Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/04/2023 PUBLIC HEARING April 1, 2023 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Pro-Tern Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Jill Klosterman Chief Financial Officer Matt Peterson Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Kathy Chandler-Henry Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Constituent Input Chairman Pro-Tem Scherr opened and closed constituent input, as there was none. Commissioner Updates Commissioner McQueeney spoke about a meeting with the early childhood local coordinating organization, Early Childhood Partners,in Eagle County School District. They put on a"Month of the Young Child"event to celebrate early childhood. Everyone with a child who is four years old was eligible for up to 15 hours of free preschool. The event promoted registration for the program and highlighted the other resources available to kids and families in the community. Dr. Lisa Roy,Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood talked about the efforts of the Early Childhood Department and all that was happening at the state level. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr mentioned a big event in Vail put on by the Vail Valley Foundation for Mikaela Shiffrin. It was an inspiring event. He thanked the other municipalities and organizations that gave gifts to Ms. Shiffrin. The county gave her a framed picture of an old photo of school children standing in front of a one room schoolhouse with their skis in Beaver Creek and a custom made rodeo belt buckle commemorating her victories. County Manager Updates Jill Klosterman commented on the Mikaela Shiffrin event and believed it was incredible to see all the young folks who got involved in the event. Consent Agenda 1. Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the Northstar Center Planned Unit Development Taylor Ryan,Engineering Department 1 04/04/2023 2. Approval of the Minutes for the Board of County Commissioner Meetings for February 21,February 28, March 14, and March 21,2023 Kathy Scriver, Clerk&Recorder's Office Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda for April 4, 2023 as presented. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners,the vote was unanimous. Business Item(s) 1. Resolution 2023-018 Concerning an Appointment to the Eagle Valley Library District Board of Trustees-Erin Allen Executive Summary: This resolution is appointing Erin Allen to the EVLD board of trustees to fulfill Ruth Power's vacant term. Tegan Davis, Director of the Eagle Valley Library District, recommended Erin Allen for the position of EVLD board of trustee. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Resolution Concerning an Appointment to the Eagle Valley Library District Board of Trustees -Erin Allen. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners,the vote was unanimous. Commissioner McQueeney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority. Chairman Pro-Tem Scherr seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was unanimous. Eagle County Housing and Development Authority 1. Purchase and Sale Agreement- Haymeadow Phase 1 Tori Franks,Resiliency-Housing Executive Summary: The purchase and sale agreement describes the terms of the ECHDA's purchase of 43 2 bed 2 bath condo units from 7 Hermits LLC, at phase 1 of the Haymeadow development. Ms. Franks presented the details of the purchase and sale agreement. The Haymeadow was a 660 acre conservation oriented development approved and entitled by the Town of Eagle. They expected to have 837 total units at full build out. Haymeadow Phase 1 included 76 condo units spread over 7 buildings. The ECHDA proposal was to purchase 43 of the 58 two bedroom units and 21 garages. The purchase price for each of the units was $600,000 plus $30,000 for each garage. The Housing Authority would sell them to eligible households with a price-capped deed restriction. The total value of the purchase was $26,430,000,but the estimated total subsidy from the Housing Authority was $6,880,000. Closing would occur building by building when the units reached "Substantial Completion." Ground-breaking was expected in April 2023. The first units were expected to be ready for occupancy in 12-14 months from the start of construction. 2 04/04/2023 Commissioner McQueeney asked about the system for getting names on the list to purchase units. Matt Andrews,Housing Outreach Coordinator, stated that they were already collecting interest via their website through a form. Chairman Pro-Tem Sherr believed it was important to have a strategy to reach the Latino community. Mr. Andrews stated that they were reaching out to the Latino community through La Nueva Mix and newsletters. Chairman Pro-Tem asked about the process and/or objectives for particular demographics. Ms. Franks stated that they hoped to get through the contract, fund the earnest money, see the ground break, and quickly move into the sales process. Commissioner McQueeney appreciated the work done by the team to ensure the public's money was protected. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement-Haymeadow Phase 1. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner McQueeney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and reconvene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-Tern seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was unanimous. Work Session - Eagle County Room 1. Eagle County Short Term Rental Analysis Work Session Jill Klosterman,Admin/Finance Executive Summary: EPS will present options to assist in structuring policies and programs related to short term rentals.Next steps in the process, including public outreach,will be discussed. Planning Files - Mt Sopris Room, El Jebel 1. FK Holdings ZS-0092669-2022 Vince Hooper, Community Development Executive Summary: The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an application for converting an existing single-family dwelling to an Accessory Dwelling Unit so that a new single-family dwelling unit can be constructed on the same parcel. Vince Hooper,Eagle County staff planner,presented a brief introduction, and noted that throughout the process, staff had received no public comments for the application. He turned it over to the applicant for their presentation. He noted that Nicole Mosby,Eagle County staff engineer,was present virtually. Dana Ellis with Outpost Studio presented the applicant's request. The applicant was requesting a special use permit which was a use-by-right within the Resource Zone District. There was an existing home on the property approximately 2157 sq. ft. The applicant wished to convert the existing home into an ADU. This would require some interior reconfiguration to achieve a maximum ADU size of 1800 square feet. The owner would use the 3 04/04/2023 subgrade/basement area for storage since the area could never be used as living space. The long term intention was to construct a single family home on the property. Adam Miller, applicant/owner,provided some background on himself.He owned a bike business in Carbondale and felt fortunate that his business had grown over the years. He had 33 full time employees and was actively looking to hire more. He wanted to build a new home for himself and use the ADU for affordable employee housing for his staff. Ms. Ellis stated that she understood that one of the commissioners was not in attendance today but was confident that their application was fairly straightforward. Mr. Hooper noted that the ADU was a permitted use for lots that were in conformance;however with lots that were non-conforming lot size,they required a special use permit. The parcel was 6.88 acres,which was less than the minimum lot size,making it an nonconforming lot. The dwelling unit size on record was under 1300 sq. ft. The applicant's house size was about 2100 sq. feet. The limitation was 1800 sq. ft. for an ADU in this zone district. The floor area could be achieved by blocking off the downstairs basement, as the applicant had proposed. There was a highway access permit for the parcel and driveway improvements were underway. He reviewed some of the referral agency comments. The Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority suggested some improvements to the driveway and recommended a water storage tank for fire suppression. He reviewed the standards of approval and indicated the application was in conformance with all the standards with seven(7)conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval and no public comment had been received. Chairman Pro-Tem Scherr opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner McQueeney stated that she didn't see any areas to disagree and found that the application met the standards with conditions. Chairman Pro-Tem had nothing to add. He believed that there had been a significant amount of work done on the file. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the file no. FK Holdings ZS 0092669-2022 incorporating staff's findings and recommended conditions,because the application, as conditioned,met the standards for approval of a Special Use Permit. Chairman Pro-Tern seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was unanimous. 2. CRMPI-ZS-9170-2021 Special Use Permit Trent Hyatt, Community Development Executive Summary: Special Use Permit for a resort recreational facility, one home business, one home occupation, an accessory dwelling unit, and detached structures("Application") submitted by Maya Ward-Karet ("Representative")on behalf of Jerome Osentowski("Applicant"and"Owner"). Matt Peterson,Assistant Eagle County Attorney, confirmed that because there were two county commissioners present,there was a quorum. However,he noted for the record that a Special Use Permit application required a majority vote. If the commissioners were to reach a vote today and the vote were to be one to one,that would constitute a denial of the file. He asked the applicant if they were comfortable moving forward. Maya Ward-Karet,representative for the applicant, stated that they were comfortable moving forward. The current issue with access to the property affected other members of the community and they wanted the opportunity for public comment. At any point the commissioners felt it was inappropriate to continue without a third commissioner,they were happy to table the file. Trent Hyatt,Eagle County Staff Planner,reviewed the history of the Special Use Permit process. During the January 10,2023 hearing, staff informed the board that the applicant had not provided adequate evidence of legal access through 1500 Cedar Drive which was a privately owned property. The applicant had submitted additional information including deeds,Bureau of Land Management General Land Office maps,and other 4 04/04/2023 documents and asserted that the documents demonstrated evidence of legal access. He noted that Julie Pranger, Eagle County Staff Engineer as well as Kelly Miller, Eagle County Surveyor,were both available online. Julie Pranger stated that the new information obtained by the applicant unfortunately showed that there was very likely an additional segment of Cedar Drive that did not have appropriate access easements in place through the Colorado Parks Wildlife (CPW)property. As of now, staff did not feel as though they had received information that would allow them to make a positive finding that legal access existed to the property. There had been discussion between staff and the applicant with regards to a deed. However,they hadn't reached an understanding as to how far the access easement went or who it was for. The access component was important as it related to two standards of approval,Impact on Public Facilities and Site Development Standards. Even with the additional information provided by the applicant, staff was not able to conclude that there was legal access to the property. Mr. Hyatt reviewed the applicable standards from the land use regulations and indicated that the application failed to meet many of the standards. Staff recommended denial of the application. The board had the option of approval, approval with conditions,denial, or a continuance to a future date. Staff provided some motions as well as the previously discussed conditions. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr requested that the applicant focus on the key items when presenting. Ms. Ward-Karet reviewed the proposed conditions and indicated that the applicant supported the conditions. In addition to the conditions proposed by staff,the applicant wished to add two more conditions. First, Condition#18 which read that the applicant and any future owners of the subject property shall abide by all elements of the CRMPI operations plan and Condition#19 which was a general condition stating that the applicant would adhere to the conditions of approval. The applicant believed the applicant's proposed conditions would address any concerns about approving the file in continuity rather than applied solely to Jerome Osentowsk himself. They updated the operations plan to include all the major points that had been discussed at various points throughout the public hearings. The applicant submitted two packets of information, one from Sopris Engineering and one from Knowlton Law,both of which addressed the legal access issue to the property. Sopris Engineering's argument relied on a 1929 General Land Office(GLO) Survey. The road was a public road in 1929 and had never been abandoned. The portion of the DOW property not covered by a written easement was covered by the fact that it was a public road recorded in 1929 and has continued to be a public road. She pointed out that should the commissioners decide that the evidence presented was not adequate or should the board disagree with the evidence the applicant proposed, an additional condition of approval(#20),which would allow approval of the file today with the understanding that the approval would not go into effect until the access issue was resolved. They expected it could take a year or more to rectify the issue through the granting of easements or a judge ruling. The applicant had already spent a lot of money to get to this point,and at this point,the decision the board made today could affect everyone else in the neighborhood. Should it be determined that additional documentation is required, they planed to work with the Road Association and other members of the neighborhood to pursue legal action to get an easement recorded specifically for the two portions of road. If the board did not feel comfortable approving the application with conditions,they would request a continuation for another three months. Kelly Miller, Eagle County Surveyor, stated that the deeds that were provided by the applicant did not state who the easement was for. Jamie Knowlton,representing the applicant, stated that they presented two arguments and the basis of his findings was the Sharp to Sharp easement provided the easement across Tract 44 which was also referenced in the Lightfoot deed. He understood that this was not acceptable to the county attorney, and in order to move forward, they would have to go through the court with the help of all the property owners of Upper Cedar Drive. They made their best effort to find legal access. He believed it was a neighborhood issue at this point and they would work to resolve the matter,but it could take time. Mr. Peterson believed Mr. Knowlton was referencing the Sharp Sharp deed and believed it was ambiguous as to whether it benefited the applicant's property or not. The applicant had raised two arguments as to why access existed. He referred to case law that addressed RS 2477 roads and stated that the applicant would have to bear the burden of proof and establish that a road was public. The courts had repeatedly affirmed that the decision of whether a road is public or not fell within the discretion of district courts. He did not believe the BoCC had the authority to declare a road to be public without a court order or additional information related to a record easement. 5 04/04/2023 Staff reviewed the Sharp Sharp deed and concluded that it was a location that benefited the applicant's property. He cautioned the board in making a determination without clear evidence. Ms. Ward-Karet understood the board's limitations which was why they were proposing condition#20. They believed it was an appropriate compromise to allow the file to be closed out while the item was reviewed. Commissioner McQueeney stated that she was not comfortable with the condition. Mr. Peterson stated that he understood the sentiment of the condition and appreciated the efforts to resolve access. Unfortunately,there was a Colorado case almost directly on point where a similar issue arose, and parties were concerned about access; it ended poorly. He believed he could not advise the board to impose the proposed condition#20. Chairman Pro-Tem Scherr stated that since there had been some change,he would re-open public comment but limit it strictly to the access topic. Jimmy Hunter believed Mr. Osentowski had access to his property, and had the ability to run his farm. It was the commercial operation and all the traffic that went along with it that he objected to. Janet Lightfoot stated that when Sopris Engineering was hired to do the variance application,the Cedar Drive Road Association did not pay for it. Eagle County staff engineer communicated with Sopris Engineering with regards to a variance application by a neighbor. Her thought was that Sopris Engineering was pressured into completing their work and never followed up with her with regards to the prescriptive easement. She believed there were some gray areas. John Katzenberger spoke. In 1979 he was the first person to buy into the subdivision. When he bought the property,he had to establish access and proof of water to receive a building permit. What the board was deciding on Mr. Osentowski's application would affect all the rural roads that might have prescriptive easements. He believed there were some important legal issues that needed to be addressed. Ginger Janssen spoke. She sat on the Road Association Board and expressed concern from a lot of the neighbors who were looking towards building in the future. She was surprised that this issue was being brought up now. Chairman Pro-Tem Scherr closed public comment. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that there had been subdivisions approved using this access road as well as special use permits and new building permits approved, all having relied on the same documentation that they had provided. It was unclear to the applicant why the standard of interpretation for legal access had been raised for this application where it was never considered a concern previously. She pointed out that Ms.Lightfoot's statements made it clear that it was known when the VIS 4422 was applied for and approved that there could be concerns over this portion of the road. The fact that this did not come and was not reviewed further indicated that the road did provide legal access to the lots in the area per the standards previously applied through all other applications in the area. If the board was not able to come to a conclusion today in favor of Mr. Osentowski's application because of this legal issue,they requested that the board table the application rather than voting to deny. Mr. Peterson stated that the board would be deciding whether the applicant had access on Upper Cedar Drive for his parcel. The decision would not impact other properties or be a blanket moratorium on development beyond the subject property. He noted that when the county reviewed building permits they were not looking at access,they were simply looking at life safety issues for uses that were not generating additional traffic. Any other traffic generating uses would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. The county was obligated to analyze each new use based on the information provided. The county had not indicated that it would not honor prior approvals such as the VIS 4422 that was issued,the subdivision exemptions that were issued,or any building permit previously pulled. It was unknown as to what easements were in place. It was unknown what easements currently existed. All were factual issues that a court would have to determine. Commissioner McQueeney asked Mr. Peterson to define prescriptive easement. Mr. Peterson stated that a prescriptive easement happened when someone used access for an uninterrupted amount of time without permission. However,a prescriptive easement did not exist until a court said a prescriptive easement existed 6 04/04/2023 Ms. Ward-Karet stated that the applicant would like to request a continuance for the maximum allowable time so that the community could ban together and take this to court. She believed the process could take a year or more. Mr. Peterson stated that any party to a hearing may request a continuance,however,the continuance may only be granted at the discretion of the body conducting the public hea rig for good cause. Chairman Pro-Tem Scherr wondered if there was a clear path to a resolution. Mr. Peterson stated that given the number of properties in the area, it could be a one to two year process. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr believed it was unreasonable to table the file every 90 days. Mr. Peterson stated that there would have to be new information generated in those 90 days to continue the file. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr stated that he was not inclined to table the file. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that it took three months for them to get to this understanding of where the road access currently stood. They had two meetings with staff and filed three packets of information. They now had a clear understanding of where the issues were. They were still discovering information and there was a clear path forward. Mr. Knowlton believed that denying Mr. Osentowski's application because of lack of legal access could impact all the landowners. A tabling of 90 days would allow the applicant to figure out a process. Chairman Pro-Tem Scherr believed the flow of information had been unconventional. Whatever decision that the board made today would not create any legal determination about the access. Commissioner McQueeney stated that the legal access was brought up during public comments. Once it was brought up, staff needed to dig into the issue. The board had a set of standards that they were obligated to evaluate, one was having legal access to the property. She hoped the applicant had taken the last 90 days to determine access. She did not see a good cause for continuing the file. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr moved to deny the applicant's request to continue the file to a later date for a finding of lack of good cause based on the record of previous deliberations. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners,the vote was unanimous. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that the applicant understood the situation and asked that the board continue with their deliberations. Mr. Hyatt provided the prepared motions as well as some of the criteria. Commissioner McQueeney spoke about the issues not in compliance with the standards, one being the access. She could not find that it met the standard. It was clear that there was a disagreement about whether the legal access had been determined. Chairman Pro-Tern Scherr believed that staff had worked very hard to figure this out. The work being done by Jerome Osentowski was remarkable. He was disappointed to get to a place where legal access had not been demonstrated. Therefore,the application did not meet the standard for impact on public facilities or site development standards. Commissioner McQueeney was disappointed that everyone was not able to work things out. Commissioner McQueeney moved to deny file no. ZS 009170-2021 incorporating staffs findings because this application does not meet all the standards for approval of a special use permit. Chairman Pro-Tern seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. 7 04/04/2023 of EAGLE % There bein no further busine .= - : ard,the meeting was adjourned until April 11,2022. oloRA00 /-7 f�/, Attest. ( ,'�[.C,44.' Clerk to the Board Chairman 8 04/04/2023