Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/24/17 PUBLIC HEARING January 24, 2017 Present: Jillian Ryan Chairman Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Brent McFall County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Oliver Deputy 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 Updates Commissioner McQueeney introduced"The High Divide,"a novel by Lin Enger and this year's One Book One Valley community read. She encouraged everyone to pick the book up from the local library or bookshop and join in the read. Consent Agenda 1. Agreement between Eagle County and Clayton Early Learning,Trustee,George W. Clayton Trust for Child Care Partnership-Early Head Start Services Joey Peplinski,Human Services 2. Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)between Eagle County and the Eagle River Youth Coalition (ERYC) for Hiring of Collaborative Management Program(CMP)Coordinator Megan Burch,Human Services 3. Agreement between Eagle County and Interstate Highway Construction,Inc., for Construction of Eagle County Regional Airport Apron Reconstruction Schedule I and Schedule II Rick Ullom,Project Management and Greg Phillips,Airport Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for January 24, 2017, as presented. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Jeanne McQueeney opened and closed citizen input, as there was none. Business Items 4. Resolution 2017-004 Ratifying Approval of the Gypsum Ranch Pit Special Use Permit-Eagle County File No.ZS-6354 Robert Narracci, Planning 1 01/24/2017 Mr.Narracci stated that the resolution memorialized the approval of the Gypsum Ranch Pit Special Use Permit. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the resolution ratifying approval of the Gypsum Ranch Pit Special Use Permit—Eagle County File No. ZS-6354. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files 6. PDA-6452 Beaver Creek PUD Amendment Scot Hunn,Planning File No./Process: PDA-6452,Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Project Name: Beaver Creek PUD Amendment-Tract M, Lot 1 Location: Elk Track Road Owner: Beaver Creek Metropolitan District Applicant: Same Representative: Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group LLC Staff Planner: Scot Hunn,AICP Staff Engineer: Rickie Davies,PE Recommendation: Approve with Condition(s) I. Executive Summary: Request and Process The Applicant requests review of an amendment to the Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) to strike the following provision from the PUD Guide document which requires the creation of private easement agreement on Tract M, Lot 1 of the Beaver Creek PUD (this provision was added in 2012 as part of a previous PUD Amendment and with specific regard to development on Tract M, Lot 1, the site of the former Beaver Creek Fire Station located on Elk Track Road): "If Lot 1 is developed residentially, a new roadway/access easement will be required as part of such residential development to be granted to the ski area operator over and across Lot 1 to permit vehicular access the resort service facilities and other activities on Beaver Creek mountain. It is the intent of such easement to allow the same type and intensity (or potentially greater intensity) of traffic as currently exists for Village Walk Road for use by the ski area operator." Per the current application, "Conditions have changed since the PUD Amendment was approved in 2012. As part of the construction of a new fire station, which is adjacent to the resort service facilities and a new Vail Resorts employee parking facility, the access route located at the southern end of Elk Track Road was improved and paved, allowing resort service traffic to use this route to access the resort service facilities, new parking lot, and the new fire station. The new parking lot accommodates approximately 50 resort services facility employee vehicles that would have otherwise used the Village Walk Road to access the service facilities. Access is limited by a gate, so only those with activities related to either the resort service facilities or the new fire station use the access. Prior to its paving, this new access route has been a diversion of daily traffic that would ordinarily access the resort service facilities via Village Walk Road, having the same effect as a future roadway across Lot 1. As a result, the outcome related to this PUD Guide text amendment (diversion of a portion of the resort facilities traffic flow)has already been realized." 2 01/24/2017 Staff suggests that the language proposed to be removed from the PUD Guide was added in 2012 primarily to address concerns by the Village Walk Association (the adjacent neighborhood directly to the the north of Lot 1) regarding resort services traffic that has historically traveled through,the Village Walk neighborhood since it was developed. Staff further believes that the Applicant has provided justification for the removal of such restrictive PUD language as well as information addressing issues such as traffic on or through the Village Walk neighborhood and, importantly, alternate access routes that have been recently improved along Elk Track Road to, in part,alleviate traffic through the Village Walk property. Staff is of the understanding the Applicant has worked proactively with the Village Walk Association regarding the proposed amendment. Although staff initially received a referral response from Kerry Wallace, Goodman & Wallace, P.C., legal counsel for the Village Walk Homeowners Association-stating an objection to the removal of language from the PUD Guide - staff has subsequently received an updated letter from the Village Walk Homeowners Association Board of Directors(dated December 11, 2016) stating that the Association has withdrawn any and all objections to the amendment. Respectfully, staff suggests that staff's review and ultimate recommendation for approval of the PUD Amendment request in 2012 was not predicated on the inclusion of language reflecting a private negotiation to create a private easement agreement. Put another way, staff would not have changed its recommendation in 2012 had such language not been presented for inclusion into the PUD Guide, as staff did not believe that such language impacted(negatively or positively)the PUD's conformance with County standards. Staff is recommending approval of this PUD Amendment request based on a positive determination of conformance with all required standards. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation At their regularly scheduled meeting of December 21, 2016, the Eagle County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment. On a motion to recommend approval of the amendment, the motion failed on a 2-2 vote, with Commissioners Mayer and Warner voting nay, and Commissioners Moffit and Brock voting in the affirmative. Because of a tie vote, the motion to approve failed. This has the effect of a recommendation for denial from the Planning Commission. Discussion during deliberations generally focused on the purpose of the existing access easement that has been granted to Vail Resorts across Lot 1 and the potential implications of vacating the easement. Of note, the Commission members were reminded by staff and the Applicant's representative during the hearing that the current request is not to vacate the easement; rather, to the Applicant is requesting approval to remove the PUD language requiring the creation of the easement. Overview of Findings Staff believes the proposed amendment to the PUD Guide is in conformance with the standards for a modification to a Planned Unit Development, while maintaining consistency with the standards for a Preliminary Plan for PUD. Briefly,the standards specific to a request for PUD Amendment are summarized as follows: Modification - That the modification, removal, or release (of the PUD provision) is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development. Adjacent Properties - That the amendment does not affect, 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. Benefit- That the amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Amendment- That the amendment shall not have the effect of extending the vesting period absent a specific finding and declaration to that effect. 3 01/24/2017 Additionally, amendments to PUDs must address and conform to the standards for Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development. Those standards are summarized below: Unified ownership or control - That title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one(1)person or entity (as represented by a Homeowners Association). Uses - That 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 the County's residential, commercial, or industrial zone districts. Dimensional Limitations - That the dimensional limitations (setbacks and/or building height restrictions) that shall apply to the PUD are those that either meet the standards listed in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, or that they are approved variations to the standard dimensional limitations. Off-Street Parking and Loading - That off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Landscaping - That the landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Signs - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Adequate Facilities - That the applicant has demonstrated that development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities. Improvements - That the PUD meets the standards for improvements according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses- That the PUD shall be generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other lands, services or infrastructure improvements that may be substantially impacted. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan - That the PUD shall be 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. Phasing- That the Preliminary Plan for PUD includes a phasing plan for the development. Common Recreation and Open Space - That the PUD complies with the common recreation and open space standards. Natural Resource Protection - That the PUD considers the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as with regard to natural resource protection. A more in-depth description of each standard and a discussion regarding how or why staff believes the proposed Amendment to the Preliminary Plan for PUD meets or does not meet applicable standards is provided in Section III—Standards,starting on page 6 of this report. Background In 1978, Planned Unit Development zoning was approved for the Beaver Creek Subdivision. However, the PUD Guide for Beaver Creek was not approved until 1983. The PUD authorizes 3,161 dwelling units and 380,000 square 4 01/24/2017 feet of commercial uses on 2,161 acres of land. Since 1983, the PUD has been amended three times: once in 1988 and again in 1994 to address changing conditions and specific land use designations within the PUD, and most recently in 2012 to change the land use designation on Tract M, Lot 1 from Resort Services (RS) to Resort Commercial 1 (RC1), allowing for residential development as well as other uses associated with Beaver Creek Metropolitan District operations. The 2012 request to change the land use designation on Lot 1 is directly linked to the history of Tract M(Lots 1 and 2), and was 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. In 1994, the land use designation for Lot 2 was amended from RS to RC1 to allow for residential uses as part of a larger PUD amendment proposal. As part of that amendment, Tract M was allocated with 38 dwelling units. Lot 2 was subsequently 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 (formerly located on Lot 2) was relocated to another location to the south of Tract M. The 2012 amendment sought, among other things, to allow for similar residential development on Lot 1, and to move the Beaver Creek Fire Station to a new location. The Metropolitan District has since completed a new fire station further up Elk Track road, generally to the south of Lot 1 and existing single-family residences located on Elk Track Road. Along with the new fire station, improvements have been made to Elk Track Road primarily for use by the District and for Vail Resorts employees accessing District and VRI facilities(the service center). As part of the 2012 amendment, a provision requiring the property owner of Lot 1 (Beaver Creek Metropolitan District) to create an access easement across Lot 1 for the benefit of Vail Resorts Inc. (for mountain operations vehicular traffic) was added to the PUD Guide. This provision largely reflected a private agreement or negotiation between the BCMD and the Village Walk Association - to address concerns by the Village Walk Association regarding traffic that has historically traveled through the Village Walk neighborhood using an existing easement granted to VRI for access. Last, objections filed by the Village Walk Association during the referral period with regard to this amendment to remove such provisions have since been withdrawn by the Village Walk Homeowners Association Board of Directors (see attached letter dated December 11, 2016). II. Referral Responses: This application was referred to nine(9) County departments and/or external referral agencies including the Beaver Creek Property Owner's Association and the Village Walk Association. Referral comments were provided by the following entities and are attached to the staff report: Eagle County Engineering Department(Rickie Davies): The Engineering Department requested that the Applicant provide written evidence demonstrating that Vail Resorts, Inc. (beneficiary of the access easement created across Lot 1) agrees to the removal of the access easement. The Applicant has not provided such evidence. Beaver Creek Property Owners Association(David Eichholt): Comments received from the BCPOA focused on the problematic and impractical nature of creating an access across Lot 1 and, importantly, across adjacent federal lands. The letter provides support for the PUD Amendment and, specifically, the removal of language requiring the creation of an access easement on Lot 1. The Village Walk Homeowners Association(Kerry Wallace,Esq.): Initial comments received from the Village Walk Homeowners Association (VWHOA) expressed strong opposition to the proposed amendment. However, since the initial referral period, representatives from the 5 01/24/2017 Beaver Creek Metropolitan District and the VWHOA have met several times and have resolved any outstanding issues or objections. Hence, staff has received an updated letter from the VWHOA formally withdrawing any and all objections to the proposed amendment. III. Standards: Findings Staff is recommending approval of this application, with one condition, based on a finding that the proposed PUD Amendment application meets all applicable standards for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development. Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Standards Per the ECLUR's, "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 2467104(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. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development. (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not affect, 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. Staff Response: It is staff's opinion that the proposed PUD Amendment will not affect 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. The Custom Homes at Village Walk as well as other single-family residences located in close proximity to Lot 1 were developed without benefit of an access easement across Lot 1 to potentially alleviate local traffic conditions; rather, staff respectfully suggests the homes within the Village Walk neighborhood were developed and sold with knowledge of an access easement traversing the Village Walk property and benefiting Vail Resorts,Inc. for vehicular traffic. The existing easement agreement allows for a certain amount of vehicular access for resort services purposes. Likewise, an access easement across Lot 1 benefiting VRI has been executed between the Metropolitan District and VRI in accordance with the 2012 PUD provision requiring its creation. Additionally, Elk Track Road has also been improved recently to accommodate additional traffic to and from the Beaver Creek Service Center and the Beaver Creek Fire Station. Per the application, "As part of the acquisition of the new fire station site from Vail Resorts, an easement agreement between Vail Resorts and BCMD was executed and an easement was established on Lot 1. The intent of the access easement was that if traffic volumes on Village Walk Road, which provides access for Vail Resorts to the resort service facilities, became too intense a new access route could potentially be available to relieve some of the traffic volume. There was no requirement to construct a roadway and no guarantee that it would be permitted by the USFS." Removal of provisions within the Beaver Creek PUD Guide requiring the creation of a private easement across Lot 1 (further to the south and terminating at the U.S. Forest Service property) appears to have no substantive adverse impact on surrounding areas. On the contrary, one could argue that the easement - which, as created and recorded, creates an access which terminates at the boundary of federal, undeveloped property in close proximity to Beaver Creek - could produce additional impacts on natural resources and sensitive lands inclusive of potential wetlands in the area. Additionally, surrounding 6 01/24/2017 properties that are zoned accordingly have been developed and used residentially for several years (or in most cases,decades)without the benefit of any access easement across Lot 1. (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Staff Response: Staff believes that the PUD Amendment will not confer a special benefit upon any (single) person. The amendment can be construed to benefit the property owner, the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District, as well as all owners in the PUD (See attached letter of support from the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association). (4) Amendment. Amendment of a Preliminary Plan for PUD shall not have the effect of extending the vesting period absent a specific finding and declaration to that effect. Staff Response: The proposed PUD Amendment will not have the effect of extending the vesting period; the Beaver Creek PUD is already fully vested and has been substantially built-out for decades. (5) Standards. PUD Amendments shall address the standards Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.e. Applicant shall also provide a copy of the PUD Guide clearly demonstrating what amendments are to be made. Staff Response: The proposed amendment addresses the standards for Preliminary Plan for PUD as well as those for Modification to PUD. Evaluation of the PUD Preliminary Plan standards is provided below in this report. (6) Notification. The applicant shall provide pre-addressed, stamped envelopes for every property owner in the PUD, as well as for all adjacent property owners. The applicant shall also comply with Section 5- 210.E. Staff Response: All property owners within the PUD and all adjacent property owners were sent notice of this PUD Amendment. Notification was published in a newspaper of general circulation, and a sign was duly posted on the subject property. Preliminary Plan Standards The following standards apply to review of all PUD Preliminary Plans. Likewise, as part of any review of a modification (amendment) to a PUD, the Planning Commission must find that the amended PUD still meets the following standards: (1) Unified ownership or control. 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. Staff Response: The subject property is owned by the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District; the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District has provided a letter consenting to,and approving of,the proposed amendment. (2) Uses. 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. 7 01/24/2017 Staff Response: The uses proposed within the PUD, or particularly within Tract M, Lot 1,will not be changed as a result of this PUD Amendment. (3) Dimensional Limitations. 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. Staff Response: No variations from dimensional limitations have been proposed as part of this PUD Amendment. (4) 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. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. (5) Landscaping. 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. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. (6) Signs. 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. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. (7) Adequate Facilities. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the 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. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. (8) Improvements. The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. 8 01/24/2017 (9) Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. The PUD shall be generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other lands, services or infrastructure improvements that may be substantially impacted. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met. The proposed amendment concerns the removal of certain language affecting the creation and granting of a private easement across or over Lot 1. Staff believes that the removal of said language from the PUD Guide has no material effect upon the compatibility of the PUD on adjacent lands, other lands; that the proposed amendment has no substantial impact on services or infrastructure improvements serving the PUD. (10) Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The PUD shall be 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. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment to the PUD Guide will have no impact on the conformance of the PUD with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. (11) Phasing. 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 or desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project as determined by the Board of County Commissioners in the Resolution of approval. (am.05/08/12) Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. The PUD is almost entirely built-out; any phasing plans that were required with the original PUD development have long-since been realized or satisfied. (12) Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD shall comply with the common recreation and open space standards. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met or is not applicable to the evaluation of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment has no impact on already developed and preserved open space within the PUD. (13) Natural Resource Protection. 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. Staff Response: Staff suggests that this standard is met. Removal of provisions within the Beaver Creek PUD Guide requiring the creation of a private easement across Lot 1 (further to the south and terminating at the U.S. Forest Service property) appears to have no substantive adverse impact on surrounding areas. On the contrary, one could argue that the easement - which, as created and recorded, creates an access which terminates at the boundary of federal, undeveloped property in close proximity to Beaver Creek - could produce additional impacts on natural resources and sensitive lands inclusive of potential wetlands in the area. IV. Board of Commissioners Options: 1. Approve [File No. PDA-64521 with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that the proposed amendment, as conditioned, fully complies with all applicable standards for a PUD Amendment. 9 01/24/2017 2. Deny [File No. PDA-64521 if it is determined that the proposal will not fully comply with all applicable standards for a PUD Amendment. 3. Table [File No. PDA-64521 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the application, giving specific direction to the applicant and staff. V. Staff Recommendation and Suggested Motion: Staff recommends approval of the requested PUD Amendment with one condition based on a positive demonstration by the Applicant that all required standards have been, or can be,met as conditioned. The following suggested motion language is provided in the event the Board chooses to approve or deny the request. Motion to Approve: "I hereby move to approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Beaver Creek PUD (File No. PDA-6452), incorporating staff's findings and staff's conditions,because the application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of an amendment to a planned unit development. I further move to authorize the Chair to sign the resolution approving this amendment." 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. Motion to Deny: "I hereby move to deny the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Beaver Creek PUD (File No. PDA-6452),because the proposal does not meet the standards for approval of an amendment to a planned unit development." DISCUSSION: Scott Hunn,the project planner,provided a brief summary and introduction and reviewed the standards. Staff recommended approval of the request based on a positive finding demonstrating that the proposed amendment met all necessary standards for a PUD amendment. Dominic Mauriello presented the request on behalf of the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District. Bill Simons, General Manager of Beaver Creek Metro District, and Jim Collins,District General Council, were present. The proposal would delete one of six provisions in the PUD guide pertaining to Lot 1,Tract M. If Lot 1 was developed residentially, a new roadway/access easement would be required allowing access to the Resort Service Facility and other activities of Beaver Creek Mountain. In 2012 as part of a previous PUD amendment,provisions were added to address the adjacent neighbors' concerns with construction fencing, construction traffic,drainage and an access easement to allow for any future roadway. There had never been any guarantee that a road would be built nor was there ever a requirement that a roadway would be built. The easement was simply put in place to allow for an alternative access to the Resorts Service Facilities. There had been some community support. The Village Walk HOA no longer opposed the amendment. Vail Resorts indicated that they had no objections. The objection letters opposed additional traffic traveling up Elk Track Road and indicated that the fire station moving had never been disclosed. The arguments created confusion and a distraction and the applicant believed the objector was attempting to take a private dispute that should be between him and the Metro District. The proposed amendment would benefit the entire community. Notices had been sent to all the adjacent property owners. There would be no changes to parking,landscaping, and signage; there were no impacts to the overall PUD. The applicant believed the amendment met the criteria for a PUD amendment. 10 01/24/2017 Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Mr.Mauriello to speak about the benefits of the amendment. Mr.Mauriello stated that the amendment took the encumbrance off the property and allowed the property to be sold at a value higher that if an easement were in place. The benefit to the community was in terms of offsetting the cost of the new fire station and not having to raise taxes. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the concern raised regarding drainage. Mr.Mauriello stated that the concern came from one of the Village Walk objection letters which was withdrawn. Chairman Ryan asked about the development of the property and the number of proposed units. Mr.Mauriello stated there could be up to six homes built. Chairman Ryan opened public input. Tracy Kinsella with Garfield&Hecht,P.C. spoke on behalf of the objectors,Robert and Kathy Hooken of 210 Elk Track Court. She believed the access criteria had not been met. Her clients believed this was a critical access easement. The people who purchased property on Elk Track Road purchased with the understanding there would no commercial traffic and paid a premium for their property. Jim Fraser,Chairman of the Beaver Creek Metro District, stated that he'd fight to preserve the quality of Beaver Creek. The traffic on Elk Track Road would not change. They had been transparent since the beginning of the process. The Metro District made a commitment to the community to sell the property to cover the expenses of the new fire house. Vail Resorts had no objections with the connector easement. They spent over one million dollars to pave and complete the road up to the maintained facility and fire house. Dave Eickholt,President of the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association(BCPOA) spoke. The BCPOA supported the proposed amendment. The amendment restored the PUD to its original vision and allowed the property to be used at its best usage. Approval of the amendment was in the best interest of the vast majority of the Beaver Creek Property Owners and had material benefit for business owners and Eagle County. Larry Graveel,Metro Board member and BCPOA member, spoke. He objected to the comments made by the objector. He and his wife walked a lot in the area in the winter and summer and were proud of what they had in Beaver Creek. He felt approving the amendment would very positively benefit 1400 home owners by reducing their taxes and by allow the Metro District a little extra money for improvements. Jeff Luker spoke. He sent in a letter of support. There were meetings and communications sent to everyone. The purpose of removing the easement was to sell the property and offset the cost of the fire house. Tim Kelley spoke. He attended the Metro District meetings and supported the efforts. Steve Friedman,Director of the Beaver Creek Metro District spoke. He believed this was a straight forward proposition. Chairman Ryan closed public comment. Mr. Hunn reviewed the suggested conditions and the board's options. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if staff had any concerns with the 2003 letter regarding additional traffic on Elk Track Road. Mr.Hunn stated that staff had no concerns. Beth Oliver stated that a private agreement of that nature was not something the county would get involved in. Commissioner McQueeney stated that the board made their determinations based what was written and not someone's interpretation. The only concerns that may apply would be traffic but she did not see this as a problem based on the standards. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed the standards had been met and she agreed with staff's recommendations. Chairman Ryan believed the primary plan standard for compatibility had been met. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the PUD amendment for Beaver Creek PUD(File No. PDA- 6452),incorporating staff's findings and staff's conditions,because the application, as conditioned,meets all of the standards for approval of an amendment to a planned unit development and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution approving the amendment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 11 01/24/2017 7. ZS6506—J-8 Custom Fabrication Sean Hanagan File Number: ZS-6506/Special Use Permit Project Name: J-8 Custom Fabrication Special Use Permit Location: 001 Cedar Lane,Mosher Subdivision Owner: Mike Dumolt Applicant: Same Representative: Mike Dumolt Staff Planner: Sean Hanagan Staff Engineer: Nicole Mosby Recommendation: Approval with Conditions I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Request The Applicant requests review of a Special Use Permit to allow for a Home Business within an existing agricultural structure located in the Mosher Subdivision. In addition the applicant requests an additional Accessory Dwelling Unit to remain on the property. The lot is a 9.6 acre parcel located the Resource (R) Zone District. The Resource Zone District permits ADUs as a use by right on lots that are conforming for size. The minimum acreage required in the Resource zone district is 35 acres. Because of this lack of conformance a Special Use Permit is required for an ADU. The proposed uses have been in existence on the property for some time and were brought to the county's attention through a code complaint. It is therefore the intention of the applicant to bring these uses into zoning conformance through the Special Use Process.The code enforcement letter is attached to this Staff Report. Process Overview The purpose of a Special Use Review is as follows: "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."-ECLURs p. 5-51 Generally, accessory dwelling units are viewed to be compatible with existing or proposed single-family residential properties and neighborhoods; the purpose of conducting site-specific review is to ensure that size requirements are met, parking is provided, and on-site infrastructure (access, driveways, on-site wastewater treatment systems, and water supply) are adequate. Home Businesses on the other hand vary in their ability to be compatible with residential and agricultural areas. Considerations for impacts must be addressed. Pursuant to the ECLURs (p. 5-52), the Planning Commission's role during the review of the Special Use Permit is as follows: `After receipt of the Staff Report, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for a Special Use Permit. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the application, the relevant support materials, the Staff Report, and the public testimony given at the public hearing. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission,by a 12 01/24/2017 majority vote of the quorum present, shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners either to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for a Special Use Permit based on the standards in Section 5-250.B,Standards. (am.05/08/12)" Standards associated with Home Businesses in the Resource Zone District dictate: • Use Subordinate. The use of a dwelling for a home business shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes and shall not change its basic residential character • Activity Conducted Indoors. All activities associated with a home business shall be conducted indoors. Materials and equipment used in the home business shall be stored in a building. • Employment. A home business shall be conducted by persons residing on the premises and by no more than two(2) employees residing off-premises. • Patrons. A home business may serve patrons on the premises, provided all other standards of this Section are met. • Parking. A home business shall provide one (1) off-street parking space for each employee working on- site and residing off-premises and one(1) space for patrons of the business. These spaces shall be provided in addition to the parking required for the principal residential use of the property. • Sales. Incidental sale of supplies or products associated with the home business shall be permitted on the premises. A home business whose primary activity is retail sales shall be prohibited, except if the home business is for catalogue sales. • Nuisance. A home business shall not produce noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibrations, heat, glare, odors, fumes, smoke, or dust and shall not operate at such hours or in such a manner as to create a public nuisance, disturb neighbors or alter the residential character of the premises. • Codes. The building housing the home business shall comply with all County or State building, fire and safety codes applicable to the particular business. • Signs and Illumination. Signs and other outdoor structures advertising the home business shall not be permitted. Illumination of the structure housing the home business shall be limited to that which is customary for the primary residential use of the property. Standards associated with ADUs in the Resource Zone District dictate: • That ADUs are limited to one(1)per parcel and are capped at 1800 square feet of habitable area. • ADUs may be attached to the primary residential structure, or may be detached(located within or over a detached garage or barn, for example). • Parking must be provided on-site according to the number of bedrooms (1 bedroom or studios require one space; two-bedroom units require two spaces). • ADUs may not be sold or owned separately. • ADUs must be designed to conform to dimensional limitations such as setbacks,height restrictions,and lot coverage and floor area limitations. Conformance to Special Use Permit Standards Staff believes the proposal meets, or can meet as conditioned, all applicable standards for a Consolidated Special Use Permit.Therefore, staff is recommending approval,with conditions. The following matrix summarizes staff's suggested findings. A more detailed discussion regarding standards and suggested conditions of approval follow in Section II - Staff Findings and Recommendation starting on page 4 of this report. Standard Conformance Discussion Conformance with the Comprehensive Yes The proposal was reviewed in context to the Eagle County Plan: The proposed Special Use shall be in Comprehensive Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan and substantial conformance with the Eagle found to be in substantial compliance with a preponderance of County Comprehensive Plan, Area applicable policies and goals. (See further discussion within Community Plans and any applicable Section II - Staff Findings and Recommendations starting on ancillary County adopted documents page 4). 13 01/24/2017 pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure management. Compatibility: The Special Use is generally Yes Staff believes the proposal can be compatible with surrounding compatible with the existing and currently uses as conditioned. (See further discussion within Section II - permissible future uses of adjacent land and ,Staff Findings and Recommendations starting on page 4). other substantially impacted lands, services, or infrastructure improvements. Zone District Standards: The proposed Yes The proposed uses have been planned to be compliant with zone Special Use shall comply with the standards district standards for residential, uses. (See further discussion of the zone district in which it is located and within Section II-Staff Findings and Recommendations starting any standards applicable to the particular on page 4). 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. Design Minimizes Adverse Impact: The Yes The project has generally been designed to minimize adverse design of the proposed Special Use shall impacts on adjacent lands and staff believes the proposal, if reasonably avoid adverse impacts, properly conditioned, meets or can meet this standard. (See including visual impacts of the proposed use further discussion within Section II - Staff Findings and on adjacent lands including trash, traffic, Recommendations starting on page 4). service delivery,parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, or otherwise create a nuisance. Design Minimizes Environmental Impact: Yes The application demonstrates that the proposed use will minimize The proposed Special Use shall minimize potential environmental impacts as conditioned and based on: 1) environmental impacts and shall not cause the overall design of the project;2)the scale; and 3)the location significant deterioration of water and air of the project relative to surrounding existing and future uses. resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, (See further discussion within Section II - Staff Findings and and other natural resources. Recommendations starting on page 4). Impact on Public Facilities: The proposed Yes Staff believes the site is or can be adequately served by public Special Use shall be adequately served by facilities such as roads,police and fire protection,and emergency public facilities and services,including roads, medical services. pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Site Development Standards: The proposed Yes The project is designed to adhere to appropriate (applicable) Special Use shall comply with the standards from Article 4.(See further discussion within Section II appropriate standards in Article 4, Site -Staff Findings and Recommendations starting on page 4). Development Standards. Other Provisions:The proposed Special Use Not Applicable No"other"provisions were deemed applicable for this particular shall comply with all standards imposed on it special use request. by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. II. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this application,with conditions. 14 01/24/2017 Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned meets or can meet all applicable standards for a Special Use Permit, as well as those standards specific to Home Business as well as Accessory Dwelling Units. Special Use Standards Specifically, the following excerpts from Section 5-250 B — Standards, ECLURs provide direction regarding the intent and necessary findings for the approval of any Special Use Review, as well as the specific standards for Accessory Dwelling Units: 1. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be 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. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposal is in conformance with all applicable plans and adopted policy documents. Specifically, the proposal was reviewed against relevant guiding policies, goals, and recommended implementation strategies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan related to general development, maintaining rural, residential character and uses in the Brush Creek Area, and the provision of local housing options. 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. Staff Response: The site is surrounded by similarly situated single-family structures with light agricultural uses. Importantly, surrounding lot owners within the Mosher Subdivision enjoy similar rights regarding uses `by right', as well as the ability to apply for an Accessory Dwelling unit. Staff believes the proposed ADU will be maintained in a manner consistent with scale and character of the existing residence on the Lot, as well as the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The fabrication of metals has taken place on the parcel for more than 11 years without evidence of complaints based in nuisance. Staff would suggest that all commercial performance standards be adhered to as part of the approval of this application. 3. Zone District Standards. 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 Response: Staff believes the proposal is in substantial conformance with the standards outlined in Sections 3- 310 and 3-330. Specifically, the proposal has been found to be in compliance with the specific standards for Home Business and Accessory Dwelling Units in the Resource Zone District, as follows: Home Business. a. Use Subordinate. The use of a dwelling for a home business shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes and shall not change its basic residential character. b. Activity Conducted Indoors. All activities associated with a home business shall be conducted indoors. Materials and equipment used in the home business shall be stored in a building. 15 01/24/2017 c. Employment.A home business shall be conducted by persons residing on the premises and by no more than two (2) employees residing off-premises. d. Patrons. A home business may serve patrons on the premises,provided all other standards of this Section are met. e. Parking.A home business shall provide one (1) off-street parking space for each employee working on-site and residing off-premises and one (1) space for patrons of the business. These spaces shall be provided in addition to the parking required for the principal residential use of the property. Sales. Incidental sale of supplies or products associated with the home business shall be permitted on the premises. A home business whose primary activity is retail sales shall be prohibited, except if the home business is for catalogue sales. g. Nuisance. A home business shall not produce noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibrations, heat, glare, odors,fumes, smoke, or dust and shall not operate at such hours or in such a manner as to create a public nuisance, disturb neighbors or alter the residential character of the premises. h. Codes. The building housing the home business shall comply with all County or State building,fire and safety codes applicable to the particular business. Signs and Illumination. Signs and other outdoor structures advertising the home business shall not be permitted. Illumination of the structure housing the home business shall be limited to that which is customary for the primary residential use of the property. • A. Applicability: Lot is permitted an ADU via the Special Use Permit process because the parcel is non-conforming in size. B. Number: The applicant proposes one ADU in addition to the primary residential uses; this complies with the standard. C. Size and Use: The R Zone District allows for ADUs of up to 1800 square feet; the proposed unit will beat or under 1800 square feet and is intended to be subordinate to the primary residential use on the Lot. D. Floor Area Calculation: The proposed unit complies with the limitations on square footage, and floor area calculations have been reviewed to be in compliance with County methods for calculation. E. Location: The proposed ADU is detached from the existing primary residential structure. F. Parking: The proposed ADU includes 3 bedroom; three parking spaces have been provided on-site. G. Ownership: The property is under common ownership and the proposed ADU is not proposed to be sold or condominiumized. H. Wildfire Hazard: Staff believes the Applicant has or can 'meet any requirements for wildfire hazard rating and mitigation as part of any building permit application process. I. Access: legal access is provided via Cedar Drive, a privately maintained road. While details have been provided regarding the limited nature of vehicle trips to and from the site 16 01/24/2017 by employees and delivery vehicles, staff suggests that additional details regarding the "maximum number of deliveries allowed per month"and the times of such deliveries could be added to enhance the operations plan for the facility. 4. Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use shall 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. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned, meets this standard. Specifically, staff suggests that the project has been designed specifically to minimize any adverse impacts to the subject property, the surrounding area, residents and wildlife populations. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character and scale of the existing residence on the Lot, as well as the surrounding residential/Agricultural neighborhood. Staff has identified no issues related to trash, traffic, service delivery, parking or loading, odors, noise, glare or vibrations that may result from the current Home Business use of an ADU. S. Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. 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 Response: Staff believes the proposal substantially meets this standard. 6. Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use 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 Response: Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. 7. Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. Specifically, parking has been designed to meet the requirements of Article 4, 8. Other Provisions. 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. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposal meets this standard; no"other"provisions have been identified. Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Section 5-250, E — Conditions and Restrictions on a Special Use Permit (ECLURs, p. 5-55) is pertinent to any consideration of conditional approval,wherein: "The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may, in approving any Special Use Permit, impose such restrictions and conditions on such approval, the proposed use, and the premises to be developed or used pursuant to such approval, as it determines are required by the general purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the 17 01/24/2017 Comprehensive Plan, the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, and these Land Use Regulations, to prevent or minimize adverse effects from the proposed development on surrounding land uses and on the general health, safety, and welfare of the County. The County shall be authorized to set limits on the length of any Final or Consolidated Special Use Permit that it issues and to obtain assurances that the ongoing operation of the use will comply with all of the applicant's representations and all conditions of approval, including, but not limited to, requiring an annual compliance review. All conditions imposed in any Special Use Permit, with the exception of conditions made applicable to such approval by the express terms of these Land Use Regulations, shall be expressly set forth in the Special Use Permit." IV. SUGGESTED CONDITION(S)OF APPROVAL: Staff is suggesting he following conditions be included in any motion to approve the request. 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 conduct of business shall comply with all applicable Commercial Performance Standards outlined in sections 4-500 through 4-560. 3. This Special Use Permit shall be valid until such time that the parcel and metal fabrication business is no longer owned by the applicant or his family. 4. All business related activities shall take place between the hours of 8am-5pm Monday through Friday. V. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: Land Use Zoning North: Residential Agriculture Residential(AR) South: Residential Resource(R) East: Residential Resource(R) West: Residential Agricultural Limited • (AL) Existing Zoning: Resource(R) Proposed Zoning: N/A Current Development: Single-family residential,metal shop and ADU Site Conditions: Total Land Area: Acres: 19.6 I Square feet: Total Open Space: N/A Water: Public: N/A Private: Well Sewer: Public: N/A Private: OWTS Access: Cedar Drive VI. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to fourteen (14) agencies for review on or about September 29, 2016. Staff received the following responses from agencies regarding this request: Eagle County Engineering: All concerns for access and driveway standards were addressed and determined to meet ECLUR standards. 18 01/24/2017 Eagle County Environmental Health: Ray Merry expressed no concerns with the applicant's proposal with regard to Hazardous Waste or Sewage disposal. Emergency Operations: Barry Clark(EOC) has analyzed the application and determined that no additional measures need to be taken with regard to hazardous materials as the amounts fall well below the threshold of Hazardous Material storage requirements or Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans. Eagle County Planning Commission: A their regularly scheduled hearing on January 4th, The ECPC voted 4-1 recommending approval by the BoCC. The Planning Commission had expressed the opinion that the use was in keeping with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and that similar uses existed in the subdivision. The Planning Commission elected to add two additional conditions (see#3 and#4) to limit the hours of operation to the hours of 8am to 5pm Monday through Friday and extinguish this Special Use Permit if ownership of the business or property were to be transferred to any individual entity outside of Mr.Dumolt's family. VII. COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve File No. ZS-6506 with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that that, as conditioned,the proposed use fully complies with all the standards for special use permit. 2. Deny File No.ZS-6506 if it is determined that the proposed use will not fully comply with all the standards for special use permit. 3. Table File No. ZS-6506 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the request. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. Suggestion Motions: PROPOSED MOTION: To approve special use permit request I hereby move to approve File No. ZS-6506, incorporating staff's findings and staff's suggested conditions, because the application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of a Special Use Permit. PROPOSED MOTION: To deny special use permit request I hereby move to deny File No. ZS-6506, because the proposal does not meet the standards for approval of a Special Use Permit. [During deliberations, you will have already discussed which standards have not been met]. DISCUSSION: Sean Hanagan presented the request. The property was located in Mosher Subdivision and was a 9.6 acre parcel located in the Resource Zone District. The applicant was requesting review of a consolidated special use permit for a home business as well as an accessory dwelling unit. Mike Dumolt spoke. His business J-8 Custom Fabrication was an existing business and operating at the current location since 2005. The property was primary residential and the business was entirely indoors and was not seen or heard by neighbors. The business has a very minimal impact on roads and traffic. The business received two deliveries a week, and inl 1 years of doing business,they had never received complaints from the neighbors regarding noise,odors, fumes, or traffic from the business operations. The business had downsized in the last two years and they now had fewer employees and a slower work schedule. He considered the neighbors' concerns and agreed to plant shrubs and hedges to block the view of the shop. He showed photos of the area.He agreed to keep all materials inside and deliveries to a minimum. The ADU was important because it was used for 19 01/24/2017 family housing. The ADU was installed in the current location for over 13 years. Operating their family business was a benefit to their family. The business met or exceeded the legal requirement for a home business. Chairman Ryan asked about the notice of violation and how it arose. Mr. Hanagan stated that a new neighbor complained. Chairman Ryan asked if the shop was used for housing. Mr.Dumolt stated that the shop was not used for housing. Chairman Ryan asked is anything was being stored outside. Mr.Dumolt stated that nothing was being stored outside currently. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the semi-truck deliveries. Mr.Dumolt stated that the deliveries were received in their driveway except during the winter when they picked up their steel in town. Mr. Hanagan reviewed the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation. Staff did not see any compatibility issues.He reviewed the standards and concluded that staff recommended approval of the application and the proposal was in conformance with all applicable plans and policy documents. Three letters of support were received. Staff suggested four(4) conditions. Chairman Ryan suggested another condition that would require an annual compliance review due to complaints by the neighbors. Ms. Oliver suggested that in January every year following approval of the special use permit that there is an administrative review of the compliance in the way of a report. Commissioner McQueeney believed that the condition was excessive. She was impressed with the efforts been made by the applicant to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. A review was reasonable but wondered if every year was really necessary. Mr. Hanagan stated that that the review could be done the first.year and that any violation of the provisions was a reason for revocation of the special use permit. Chairman Ryan opened public comment. Ron Marmon spoke. He had lived in the Moser Subdivision for 30 years. Many of his neighbors had home business.The properties were resource properties and had a use by right. The Dumolt's made no more noise than any other property owners. Their business had provided a great service to the community and Eagle County. He and his wife supported the request. Chairman Ryan closed public comment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry complimented staff and the applicant for their thorough presentation. She believed the applicant met the requirements for a home business and the ADU requirements had been met. The standards had been met and the conditions took care of any lingering concerns. Commissioner McQueeney appreciated the applicant for going through the process to come into conformance. Chairman Ryan promoted living in harmony with the neighbors. It sounded like most of the issues came from the Dumolt's recreation activities and not the business. Commissioner Chandler Henry moved to approve File No. ZS-6506 with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that that, as conditioned, the proposed use fully complies with all the standards for special use permit. 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 conduct of business shall comply with all applicable Commercial Performance Standards outlined in sections 4-500 through 4-560. 3. This Special Use Permit shall be valid until such time that the parcel and metal fabrication business is no longer owned by the applicant or his family. 20 01/24/2017 4. All business related activities shall take place between the hours of 8 am–5:30 pm Monday through Friday. 5. Added the condition–Review in one years'time. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further busine•.,, ,i t,ard,the meeting was adj ourn-d unti . .ry 31,2017. Attest. r_/ — LTQ: -.1/ .✓ lei 'to the Board Ch.'tan / 21 01/24/2017