Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/14/2000 PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 14,2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher Renee Black Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Deputy County Attorney County Administrator 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 Stone stated the first item on the agenda was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of August 14,2000, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of July 31, 2000 C) Change Order Number 1 to the 2000 Guardrail Contract D) Resolution 2000-116 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit Number 361 for MRLD, LLC, Millers Creek, for $634,015.80, issued by Weststar Bank, to expire August 18,2000 E) Eagle County Ambulance Permits. Chairman Stone asked they handle item B separately as he was not in attendance at that meeting. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to item E and asked for the signed contracts Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services, stated she has the signed copies. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar withdrawing item B, County Commissioner meeting minutes, to be addressed separately. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips stated she had corrections to the minutes, the word "aireal" is misspelled on page 9 and on page 14 the I Oth sentence from the top. On page 21, condition 31 should be corrected to "read by the applicant". Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the minutes of the July 31, 2000 with the changes as listed. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. Commissioners Phillips and Gallagher voting aye, Chairman Stone abstained. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2000-118 To Approve A Special Use Permit For The Bones Residence (File No. ZS-00059). Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-118, approving a special use permit for the Bones Residence, file number Z8-00059. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. Commissioners Phillips and Gallagher voting 1 08-14-2000 aye and Chairman Stone abstained. Resolution 2000-117 To Approve The Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan For Colorado River Ranch Planned Unit Development (File No. PDS-00019). Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-117, approving the PUD Sketch Plan for Colorado River Ranch PUD, file number PDS-00019. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. Commissioners Phillips and Gallagher voted aye, Chairman Stone abstained. Resolution For Mountain Glen Affordable Housing and Ordinance, Banning Open Fires Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, presented the next item on the agenda, Mountain Glen Affordable Housing, adoption of the Bond Resolution and matters associated with this project. She stated both items A and B have been rescheduled to August 21, 2000. Chairman Stone stated in that case the Board chooses not to open items 5. A. and 5.B. He read those as being A, Mountain Glen Affordable Housing, adoption of the Bond Resolution and matters associated with this project and B, Mountain Glen Affordable Housing, adoption of the Bond Resolution. AFP-00092, Beaver Creek Subdivision, First Amendment, 5th Filing, Lot 3, Block 4, Tract H Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number AFP-00092, Beaver Creek Subdivision, First Amendment, 5th Piling, Lot 3, Block 4, Tract H. She stated the intent of this plat is to reconfigure the building envelope for Lot 3 in order to allow for a more suitable location and building shape. Ms. Skinner stated staff findings are as stated on staff report as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-90.G.2. Standards for Amended Final Plat: Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment does not have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. a) Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. b) Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Pinal Plat has determined that the proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. c) Improvement Agreement. Proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements agreement are adequate. d) Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. Does Not Apply Chairman Stone asked for public input. There was none. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. AFP-00092, Beaver Creek Subdivision, Pirst Amendment to the Fifth Piling, Lot 3, Block 4, Tract H, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00058, V oiceStream, PCS Jena Skinner presented file number ZS-00058, V oiceStream, PCS. She stated at the initial hearing of this file and File No. LEA-00026 on May 8, 2000, Applicant requested and was granted a tabling to July 20 in order to finalize its access agreement with the State Wildlife Commission. Same was secured on July 14,2000. She showed a map of the area being one mile from Basalt. Ms. Skinner referred to design plans of the tower. In 1979 the site was transferred from the State 2 08-14- 2000 of Colorado to Colorado Ute Electric Association for use as a communications facilities site. In 1992, the site was transferred again to Public Service Company of Colorado and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. In 1994 Cellular One placed cellular antennas and equipment on site. Ms. Skinner stated the applicant desires to construct and maintain a low powered telecommunications facility to be co-located on the existing one acre Public Service site tower which will be a maximum of9 panel antennas, grouped in three groups of 3, and affixed to the existing lattice tower right below the top. Dimensions will not exceed 60" by 12". A maximum of two microwave dishes will be affixed to a pole below its top. The microwave dishes will not exceed 4' in diameter. Ground coverage of the Base Transmission Station, to be installed according to the site plan, will not exceed 400 square feet in area or 7' in height. At its hearing of July 20,2000, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission approved without conditions Location and Extent File No. LEA-00026; the Board of County Commissioners is not required to take further action on this file. With little discussion the Planning Commission likewise approved with conditions File No. ZS-00058, altering the May 8 recommend staff Conditions to reflect: (1) Applicant's clarification of the conflict between application text and site plan relative to an easement; and (2) approval of Applicant's "Consent to Sublet Right-of-Way" access agreement by the State Wildlife Commission. On July 14 Applicant received access approval from the State Wildlife Commission, subject to execution ofthe "Consent to Sublet Right-of-Way" document by the Division of Wildlife and its subsequent approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Eagle County Attorney is ofthe opinion that approval of the State Wildlife Commission is sufficient evidence of access. Recommend Condition 2 has been rewritten to reflect this approval. Applicant has clarified that the discrepancy between the application text statement that no new easements are being created and the site plan showing an easement from its equipment to the existing utility pole as follows: Applicant is creating no new access easement; however, it is creating the site plan easement shown in order to lay underground utilities from its equipment site to the pole. Creating the easement serves as notice to other potential users of the site that there are buried lines along that portion of it. Staff and the Planning Commission agree that original recommended Condition 1 can be deleted. Ms. Skinner stated staff findings are shown on staff report as follows: FINDINGS: Special Use Permit findings are not revised from Staff Report dated May 8, 2000. They are repeated below for ease of reference. 1. Pursuant to the requirements of ~ 30-28-110 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission HAS previously approved a Location and Extent application (File No. LEA-00026) for this Special Use Permit. 2. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: Section 5-250.B.l Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies ofthe Master Plan and the FLUM ofthe Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. Section 5-250.B.l Finding [+] Consistent with Master Plan. Given the minimal impact of this proposal, the proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location which is deed restricted to communications facilities, and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies ofthe Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the 3 08-14- 2000 character of surrounding land uses. Section 5-250.B.2 Findinl: [+] Compatibility. Given its remote location and minimal impact, the proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards ofthe 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. Section 5-250.B.3 Findines: [+] Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards ofthe Resource zone district in which it is located. There are no standards applicable to the particular use identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses. Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. 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. Section 5-250.B.4 Findine [+] [+] [+] Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. Given its remote location and minimal impact, the design of the proposed Special Use_as conditioned DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact ofthe proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, through collocation the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and DOES NOT create a nuisance. Section 5-250.B.5 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Findines [+] [+] Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. Given collocation and limited access, the proposed Special Use MINIMIZES environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Section 5-250.B.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. Section 5-250.B.6 Findine [+] Impact on Public Facilities. By virtue of approval of the "Consent to Sublet Right-of-Way" approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commissioners, the proposed Special Use IS adequately served by appropriate public facilities and services, including roads. Section 5-250.B. 7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Section 5-250.B.7 Findings [+] Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Section 5-250.B.8 Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable 4 08-14-2000 provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Section 5-250.B.8 Findings [+] Other Provisions. This Special Use complies with the requirements of the State of Colorado and Eagle County for approval of its Location and Extent. Present for the Hearing was Kerry Rousso, on behalf of V oiceStream. She stated they have an obligation to provide service to the residents and visitors in Eagle County. This is one of many sites and is preferred as it is owned by Public Service and is an existing tower. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions as presented by staff. Ms. Rousso stated they are fine with all the conditions. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve file number ZS- 00058, V oiceStream PCS, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. Access. Prior to commencing any construction on the site, Applicant shall submit to the Eagle County Department of Community Development a copy of the fully executed "Consent To Sublet Right- of-Way" approved by the Wildlife Commission on July 14,2000. Although approved by the Commission, as of the date of this public hearing same remains to be signed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver Office, and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. Revegetation. Following completion of construction/installation activities, all disturbed areas, if any, shall be immediately re-seeded with a seed mix approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife 3. Permits required. Applicant shall make application for, and receive, all appropriate permits (building, electrical etc.) from Eagle County prior to the commencement of any construction activity on the site. 4. Camouflage. All equipment, including antennae, dishes, boxes, etc., shall be painted or otherwise colored to blend with the surrounding landscape. 5. Lighting. There shall be no lighting of the proposed additions to the site. 6. Expansion restriction. No additional communication equipment (antennas, dishes, boxes, etc.) shall be added to Applicant's improvements except through a new Special Use Permit. 7. Article 4 Standards. V oiceStream shall, at all times, operate at or below the decibel levels established in Section 4-520 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and restrictions with respect to electromagnetic frequency and radiation, as each may be amended from time to time. 8. Material Representation. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in its submittal and in public hearing shall be binding. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. G-00011, Vacation of Portion of Brett Trail, Brett Ranch PUD John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number G-OOO 11, Vacation of a portion of Brett Trail South Right-of-Way in Brett Ranch PUD. He stated he did not see the applicant here and there are items that had been changed or added to staff report. The Board moved to the next file. VIS-00I0, Willits Family Homestead, Variance John Vengrin presented file number VIS-00I0, Willits Family Homestead, Variance from Improvements Standards. He stated per Section 5-260.G: Variance from Improvement Standards, The 5 08-14-2000 Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides on variances from the improvements standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated Mr. Vengrin stated this is a petition for a Variance Permit from those requirements of Section 4- 620 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations ("LUR") as noted in the attached Exhibit "A" which was submitted by the applicant. These variances will be within the area known as the Willits Family Homestead. The Willits are currently applying for a Zone Change and a Sketch Plan approval for the Willits Family Homestead. During review ofthe Sketch Plan application, they became aware ofthe extensive nature of the Road Standard requirements. They wish to vary from these standards in order to be more compatible with community values in the immediate area and to lessen hardships associated with strict compliance with the standards. In Exhibit "A", the applicant has identified Lane Surface Type, Shoulder Type, and Paths as the parts of the Suburban Residential Road Standard in Table 4-620. J of the LUR from which they want to vary. In previous applications for variances from the road standards, the Eagle County Attorney's Office has requested that the application be very specific concerning the section of the Land Use Regulations for which a variance is requested, the location of the variance, and the reason for the varIance. The applicant has provided information in Exhibit "A" that is as specific as it can be at a Sketch Plan level. Normally, variances are considered at Preliminary Plan, when more detailed drawings are available. The applicant prefers a decision on the variances at Sketch Plan, before expending the considerable effort required at Preliminary Plan. Additionally, Section 5-260.G allows applicants to "...consolidate said application with any other application the applicant is submitting." Should the Board of County Commissioners decide to approve the request for variance, Exhibit "A" will be incorporated into the Resolution. Mr. Vengrin explained the exceptions they would like to see made. The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610.A.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "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." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards... ." For the purpose of my evaluation, I interpreted the standards in the LUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values", since the LUR were adopted after extensive work and comment by the community. The Board of County Commissioners' responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260.G.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "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. Hardship is not defined in the LUR. However, the definition of hardship in Webster's Dictionary implies that hardship is derived from some sort of privation or deprivation. The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the applicant will be deprived of some or all of their right to use the land if the LUR is strictly followed. Jena Willits, applicant, was present for the hearing. Chairman Stone spoke to one of the findings the Board has to make is to demonstrate hardship. He read from the regulations and asked for an explanation of what the hardship will be. Ms. Willits stated the planner sent a letter that explained all the issues of hardship. She reviewed the letter to identify the points made. She read from "Exhibit A" and the number oftrips per day. She stated it is passed on 750 trips a day. For the subdivision they will see about ten per day. They show it as 38.2. She explained there will not be a huge amount of traffic. Chairman Stone spoke to a letter dated July 17 and the heading Justification for this Variance 6 08-14-2000 Request. He asked Ms. Willits to read paragraphs 4 and 5 helping to identify those issues of hardship. Ms. Willits explained they have owned the property since the 1800's and they planted some lovely apple and plum trees. They would have to remove some very special trees if they have to enlarge the road. She stated they are doing all they can to go around the trees but there are quite a few of them. Commissioner Gallagher asked ifthis road only serves this four lot subdivision? Mr. Vengrin stated it will only serve this subdivision. He stated it is essentially a straight road and they are going to reserve the right of way for a full build out if necessary. It is an old homestead and would destroy the character. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Vengrin to read staff findings. Mr. Vengrin stated staff findings are found in the staff report and are as follows: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G of the LUR. 2. The petition has been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. The road design proposed by the petitioner will provide a road design that is equally durable and equally safe to the Suburban Residential Road designation standards but would be considerably less expensive, use less land, and blend in better with the community standards in the area. 4. The applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence to the Suburban Residential Road Functional Classifications for the private access road in the Willits Family Homestead. The hardships in the application include a) loss of mature vegetation with resulting loss of quality and value of the property, and b) diminished rural character of the property. 5. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variances exceed any currently perceived adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, or adverse impacts to the affected lands. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Variance Permit from the strict interpretation of the Road Improvements Standards in Section 4-620 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as noted in the attached Exhibit "A". These variances will be within the area known as the Willits Family Homestead. Staff also recommends the following condition: 1) These variances for the Willits Family Homestead, as shown in Exhibit "A", are valid only for a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat which will conform with the Sketch Plan submitted and approved with File SUS-00007. He explained they are doing this so the variance is attached to this owner. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number VIS-0010, Willits Family Homestead, Variance from Improvement Standards, incorporating staff findings. The applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence to the Suburban Residential Road Functional Classifications for the private access road in the Willits Family Homestead. The hardships in the application include a) loss of mature vegetation with resulting loss of quality and value of the property, and b) diminished rural character of the property. That the applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variances exceed any currently perceived adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, or adverse impacts to the affected lands and with the following condition: 1) These variances for the Willits Family Homestead, as shown in Exhibit "A", are valid only for a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat which will conform with the Sketch Plan submitted and approved with File SUS-00007. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. G-00011, Vacation of Portion of Brett Trail, Brett Ranch PUD John Vengrin stated on July 5, 2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended 7 08-14-2000 approval to the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners of this petition for vacation of a portion of the Brett Trail South Right-of-Way in the Brett Ranch PUD as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" with the following condition: 1) The legal description and exhibit should be corrected as requested by Richard E. Borden, PLS of Starbuck Surveyors & Engineers in his letter dated May 31, 2000. Subsequent to the Planning Commission Meeting, a letter from Michael Helmer, P.L.S. dated July 11,2000 was received. This letter, which is attached to this Staff Report, addresses the corrections to the legal description and exhibit as requested by Mr. Borden. Mr. Vengrin stated this is a petition for the vacation of a portion of the public road known as Brett Trail South on Planning Area "D" of the Brett Trail PUD. Under the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, this road is considered to be public and is therefore subject to the requirements of Section 5-2200 Public Way and Easement Vacations. The Applicant wants to vacate the portion of this road as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" so they can combine it with Lot 10. He referred to the location map located on page 9 of the packet. He stated that is a fair depiction of what they are trying to do. Since the Planning Commission meeting they have done some additional research. He spoke to the State law which says the property has to be split down the middle. He stated Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, and the applicant have been involved in the discussions. In view of what the applicant is trying to achieve and because they have an agreement, they should allow this to be vacated as one piece and then file an amended final plat showing full ownership by the developer. He stated tract I will be incorporated into lot 10. He apologized for introducing new information. Commissioner Gallagher asked if a future owner can seed any right to the property, why can't the current owner. Charlie Davis, applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Gallagher rephrased the question. Mr. Davis stated the application started when they owned both lots. They included it in the contract and understood they had no right to the land. He stated that was on the deed as well. Mike Mutter, Executive Vice President at Cordillera, stated this is an old subdivision plat that showed an access point that drops about 150 feet down into the trailer park. He stated it is not a feasible/physical access. It allows lot 10 to have a more feasible access point for a driveway. What basically will happen is one document takes care of defining all of this in the amended final plat. He apologized for being late. Mr. Vengrin stated the referral responses are as follows and found on staff report: Eagle County Surveyor: The Eagle County Surveyor's referral was made to Starbuck Surveyors & Engineers. Richard E. Borden, PLS responded with a letter dated May 31, 2000, which is attached to this report. The following findings are found on staffs report: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a Vacation of a portion of Brett Trail South in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-2200. 2. Proper Public Notification for the petition has been issued in conformance with Section 5- 2200.C.4.a and the petition is ready for consideration by the Eagle County Planning Commission. 3. The petition has demonstrated the vacation request to be in the general interest ofthe public's health, safety, and welfare, not to be in violation oflaw, and to be in compliance with the Land Use Regulations, and the Master Plan. On July 5,2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval to the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners of this petition for vacation of a portion of the Brett Trail South Right-of-Way in the Brett Ranch PUD as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" with the following condition: 8 08-14-2000 1) The legal description and exhibit should be corrected as requested by Richard E. Borden, PLS of Starbuck Surveyors & Engineers in his letter dated May 31, 2000. Subsequent to the Planning Commission Meeting, a letter from Michael Helmer, P.L.S. dated July 11,2000 was received. This letter, which is attached to this Staff Report, addresses the corrections to the legal description and exhibit as requested by Mr. Borden. Mr. Vengrin stated they must assure that it complies with State law. He believes it complies to intent of the law, but perhaps not the letter of the law. Chairman Stone stated if there could possible be some property that is land locked. Mr. Vengrin stated if they absorb tract I into Lot 10, no. Mr. Mutter showed that on a map. Chairman Stone asked the record show that tract I which is a smaller piece of property be absorbed into lot 10. Ms. Black spoke to the intent of the law. Commissioner Gallagher suggest they should just vacate it Ms. Black stated by making it a condition of the motion it assures compliance with the law. Mr. Vengrin stated he believes it is important to state that there is no intent for this to be SO/SO. He stated tract I will be consolidated with lot 10. Chairman Stone asked if this was not the entry feature and compliance with the regulations. Mr. Vengrin stated the Engineering Department spoke with the owners about the head gate. Mr. Mutter stated the County has given them 24 months to make the change or to come before the Board to convince them otherwise. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number G-OOO 11, Vacation of a portion of Brett Trail South Right-of-Way in the Brett Ranch PUD, incorporating staff findings and condition as follows: 1) This vacation complies with State law, amending the final plat shall be done with the right-of- way going to Lot 10 and Tract I being consolidated with Lot 10. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SD-0018, Roaring Fork Open Space, Park & Recreation District, Service Plan Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, presented file number SD-OO 18, Roaring Fork Open Space, Park & Recreation District, Service Plan. He handed out packets that include letters from various owners who are asking for exclusion. He stated the applicant's are proposing a Service Plan for the proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District that will encompass portions of Eagle and Garfield Counties including the Towns of Glenwood Springs, Basalt, and Carbondale. The purpose of the Plan is to allow for the creation of a Special District that will have the authority to finance, purchase, construct, and maintain open space and recreational assets in an area comprised of the boundaries of the Roaring Fork School District (RE-l). In other words, the District will provide a dedicated funding source to implement open space goals and to match non-local grants for open space acquisition and recreation improvements. The general obligation debt of the District shall not exceed ten million dollars ($10,000,000), unless the District receives the prior approval of the Eagle and Garfield Counties and its qualified electors. The District intends to issue an initial series of bonds for acquisition of fee simple land and conservation easements. The mill levy to support debt and operating expenses will not exceed 2.S mills. It is projected that the milllevy will generate approximately $1,000,000 in the first year of District existence. Funding will be distributed as follows: No less than 70% of revenues - for acquisition, preservation, and conservation of lands. Not less than 15% of revenues - develop recreation opportunities. Not more than 15% of revenues - maintenance and administration. Properties in excess of forty (40) acres in size, zoned and used for agricultural purposes, are 9 08-14-2000 to be excluded from the District. Mr. Montag spoke to the referral letters from the Assistant County Attorney and from Terry Lowell. Mr. Montag reviewed staff comments as follows: 1. Any and all functions and facilities associated with the District located in unincorporated Eagle County, must be in conformance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 2. The proposed Plan indicates no less than 70% of revenue will be used for acquisition, preservation and conservation of lands. Does this proposed distribution of funds meet the intent of a statutory "Park and Recreation" District? 3. The applicant needs to address the attached referral comments. Mr. Montag spoke to the letter from Leavenworth and Tester, stating part of the open space district overlaps with Mid-Valley Metro. This would constitute an overlapping district, though Mid- Valley does propose language to the Service Plan. He turned this over to the applicant. Chairman Stone spoke to the procedure for hearing this. He spoke to the letters requested for exclusion and making a decision individually on those exclusions. Charlie Willman, member of the of the Committee introduced himself, Calvin Lee and Robert Schultz. He stated as for Mid-Valley Metropolitan District, they would attach their letter to the Resolution and show them as conditions that need to be met. He spoke to Mr. Montag's comments and stated in the Service Plan they only anticipate purchasing trails. They will of course comply with any regulations. As they purchase lands and develop facilities they will outline those plans. With respect to the question on 70% of the revenue, he believes that meets the statutory intent. He stated the district boundaries encompass all of the RE-l School District except for Pitkin County. They believe there is a need in the Roaring Fork Valley to preserve open space and conservation easements. He stated the need for open space is a must. The survey of County residents indicates a need to preserve open space. They believe only by creating the appropriate district can key wildlife habitat be maintained. They can encourage conservation easements. The existing services are inadequate. There is simply no other open space program which covers this area. The funds are not there to meet these needs. He stated Mid- Valley Metropolitan District may develop some active recreation in the future. He spoke to the Tree Farm and their consent to restrict further applications for recreation services. He spoke to the numbers and they believe the $10,000,000.00 will provide the funds necessary to purchase open space. They may be able to take that money and use it for larger grants which will allow the purchase of conservation easements. They will be able to meet the financing needs of the bonds and the trail management of the District. They can meet their needs in the first few years but the budget is such they can't meet the needs unless the proposal is accepted. Mr. Willman stated they believe the program will help them meet some of the goals of the Master Plan. They believe the Open Space District will meet four of the five needs. He stated the purchases will help preserve the corridors. He stated the various issues that have come up regarding the environment, they believe they can improve those areas in need. He spoke to #4 and the lack of adequate service being provided by the Metropolitan District. He stated they believe anything they build will be compatible as they plan to be in compliance with all Master Plans. He spoke to the water quality and them not being able to make a commitment in that regard. He stated they believe they are meeting the best interest of the area. Mr. Willman handed out requested Amendments to the Service Plan for the Roaring Fork Open Space Park and Recreation District. Chairman Stone spoke to the Districts comments on not meeting the needs. He read from the letter by the District clarifying their not providing recreation needs. Commissioner Phillips asked about the 2.5 mills. Mr. Willman stated they would not oppose the development of an active recreation district. He stated for them to be involved with the Tree Farm, they would have a substantially higher mill levy. 10 08-14-2000 Commissioner Phillips pointed out there would then be three Recreation Districts and questioned the need to form another district to manage recreation. She stated proliferation of districts is an issue. She suggested they should perhaps combine to manage recreation concerns. Mr. Willman stated he would have a difficult time changing the plan. He stated right now there are no recreation services provided. He spoke to the lack of soccer in Glenwood Springs and up valley. He stated Mid-Valley Metropolitan District may want to do this when they develop active recreation. Their desire is simply trails development and acquisition. Commissioner Phillips spoke to those requesting exclusion and asked ifthat will effect the amount of monies that would be gained. Mr. Willman stated they have not looked at what the total impact will be. He stated they believe it is important to keep all the properties in. He stated if they exclude those, they will have to make a decision about proceeding. Chairman Stone asked for any public comment. Lee Leavenworth, Mid-Valley Metropolitan District, stated he did want to explain why the Board felt these conditions were important. He spoke to Mid-Valley Metropolitan District and that they do not engage in active recreation at this time, but they might choose to exercise that right at some later time. He spoke to the desire to have input over properties to be acquired within the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District. He spoke to the bonds and the future and that they should not be in competition with the Mid- Valley District for parcels. He spoke to the necessary lines for the Districts future. Chairman Stone asked what the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District thoughts were on the Sopris Tree Farm. He referred to the overlapping districts. Mr. Leavenworth stated his Board has talked about the recreation powers. He stated it must be defined as to what is active recreation. He suggested they are included in the Tree Farm with water and power. He stated there will be an opportunity to use the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District to help provide funding for the Tree Farm. He stated he personally supports this formation as well. Chairman Stone asked Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, if they have a preliminary report on what has been learned on what the task force had provided. Mr. Ingstad suggested the intent is to create a District. Jody Caruthers, Eagle County Assessor, spoke to the process of taxing this property. Ms. Caruthers stated she wants to be included in the loop when checking and developing boundaries. She stated this District has done this appropriately. She stated when not done properly a property can be split into many pieces. She offered her office's assistance in determining District boundaries. Chairman Stone asked if this District will have condemnation powers. Mr. Willman stated they will not exercise a right as such and have taken it out of the plan. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the Service Plan and asked if they will purchase any open space they will not use for passive recreation. Mr. Willman stated he does not believe he can make that decision. Bob Schultz, representing the proposed District, spoke to their process and that each property will contain a management plan to review the uses for the public. Commissioner Gallagher asked if that procedure is in the Service Plan. Mr. Willman suggested that change will be inevitable and the need to be flexible to the Board. Commissioner Gallagher asked if anything other than trails falls into passive recreation. Mr. Schultz responded picnic tables, boat ramp put-ins, fall into those categories. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the conservation easements. Mr. Willman stated he can see at some point the parks division might take control through Intergovernmental Agreements. Commissioner Gallagher asked about goals. Mr. Willman stated unfortunately $30,000,000.00 won't purchase a tremendous amount of property. They will be looking at people who will sell an easement or a piece of property. 11 08-14-2000 Commissioner Phillips questioned those that sent in letters not being present. She spoke to their primary desire of saving the 2.5 mils, but she can't take them too seriously if they can't be here. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Black for protocol regarding those owners requesting exclusion. Ms. Black stated as there is no one here, she would read off the names of those on the record and allow them to state why they desire the exclusion. Commissioner Phillips stated the burden is on the District. Chairman Stone read the names of those who submitted letters requesting exclusion from the District as follows; Cattus Fly Partners LLC, Frieda K. Wallace, resident of Town of Basalt, Betty J. Terrell, resident of Basalt, Mr & Mrs. Tracy Dillingham, resident of Sopris Village, Frank Liggen, Missouri Heights resident, Don Haug, resident of Missouri Heights and Basalt Trade Associates represented Paul Adams. He asked the Clerk make reference to those. He asked the proponents to identify why they should not be excluded. Mr. Willman stated the desire is not to pay for it. He stated the steering committee believes they are providing to the taxpayers the best product for the least cost. He stated all taxpayers will benefit from the program. The need can only be met through this type of an entity. Their financial plan is based on full participation. He stated it encompasses the area that will be most beneficial and the financial base is there now. The bonding will take 70% of the funds over the next ten years to pay back. Additional money will go to development of trails and the administration of the trails. One of the high costs is the legal costs. There will be a number of questions that will develop. Most of the land will be residential areas or agriculture land that will become residential in the future. To exclude properties without a showing of burden is inappropriate. He stated it is a very low cost to preserve somewhat the quality of life. He asked they deny the exclusions. Chairman Stone asked for further comment. Commissioner Gallagher encouraged them to look at the example of the Youth Conservation Core for help and resources. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the need for education and those asking for exclusion doesn't mean that is going to happen. Chairman Stone asked if they can handle all the exclusions at one time. Ms. Black responded if the reasoning is the same it can be done together. Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space Park & Recreation District for Cattus Fly Partners LLC, Frieda K. Wallace, resident of Town of Basalt, Betty J. Terrell, resident of Basalt, Mr & Mrs. Tracy Dillingham, resident ofSopris Village, Frank Liggen, Missouri Heights resident, Don Haug, resident of Missouri Heights and Basalt Trade Associates represented Paul Adams, in which the District have proven it would not be in the best interest of the District to exclude those. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ms. Black spoke to the issue of Eagle County approving this agreement and then changes being made in Garfield County on the 23rd of this month. Mr. Willman explained and related they are going to Garfield District Court following their approval by Garfield County. Mr. Willman asked they approve the Special District and then table this for a time thereafter to consider any amendments based on Garfield County's determination. Chairman Stone asked if they will need to meet if there are no amendments. Ms. Black stated they could just follow the regular procedure and approve the resolution as it is presented. Mr. Willman stated they would like this to be heard again on the 28th. Chairman Stone suggested this will include the amendments as made today and including items 1 - 6. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the adoption ofthe Roaring Fork Open Space Park and Recreation District including the amendments to the Service Plan and the comments submitted by the 12 08-14-2000 Mid-Valley Metropolitan District, and adopt and execute the Resolution at a meeting on August 28, 2000 at 1 :30 p.m., if there are no additional changes from Garfield County. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Willman spoke to the IGA for the management of the election and considered the cost ofthe election to be shared by the County. He stated he nor his members are in a position to accept the IGA. He stated they will be requesting the Board waive the fees for the formation of this District. He stated they are concerned ifthe District is not formed. They are not a political entity. He stated this proposed District is a benefit to the citizens of Eagle County. Sara Fisher, Eagle County Clerk, explained when a District contracts with the Clerk & Recorder's Office to conduct a co-ordinated election, the Statute makes allowances for the Clerk to recoup some of costs of the election by distributing it to the entities involved. In looking at previous election costs for Districts of this size, it will cost between $3,000 and $5,000. It will very considerably if other entities are involved. It is up to the Board to determine if they exempt the fees for this District. Commissioner Phillips stated she would like to wait to see if this becomes a reality before making the decision for exemption. The Board concurred. ZS-00063, Remonov & Company, Inc. Matt Gennett presented file number ZS-00063, Remonov & Company, Inc. At its hearing of June 7th, 2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission responded positively to the applicant's proposal and considered the following in its recommendation of approval with conditions for file ZS-00063: An important service is provided to the community by providing good, affordable, readily accessible food to the working people of the Edwards area. Staff's comments regarding the adequacy of restroom facilities, handicapped-accessible parking, and landscaping, including enclosure of the portable toilets and trash receptacle, are appropriate. More portable toilets, and ones that contain hand washing facilities, seem necessary. The dump-ster and portable toilets should be shrouded by some form of enclosure to achieve the desired visual aesthetic and address the trash containment issue. Handicapped-accessible parking must be provided as required by law. The other allowed uses on the site, aside from the operation of the taco trucks, should be limited. The carwash should not be allowed because ofthe site's unpaved state and the inevitable runoff/erosion/sedimentation problems that will occur. Staff's finding that an excess of varied retail stands will contribute to a "flea-market" atmosphere is appropriate and the retail vendors should be limited to "arts and crafts". Mr. Gennett stated staff findings are found on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: Section 5-250.B.l Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies ofthe Master Plan and the FLUM ofthe Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. Section 5-250.B.l Finding [+] Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. 13 08-14-2000 The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Section 5-250.B.2 Findinl: [+] AS CONDITIONED Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location, and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Section 5-250.B.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. Section 5-250.B.3 Findines: [+] Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards ofthe zone district in which it is located and the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact ofthe 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. Section 5-250.B.4 Findin~ [+] AS CONDITIONED Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and DOES NOT create a nuisance. Section 5-250.B.5 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Findin~s [+] 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. Section 5-250.B.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. Section 5-250.B.6 Findine [+] AS CONDITIONED Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services. Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Section 5-250.B.7 Findings [+] AS CONDITIONED Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Section 5-250.B.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. 14 08-14-2000 Section 5~250.B.8 Findines [+] 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. Chairman Stone asked if all of the staff findings were positive. Mr. Gennett stated yes they are all positive. Tom Boni, Knight Planning, stated the applicant worked with staff to come up with a plan that works. He stated they agree with all the conditions. Rick Mueller, applicant, stated he purchased the property in 1994 and the taxes were $3,000.00. Now they are $14,000.00. He stated staff did not believe this application would be a problem. He questioned this proposal working out but it has turned out to be a public benefit. He stated people that utilize the area equal 75% of the community which is the working class people. He stated they have done well and do not feel it is a detriment to the community. He stated they meet all the health standards. He stated all they are asking for is to allow the items for community need. Mr. Mueller stated as far as compatibility with the neighborhood, they are pleasing compared to some of the uses in the area. He stated they have asked this to be a permit for two years. K.T. Gazunis, Habitat for Humanity, spoke on behalf of the taco wagons. She stated the food is very good and the service is excellent. Commissioner Gallagher asked about access. Mr. Gennett stated that has been realigned and is now across the street from Stop and Save. Commissioner Phillips moved the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approve file number ZS-00063, Romonov & Company, Inc. with the following conditions: 1) Within thirty (30) days of the resolution approving File No. ZS-00063, the applicant shall have installed two (2) portable toilets that contain hand washing facilities at the location of the existing portable toilet depicted on the site plan. 2) Within thirty days of approval of the Resolution, the Special Use Permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed two (2) years past the date of the resolution approving such permit, and shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department after one year to determine the sufficiency of traffic flow, sanitation, and visual impacts. 3) Within thirty (30) days of resolution approval, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a landscaping plan that includes a fence to enclose the portable toilets and dump-ster. The landscaping plan will include an implementation schedule not to exceed thirty (30) days from the date of the landscaping plan's approval. 4) The following uses will be permitted: three (3) mobile food vendors, Christmas tree sales, pumpkin sales, and "arts and crafts". 5) All operations are limited to the hours between dawn and dusk, with the exception of Christmas tree sales, which shall cease at 9:00pm each day of operation. 6) Except as otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ~~ 15 08-14-2000