the proposed Special Use is in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protectio n, a ffordable housin g, or infrastructure management. This parcel is indicated in the Edwards Area Community Plan as appropriate for residential development. Please see discussion in section III 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. Staff believes that the Special Use is generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. See Surrounding Zoning discussion in section III. 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. Staff believes that the proposed Special Use does 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 as well as 3-330. Size limitations as well as setbacks are being met with this proposal. 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. Excess ECLLJR. Requirements Satisfies Eatljk X X X X - — °Requirements Does Not Satisfy L ` Requirements Not Appl cable X X X X X 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. Staff believes that the proposed Special Use does minimize environmental impacts and does not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. 11 05/13/2014 STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads,pedestrian paths,potable water and wastewater facilities,parks, schools,police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Staff believes that the proposed Special Use will be adequately served by public facilities and services. (1) The Applicant will be required to provide additional information to the Eagle County Environmental Health Department relative to the new ISDS system and alternate sites for leach fields. STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Staff believes that the proposed Special Use DOES or can be made to comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. i' rf a "% ,4 € ° �. 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 Hillside Development(Section 4-425) 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) I I 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)* 12 05/13/2014 X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards(Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards(Division 4-7) STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. N/A DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the file. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application. He presented the Special Use Standards. There was no response or comments from adjacent property owners or the Homeowners Association. The proposal was in general conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations. The 7 standards had been met. Staff proposed one standard condition. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the file no.ZS-4681, Van Dyke ADU—Special Use Permit. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Study Session - Security Assessment Barry Smith,Ken Whitehead Executive Session — Legal Advice Regarding Memorandum of Understanding with Fire Protection Districts Barry Smith,Emergency Management Joe Hoy, Sheriff's Office Bryan Treu,Attorney's Office Sopris Room El Jebel Community Center 0020 Eagle County Drive El Jebel, Colorado 11. VIS-4422 Cedar Drive Community Greg Schroeder,Engineering Eric Lovgren,Wildfire Mitigation Cedar Drive Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association: Janet Lightfoot,Applicant Cedar Drive Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association: Bob Myers,Applicant Sopris Engineering: Yancy Nichol,Representative Sopris Engineering: John Petaisto,Representative Basalt&Rural Fire Protection District: Bill Harding,Fire Marshal Basalt&Rural Fire Protection District: Scott Thompson,Fire Chief 13 05/13/2014 Action: The purpose of this Variance from Improvement Standards is a request from road improvement standards in Section 5-260 of the Eagle County Land Use regulations. Location: Cedar Drive,Frying Pan Valley northeast of Basalt Area TITLE: Cedar Drive Community FILE NO.: VIS-4422,Variance from Improvement Standards LOCATION: Cedar Drive, Basalt, CO Frying Pan Valley northeast of Basalt, CO OWNER: Cedar Drive Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association(CDMFM) APPLICANT: Cedar Drive Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association REPRESENTATIVE: Yancy Nichol, Sopris Engineering STAFF CONTACT: Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department 1) PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The Cedar Drive Community consists of 28 parcels located northeast of the Town of Basalt, in unincorporated Eagle County as shown in Figure 1 - Vicinity Map below. The Cedar Drive Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association("CDMFM") is a nonprofit corporation in good standing with the Colorado Secretary of State, and includes as its responsibility to maintain the private and public section of Cedar Drive, and to perform fire mitigation for the benefit of residents and emergency responders for the above mentioned parcels. The applicant seeks to acquire a Variance from Improvement Standards for the Upper Cedar Drive, in conjunction with the County's Grant project for the Lower Cedar Drive. A combination of both of these improvements will allow property owners the ability to acquire building permits for dwellings. B. CHRONOLOGY: Date Description December 8, 2010 Meeting with Cedar Drive Homeowners August 30, 2011 Formation of LID,per BoCC Resolutions 2011-084 and 2011- 116 September 13, 2011 Grant Commitment Letter sent to CDOT for Grant July 1, 2012 Grant Funding available per CDOT FY2013, starting of IGA November 28,2012 IGA between Eagle County and CDOT executed for Grant March 22, 2013 Pre-Application Meeting for VIS application July 25,2013 VIS Application Submitted December 10, 2013 VIS Application Complete December 10,2013 Referral Package distributed February 10,2014 CDOT FOR Meeting for 90%design plans for Lower Cedar Drive April 22, 2014 Referral comments addressed May 13,2014 , BoCC Hearing C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: East: State of Colorado(Division of Parks and Wildlife) West: State of Colorado(Division of Parks and Wildlife) North: USFS—White River National Forest 14 05/13/2014 Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: South: State of Colorado(Division of Parks and Wildlife) Existing Zoning: Resource/Agricultural Residential Proposed Zoning: Resource/Agricultural Residential _ 1 Primary Dwelling Unit for parcels<35Ac 1 Primary Dwelling Unit and 1 Accessory Dwelling Unit for parcels>35Ac Proposed No.of Dwelling 28 parcels Units: 20 parcels contain homes 8 parcels are unbuilt Full buildout without ADUs: 28 Full buildout with ADUs: 38 837.8 Acres(total size of all 28 parcels) Total Area: Average Parcel size is 29 Acres,ranging from 0.75 to 280.71 Acres 10 Parcels are>35 Acres Water: Individual Wells Sewer: Individual Septics Access: Cedar Drive,through northeast Basalt, CO _ 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES The referral notice was distributed on December 10, 2013. Adjacent Property Owners Letters were distributed on April 18, 2014 (attached as Exhibit D). A legal notice was published in the Eagle Valley Enterprise and the Aspen Times Weekly on April 24, 2014 (attached as Exhibit C). The following referral responses are (attached as Exhibit E) shown below with summaries that have been received by Eagle County prior to the date of this writing: Colorado Parks and Wildlife—Attached referral response letter dated December 27, 2013. • CPW commented that the impact to wildlife will be negligible. Eagle County Planning Department—Attached referral response letter dated January 24, 2014. • Comments that if approved, this application does not set precedence for future increase of densification. • Recommends that building permits not be issued until improvements are completed on the lower and upper sections of Cedar Drive. Eagle Community Development - Wildfire Mitigation —Attached referral response letter dated January 14, 2014. • Wildfire risk for the community is High to Extreme • Current Road Conditions represent a direct threat to the life safety of property owners and emergency responders. • A 2008 wildland fire caused the evacuation of the neighborhood, and a bottleneck on the road occurred due to inadequate road width. • Fuel Reduction work was performed on 15 Acres in partnership with Colorado State Forest Service and Basalt&Rural Fire Protection District("BRFPD") in the fall of 2010 • A secondary emergency access was established on an adjacent parcel (the Dallenbach parcel), but this access should be viewed as an option of last resort, due to exposure, narrow road surface, and locked gates. • Eagle County has been involved in proposed improvements to Lower Cedar Drive("LCD"). • A Wildfire Mitigation and Response Plan should be created and include safety zones, evacuation planning,road improvements to Upper Cedar Drive, and building and site modifications. • Would like to commend the CDMFM for the considerable amount of effort already put forth to address wildfire concerns in their community. Town of Basalt—Attached referral response letter dated January 21,2014. 15 05/13/2014 • The Town acknowledges that a grant for the LCD was made available by CDOT. They would like to request a referral on the improvements from the County. • The Town is not interested in permitting significantly more development through the division of lots on Upper Cedar Drive, and that further subdivision would introduce more traffic and exacerbate wildfire concerns. • The Town feels that for residents that own property and have building rights on those properties, that it is appropriate to allow those residents to receive permits after road improvements have been completed. • The Town requests that the County require the Applicants to coordinate with the Town Public Works Department regarding a construction management plan to limit construction impacts on Town roads and services. Basalt&Rural Fire Protection District—Attached referral response letter dated January 23,2014. • Commends the hard work by the Cedar Drive homeowners that have developed a road association and been planning for the upper and lower section of Cedar Drive, including working with Eric Lovgren on various mitigation projects and right of way and easement acquisitions. • The East LCD road section homeowners are not a participant at this time, because they are currently all built out, and that this section of road has known hazards that are not being proposed to be mitigated with this application. • The applicant provided turning analyses for emergency response vehicles that meet the requirements for ambulances and the newer fire engines. • The submitted improvement plans are acceptable and will serve to meet the overall Community Fire/Emergency Service Plan. • The eventual implementation of road improvement plans for both lower and upper Cedar Drive overall safety is met. • New structures need to be designed with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Existing structures would need to add a sprinkler system upon a change of use or extensive remodel. • The B&RFPD supports and commends Eric Lovgren's wildfire mitigation efforts in the community and supports his recommendations for wildfire mitigation. • Secondary access through Mr. Dallenbach's parcel through the wildfire mitigation plan's proposed location would provide better connectivity for this crucial access component. • Development of a reliable safety zone(s) as a place of refuge makes sense. Designated areas will need to be clearly delineated and maintained for the use. • A community water tank with a minimum size of 10,000 gallons should be installed in the upper portion of Cedar Drive to minimize risk to firefighters driving large tender trucks up and down Cedar Drive due to water shuttle operations. In consideration that the road improvement implementations are the most crucial and costly component for the service plan, this fire cistern could be a phase in a project toward a future overall safety plan. • The Cedar Drive community is a unique case with a significant history of emergency response, presently served by a very substandard road network. Eagle County Engineering Department—Attached referral response letter dated January 27,2014. • A meeting between the applicant, Bill Harding of the BRFPD, and Eric Lovgren, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Officer, occurred on January 8, 2014. Letters from Eric and Bill summarize the meeting and present their recommendations. • After construction, as-built plans will need to show the constructed dimensions of pullouts and widening. • Construction of the proposed improvements on the Upper Cedar Drive may be performed in phases, so long as the proposed improvements begin at the starting point of the road at the beginning of the project (located at the junction between the lower and upper road) to the individual lot owner's point of access. • Install a sign at the beginning of Upper Cedar Drive stating that it is a"Private Road." • The submitted variance request and improvements is considered only for the existing and proposed development that is allowed by right. Any future applicant that seeks to increase the development density will need to submit a new variance application. • A grading permit designed by a professional engineer shall be submitted to authorize work. 16 05/13/2014 • At the completion of the work,the engineer of record shall submit a certification letter and as-built plans, and if the improvements are phased, shall specify that the improvements have been completed to the applicable parcel seeking to develop. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Section 4-600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. This application by the CDMFM represents the 28 lots as shown on the vicinity map. These lots are accessed by Cedar Drive. Specifically, for the purpose of this application, Cedar Drive is referred to in two separate sections; "Lower Cedar Drive" ("LCD") and "Upper Cedar Drive." ("UCD") Descriptions are as follows: Lower Cedar Drive LCD consists of the starting point of Cedar Drive after leaving the Town of Basalt, and heads to the east for approximately 0.9 miles (see Figure 2 below). The roadway has minimal grade changes, and has an average width of 12'-15'. It is unpaved and consists of silty reddish soil for the base. The CDMFM has maintained this section of roadway, and typically resurface it annually with roadbase. The road has excessive exposure and little or no shoulders. The roadway has no clear recovery zone, and vehicles leaving the road platform will not self-arrest and will continue down the slope to the Frying Pan Road and River, some 300-400' in elevation. There have been fatalities on this section of roadway due to vehicles leaving the road platform. Resolution 2009-115 (Attached as Exhibit B) was signed by the Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC") in November of 2009. This resolution requires that all roads accessing parcels be brought to county standards, or an appropriate Variance from Improvement Standards public application be presented and approved by the BoCC. Without meeting one of the above conditions, parcels seeking to develop or build structures are not allowed to do so, and any building or development permit submitted to the county will not be accepted. Shortly after Resolution 2009-115 went into effect, Eagle County applied for a Hazard Elimination System("HES") grant through the Colorado Department of Transportation("CDOT")in December 2009. In November 2010, Eagle County was approved for the grant. The grant consisted of a total design and construction budget of $1.3M, available in CDOT Fiscal Year 2013. Because this roadway is considered by CDOT to be an "off-system" road (ie, does not directly connect to a CDOT road),the grant would fund 90%and require a 10%local match of funds. Prior to the county accepting the award of this grant,the Cedar Drive homeowners were notified of the award and were asked to participate by funding the 10% local match component. A meeting was held in the El Jebel Community Center on December 10, 2010, to explain to the homeowners the implications of Resolution 2009-115, the grant award, and the ability of issuing building permits. The homeowners submitted a petition to the BoCC on June 14, 2011 requesting the formation of a local improvement district ("LID"). A hearing was held on August 30, 2011 and the BoCC voted unanimously to form the LID, per Resolutions 2011-084 and 2011-116 (enclosed as Exhibits J and K). Specifically, the Resolutions funded $155,000 to meet the $130,000 required 10% match, and for $25,000 to cover the homeowners legal and planning fees for the creation of the LID. Per the Resolutions, the BoCC acts as the LID board of directors. The homeowners will pay the $155,000 in a series of 10 years, starting in tax year 2013 and going through 2022.The funds are collected by the Eagle County Treasurer on the annual property tax statements. 17 05/13/2014 With the commitment of the homeowners and the BoCC for the formation of the LID, the Eagle County Engineering Department submitted an acceptance letter to CDOT for the grant on September 13, 2011 (attached as Exhibit L). Because the grant was funded for CDOT FY2013, funds were not available until July 1, 2012 (CDOT fiscal years run from July 1-June 30), and creation of the Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") could not begin until such time. After the IGA was executed, an engineering consultant was selected and the design phase of the project commenced. At the current time, the design phase is at 90% completion, and the Right of Way acquisition phase has just begun. It is anticipated that the final design,bidding, contractor selection, and award of contract to a contractor will occur in late 2014, with physical construction commencing in early spring 2015. Project completion should occur in late spring/early summer of 2015. The scope of the improvements along LCD consists of widening the existing roadway surface to 16', allowing two 8' drive lanes, asphalt paving, and the installation of guardrails to protect against the exposure of leaving the roadway. (Attached as Exhibit I). These improvements will greatly improve the safety for the homeowners and for emergency responders. Upper Cedar Drive Upper Cedar Drive begins at the east side of the above described LCD, and makes a left turn and heads north to access 20 of the 28 lots. Unlike LCD, UCD does not have the exposure and steep slopes, therefore the safety concerns described above for LCD are not applicable for UCD. As a result, the improvements that are proposed for UCD are of a different character. The general improvements consist of strategic widening of sections of UCD, addition of road resurfacing of gravel and base course, and removal of some excessive grade sections where practical. Existing driveways and road intersections serve as turnaround points, and are spaced adequately. Engineered drawings are included in Exhibit A,beginning on page 42. UCD Variances Standard Eagle County Standard Proposed Variance Request Structural Section 3"Hot Bituminous Pavement 4"Class 6 Aggregate Base Course with 8"Aggregate Base Course Mag Chloride on steep sections Lanes 2 1 with inter-visible pullouts at approximately 500'spacing Minimum Lane Width 10' Overall existing road width is 12' Maximum Grade 8% 14%for short straight sections 12%for other sections Centerline Radius 80' 45',except for one switchback at which will be 25' Dual Access Dual Access to Public Roadway Required Emergency only egress route from (Section 4-620.J.I.h) Wildfire Mitigation Plan Wildfire Mitigation Plan A Wildfire Mitigation Plan (attached as Exhibit G) ("WFM Plan") was created by Eric Lovgren, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, in response to this application and a meeting held on January 8, 2014 with the applicant, Bill Harding, Fire Marshal of the B&RFPD, and Greg Schroeder, Eagle County Senior Staff Engineer. The plan details its purpose, goals, and objectives, to identify and mitigate potential wildfire hazards associated with the Cedar Drive Community. The WFM Plan represents a collaborative work of the CDMFM, Eagle County, and the B&RFPD, and is designed to be a"living document"that will change and be optimized over time. Key elements of the plan are that the wildfire hazard rating for the Cedar Drive community is High to Extreme. To mitigate this hazard, specific improvements and strategies are recommended, as follows: a) Road Improvements 18 05/13/2014 b) Secondary Emergency Access c) Fuel Reduction Work d) Escape Route Maintenance e) Safety Zone Creation f) Defensible Space g) Fire/Ignition Resistant Construction h) Evacuation and"Shelter-in-Place"Training for Residents i) Wildfire Emergency Evacuation Checklist Each of these strategies is detailed in the attached WFM plan. The intent of the plan is to have some of the improvements/strategies implemented immediately, and others can be implemented in the future. Of the above listed strategies above, items a, b and e are recommended as a part of this variance request to be in place prior to issuance of any building permits.Details for each of these items is as follows: a) Road Improvements to both Lower and Upper Cedar Drive With the understanding that improvements on the Upper Cedar Drive may be constructed in phases, as outlined above in the referral response from the Engineering Department, and as detailed in the recommended conditions. b) Secondary Emergency Access Egress Route through the Dallenbach Property. The CDMFM has acquired egress easements (attached as Exhibit M) that provide the legal access through the Dallenbach/Sanders properties. The upper section of the egress route crosses four private parcels, and letters from each of these homeowners are included (as Exhibit H)giving permission for this egress route. e) Safety Zone Creation. A safety zone located in a large meadow (see Photo 1 below) in the center of the Cedar Drive Community is a critical element for a staging area in the event that a fast moving incident precludes residents from leaving. At least two acres should be mowed regularly to remove the fuels. The CDMFM has already installed a dry-hydrant in an existing stock pond near this location(see Photo 2 below). Standards 1. Dual Access.ECLUR Section 4-620.J.1.h: With the exception of properties proposed to be served from the public roadway system by driveways or by urban cul-de-sacs, two (2)points of ingress/egress to the public roadway system shall be provided, such that in the event a road within the subdivision becomes impassable, all properties will continue to have access to a public roadway system. Both points of access should be open available for daily use. In the event that this is not possible, and at a minimum, there shall be provided a secondary emergency point of ingress / egress equipped with emergency breakaway barriers capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction for all new development or redevelopment. Secondary emergency access points must be kept free of obstruction, and must be maintained to assure year round use. Depending upon the length of the road, the wildfire hazard rating, the number of units proposed, the topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from this required improvement standard. The following conditions represent a hardship to the Applicant if a variance to the Dual Access requirement is not granted: a) Construction of a fully compliant dual access would be infeasible due to terrain, topography, and alignment constraints. b) The Fire Mitigation Plan Egress route represents an acceptable egress route. 19 05/13/2014 2.Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Areas.ECLUR Section 4-620.D.10.d: Emergency vehicle turnaround areas shall be required on rural cul-de-sacs at the initial 1,000 foot mark and at 1,000 foot intervals for the remaining length of road. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may recommend an alternative spacing plan for the turnaround areas. The turnaround areas shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4-620.D.11, Vehicle Turnarounds. a) Adequate existing and proposed turnarounds exist along Upper Cedar Drive. There are existing turnarounds at driveways along Upper Cedar Drive averaging about 800' between each location. The applicant has performed turning analyses to the satisfaction of the B&RFPD for their ambulances and newer fire trucks. 3.Road Design Standards.ECLUR Section 4-620: Lower and Upper Cedar Drive is estimated to carry approximately 238 vehicle trips per day. This volume corresponds to the Eagle County Rural Residential Road. This road type consists of 10 foot wide asphalt surface driving lanes with 2 foot wide paved shoulders, for a total width of 24'. Maximum road grade is 8%, and a minimum centerline radius of 80' is required per the standard. Future buildout could increase this traffic to 343 vehicle trips per day. It should be noted that for both of these estimations, the per unit ITE trip generation value of 9.52 Average Daily Trips ("ADT")per dwelling unit is probably conservatively high, due to the mountainous conditions and remoteness of the community. Additionally, this future analysis assumes that all of the ADUs would develop. Without ADUs, the total traffic would be 267ADT. Another option would be for the large 280 Acre parcel to be reparceled into an additional 7-35 Acre Parcels. Each of these could have an ADU, adding another 14 dwellings with an additional traffic amount of 133ADT. The likelihood of both of these scenarios maximizing is highly unlikely, as much of the land in the larger parcels at the north of the community is inaccessible and steep. See figures 4, 5 and 6 below. a) The proposed road standards in the variance table above represent reasonable engineering judgment given the existing circumstances, the improvements are reasonable for mitigating the life safety and welfare for both residents and emergency responders for the Cedar Drive Community. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that, if the BoCC finds that a Variance from Improvement Standards is justified due to hardship, the requested variances can serve the Cedar Drive Community with the inclusion of the required elements of the Wildfire Mitigation Plan discussed above. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan As the proposed variance follow existing road alignments that access existing parcels, there is no direct impact per the comprehensive plan. C. STAFF FINDINGS: Section 4-600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. 20 05/13/2014 Further, Section 4-610.A.2 of the ECLUR states: Standards Are Not Inflexible. These design criteria and standards provide a certain level of performance, however, they are not inflexible. If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be show to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards, said alternative may be recommended for approval by the County Engineer. In evaluating the proposed alternate the County Engineer shall follow the procedures in Section 5-260.G., Variance From Improvement Standards. The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased. However, we must also consider that the Board of County Commissioners has adopted Resolution No. 2009-115 in response to numerous and substantial public safety concerns recommending strict enforcement of the ECLUR Improvement Standards with the opportunity for the applicant to submit to the board for a Variance to these Standards. As the CDMFM is the applicant, and represents its property owners, it is understood that individual property owners will have different schedules on when then intend to develop or redevelop. Therefore, allowing the concept of property owners to construct up to their lot represents the most realistic strategy for having all of the improvements on the Upper Cedar Drive occur over time. The individual owners, in conjunction with the CDMFM, can decide on their own how they intend to share construction costs of shared infrastructures. With the inclusion of the WFM plan and its immediate requirements, and future recommendations, the Cedar Drive Community will become a safer place for the residents and emergency responders. It should also be noted that the residents of the Cedar Drive Community have been working towards this common goal for many years, and have been extremely cooperative and collaborative in working with Eagle County and B&RFPD staff. They represent a community that wants to keep their properties and themselves safe,as well as respecting those whose job responsibilities are to keep them safe. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that if the BoCC finds that a Variance to Improvement Standards is justified,the sub-standard geometric features of the road improvements can be mitigated. Board of County Commissioners Findings The Board of County Commissioners must make the following finding in order to approve or deny this file: (ECLUR 5-260.G.2.) Findings for Variance from Improvement Standards Request In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for Variance from Improvement Standards, the Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. In approving or approving with conditions that are necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of this Subsection,these Regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [VARIANCE] 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 21 05/13/2014 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 [VARIANCE] 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 [VARIANCE] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [VARIANCE] 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 these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The proposed improvements for Lower Cedar Drive that are being constructed under the Hazard Elimination System Grant shall be complete prior to the issuance of any building permits for Upper Cedar Drive. 3. The Secondary Emergency Access and Safety Zone Creation items detailed in the Upper Cedar Drive 2014 Wildfire Mitigation Plan shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permits for Upper Cedar Drive. Other items listed in the Plan shall be actively planned for and constructed in the future as resources allow. 4. The Cedar Drive Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association shall review and update the 2014 Wildfire Mitigation Plan with the County's Wildfire Mitigation Officer and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District as needed. All parties should meet at least annually. 5. A grading permit will need to be acquired by the applicant from Eagle County to authorize the proposed work as shown in the Applicant's Proposed Improvements for Upper Cedar Drive. The grading permit will need to be designed by a professional engineer. Construction of the proposed improvements on the Upper Cedar Drive may be performed in phases, so long as construction of the proposed improvements begin at the starting point of the Upper Cedar Drive at the beginning of the project (located at the junction between the lower and upper road) and continues to the individual lot owner's point of access. 6. At the completion of the grading permit work, the engineer of record shall submit a certification letter and as-built plans of the road improvements, and if the improvements are phased, shall specify that the improvements have been completed to the applicable parcel seeking to develop. After receipt of said letter,a building permit may be issued for the applicable parcel. 7. The applicant shall coordinate with the Town of Basalt's Public Works Department regarding the development of a construction management plan to limit construction impacts on the Town's roads and services. Correspondence indicating the Town's approval of this plan shall be submitted to Eagle County with the grading permit application. 8. Property owners that access exclusively off of the east Lower Cedar Drive section of road (east of the fork of the Lower and Upper Cedar Drive) are not a part of this variance, and will need to submit a new variance or demonstrate that they can access off of the Upper Cedar Drive section. 9. All new structures shall be protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system appropriately designed for the hazard, (IFC Sections 503.1.1 exceptions 1 and 2, 102.5 and 901.4.3.). Existing structures without sprinklers that have a Certificate of Occupancy would be allowed to continue as nonconforming until such time as an extensive remodel and/or change of use triggers evaluation of 22 05/13/2014 a retrofit application. 10. Approval of the requested variances applies only to the 28 parcels referenced in the staff report dated May 13,2014. Any division of the 28 parcels will require submission and approval of a new variance application before any building permits will be issued for the newly created lots. 11. Members of the Cedar Drive Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association shall be solely responsible for any cost sharing arrangements for the phased construction of the proposed improvements on Upper Cedar Drive. DISCUSSION: Mr. Schroeder introduced the file using a PowerPoint slideshow. He showed maps and photos of the deteriorating road. He spoke about lower Cedar Drive which was .9 miles long and followed the historic Basalt— Ruedi Wagon road. It was a poor road surface despite annual maintenance. There had been fatalities. The county acquired a hazard elimination grant in the amount of$1.3 million for this section. A 10%match was required and secured. Construction was scheduled for spring of 2015. He spoke about Upper Cedar Drive, considered a private road accessing 20 of the 28 lots and there was less exposure and steep slopes than LCD. Mr. Schroeder reviewed some relevant referral comments. Chairman Ryan asked how the better connectivity would be achieved. Mr. Schroeder felt that the existing condition of the secondary access would be improved. Eric Lovgren,Wildfire Mitigation Manager for Eagle County spoke about the Wildfire plan. One of his goals was to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire loss, establish baselines for strong defensible space around homes and structures,provide guidance for the effective creation of fire resistant homes,reduce risk of residents interfering with first responders, increase safety and mitigate the risk of escape routes being compromised by wildfire objectives. He reviewed the objectives which included assessment strategies, creating a fire adapted community,providing a reference tool for current and future residents and providing a mitigation plan that allowed for single primary access to the area that was appropriate and safe for residents and responders. They were working on minimizing the amount of fuels on the access road. He spoke about several owners and their improvements to ponds and access routes to help with potential wildfire situations. He spoke about his suggested conditions of approval including road improvements, secondary emergency access and safety zone creation. Commissioner Fisher wondered if it should be secondary emergency egress rather than access. Mr. Lovgren spoke about evacuation in place planning. Mr. Schroeder spoke about Dual Access from the Land Use Regulations. He spoke about hardships that could be applied for a variance. He spoke about Road Design Standards per the Land Use Regulations. He showed a build-out summary map to exhibit current and future average daily vehicle trips. He stated that findings were not inflexible. Yancy Nichol, of Sopris Engineering representing the applicant spoke to the board. They were proposing physical improvements on the road and everyone was in complete agreement. He thanked Eric Lovgren for the Wildfire Mitigation Plan. He had been involved since 2011. They were hoping that the road improvements would happen in 2014. He wondered about grading permits to fix a driveway and other less significant permits and whether they could be allowed. He asked that smaller type permits would be available. Ms. Ayres — Oliver stated that the building department would need to be consulted. If a building permit was required it would not be allowed. Mr. Nichol requested exceptions to smaller permit requests. He was aware of one lot owner who would like to pull a permit. If the commission accepted conditions as stated the earliest a building permit could be pulled would be late in the summer of 2015 and earliest a certificate of occupancy could be acquired is early in 2016. He believed it would be better to ride or lead horses out in the event of a wildfire. The Wildfire Mitigation Plan was a living document and could be revised annually. Bill Harding, Fire Marshall for Basalt Fire spoke about the emergency egress locked gate. The association applied for a Knox lock which the fire department would have access to. This would give them the ability to access the gate. He spoke about turnarounds and the fact that his vehicles have been measured and considered. Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked about turnarounds. Mr.Harding stated that they were comfortable. They could support the road with the conditions stipulated. Commissioner Chandler—Henry spoke about sprinkler systems being required. Mr. Schroeder indicated that the installation of this type of system was a substantial item to be included in a 23 05/13/2014 permit. Chairman Ryan spoke about the 10,000 gallon tank. She wondered about plans for this tank and the timing. Mr. Harding stated that it was out in the future, but the road would require significant resources to be improved. He believed there needed to be a year-round water supply up there. Mr.Nichol explained that when people pull permits there would be tanks. Commissioner Chandler—Henry wondered if the Fire District handled Ambulance services as well. Mr. Harding stated that they were combined. Commissioner Fisher stated that the community had come a long way. The danger of allowing building permits was due to the dangerous road for trucks supporting the building. She felt the road should be improved and then the maintenance entity leverages a bond against the construction to protect against damage to the road during vehicle trips. Building was one of the worst times for potential home fires. She spoke about allowing minor permitting and expressed desire for some exceptions. Mr. Schroeder spoke about the issues. As far as damage to the road, this would be unlikely due to the bed base. There was a possibility of damage to a guard rail and as such the maintenance association could require a bond to protect the asset. In terms of minor permits, the wording speaks to building permits, and doesn't specifically speak about grading or minor remodels or electrical work. If there was a permit allowing an increase in traffic or a substantial construction, it would be a different story. Ms. Ayres — Oliver suggested having the current building inspector and Environmental Health Director weigh in on the question. Commissioner Chandler — Henry spoke about sheltering in place. She asked about a training plan and wondered how a community would know about this. Mr. Lovgren spoke about a Wildfire Action Day in conjunction with an annual meeting similar to what has been done in other neighborhoods. Commissioner Chandler—Henry spoke about the Town of Basalt not wanting a lot of future development. She wondered what the county role could be. Mr. Schroeder stated that 35 acre parcels could be created without a county subdivision process, but the conditions had been crafted based on 28 current lots. If the future division took place the owner would have to come back for another variance. Ms. Ayres—Oliver indicated that the owner would still have to comply with the road standards. Chairman Ryan opened public comment. Michael Erneman spoke as a resident of the Ranch subdivision. He spoke about enabling some work to be done now instead of two years from now made sense. Foundation work and sewer work could be done. It's a benefit to the owners and the road association. There should be no use of the road while the construction was going on. They would not increase the potential for fire. He hoped the board would consider it. Chairman Ryan asked if the minor permits addressed these concerns. Mr. Erneman stated that it did to an extent. He suggested allowing digging holes and dig foundations. Ms. Ayres—Oliver only spoke about grading and on-site wastewater permits. Mr. Schroeder stated that historically permits had been issued to dig the hole, but not put the foundations in. It's not frowned upon,it's a bit risky and had been done in the past. Ms. Ayres—Oliver stated that it was the safety of the road which was the main concern. Eric Berry,property owner on the Lower Spur spoke. He has owned property there since 1998. The house was in drastic need of repair. They have been discussing the need for a new roof. There was also an outside deck in disrepair which had become unsafe and unusable. One of the accesses to the home was off the deck. He wondered about getting the gates open without needing to call the fire department in advance. Mr. Lovgren stated that the homeowners would have access to the combination to the gate. John Lorton, board member spoke. The intent was for everyone in the neighborhood to have instructions on how to get out. Lisa Ryll spoke about buying a piece of land in the neighborhood shortly after the moratorium was put in place. They never expected that so much time would pass. The road was in the best shape it's been in in the last 100 years. There were 20 houses built when the road was in much worse shape. One of her neighbors ran two large excavating companies and used the road with big equipment probably daily. Everyone agreed that it needed to be improved. It was not so unsafe that it puts everyone's lives at risk every day. They spent a lot of money to get to this point. This was a personal hardship to her and her family. They were paying the higher taxes due to unimproved land. Commissioner Chandler—Henry spoke about a building moratorium. 24 05/13/2014 Ms. Ayres—Oliver stated that it was not technically a moratorium. It didn't say no building permits would be issued, it meant that if the roads leading to the property do not meet standards, building permits would not be issued. It boiled down to whether the county could withhold permits due to safety issues before improvements have been done. They would look into what can be done outside of building permits. Ms. Ryll stated that when they were here in August of 2011 the commissioners were trying to help convince the homeowners to form the Local Improvement District. She spoke about the notes. She spoke to Sara, Peter, Gregg and Eva at the time. Commissioner Fisher stated that it was really in the homeowner's hands to expedite the process. The reason the county was here was because the county could bring a grant of$1.3 million to the project. There had been fatalities. The county had also brought 5 years of engineering experience. She stated that until the homeowners figured out how to fund the upper portion there was no change and the situation was still dangerous. If the county started allowing people to pull building permits before it was figured out it didn't consider the issue of the danger. Ms. Ryll stated that the reason they were all here was to improve the upper road. They had been funding the engineering for the application. Building permit fees were in place to address road association improvements. There was a plan for road improvements that could be absorbed by the road association. Chairman Ryan agreed with Commissioner Fisher. Minor work was different than issuing building permits before the work was done. Commissioner Chandler— Henry stated that the board took a lot of heat in issuing road variances. They were looking at granting a road variance which would allow the homeowners to do what they wished. There were detractors on the other side who felt no variances should be granted to the dual access requirement. Jocelyn Wood, attorney with Wood and Nichols spoke to the board. They purchased the property knowing about the building restriction. The fact that the owners could not pull a building permit was a hardship and could represent a taking of their property. The community was for the most part built-out. The variance being requested did not go to the 280 acre parcel. It was only four parcels in the center that were not yet built on. She was certain that the road was in the same poor condition when the other 25 homes were built. She suggested that Eag]e County consider the fact that the upper road association had complied with almost all of the requirements. She asked that the four homes without primary structures on them be allowed to pull building permits. Mr. Schroeder spoke about the fact that with three lots or less a driveway standard could be applied without a road variance Ms. Wood stated that since there was not a road currently there and there was a steep hillside, subdividing the 280 acre property was not likely to be subdivided. Ms. Ayres — Oliver agreed with the fact that there was no approval for a future subdivision with this variance. In terms of whether or not this was a potential taking, the county had never said no, it has said that until the roads meet the standards before issuance of a building permit, which all boiled down to a life safety issue. The county had the ability to monitor these types of issues. Commissioner Fisher stated that this was still reducing the county requirements in granting a road variance. They could require that all of the road standards be satisfied. The point in time came when this type of potentially dangerous situation could not be allowed to continue,but needed to be remedied. Mr. Nichol clarified that construction traffic ate into 50% of the life of the road. When he had been able to put the construction traffic on a road prior to paving, it extended the life of the road. If the upper road was completed, building could be started. There was a difference since 2009 with fire mitigation. The neighbors had done a lot to get to this point. Commissioner Fisher wondered why this needed to be delayed further than this summer. Mr. Schroeder stated that CDOT was the overseer of the project. The 30 and 90% design milestones had been met. Federal Grants and the right of way processes sometimes took 6— 18 months. By federal law they had to go through the uniform act. They did not take any shortcuts. The county could ask CDOT to help expedite. Mr. Nichol stated that if some of the property own'ers;knew they could get a permit it could expedite the upper road improvements. Ms. Ayres—Oliver wondered about improvements bn Upper Cedar Drive"and"conditions 2 and 5. Mr. Nichol stated that 80-90% of the cost¥was Mai itena `the°'upper road.: They were not trying to widen the road. Mr. Schroeder stated that condition 5, was a mechanism to make sure the work was done for the submitted plan and allowed closure to ensure it was done properly. Mr.Nichol felt that immediate improvements should be done to Upper Cedar Drive immediately. 25 05/13/2014 Mr. Schroeder felt that this could be done. Ms. Ayres — Oliver spoke about both portions of the road being improved before building permits being issued. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the lower portion of.9 miles which was the county responsibility. Andreas Ryll spoke about the need to get ahead of government and improve the upper road and get it in better shape for safety and the Fire Department. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the danger of the lower portion Ms. Ryll spoke about the lower portion of the upper road. The lower portion, just past the .9 miles of county responsibility,was the most dangerous portion. Mr. Nichol clarified that the upper road could not be financed until they got building permits. The Fire Department would get the improvements done this summer. Chairman Ryan stated that this went against the Land Use Regulations as the road standards had to be in place prior to building permit issuance. Chairman Ryan stated that the road must be built to standards, or there could be a variance prior to issuing building permits. Mr. Nichol indicated that more improvements could be done with issuance of building permits. The road association did not have the finances to improve the road. The county would not issue a building permit until the road was improved. Mr. Schroeder stated that at the end of the day, when the building permit was pulled, the improvements must be in place. Ms. Ayres—Oliver stated that with the improvements,the lower road would meet an acceptable standard. She spoke about the issue of when improvements on upper Cedar Drive could be started. On condition 2,the proposed improvements for Lower Cedar Drive must be complete prior to the issuance for Upper Cedar Drive. Condition 6 should state that upon completion of the improvements on Lower Cedar Drive and upon the improvements on Upper Cedar Drive,building permits may be issued. Mr.Nichol wondered about the minor permits. He wondered about tabling this to address these concerns. A garage seemed to be a reach. He suggested the language be sorted out. He didn't realize the lower road was part of the approval tonight. Commissioner Chandler—Henry wondered about a tabling to next Monday afternoon,May 19, 2014. Commissioner Chandler—Henry moved to table VIS-4422, Cedar Drive Community Variance for Improvement Standards to May 27, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before t eeting was adjourned until May i, 2014. '1111P t o ' Attest: t • .r Clerk to the Boar. %Loge Cha r' an 26 05/13/2014