Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/20/2000 PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 20, 2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara 1. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner 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 before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of November 20 & 27, 2000 subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for November 30, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator C) Amendment No. One to Agreement regarding the provision of professional services for Eagle County Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Satellite County Facilities D) Grant #2 for Communications Center Dispatchers and staff for FY200l, (revised) E911 E) Resolution 2000-162, authorizing the Eagle County Fair Manager Rusty Williams to enter into Fair Contracts up to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) regarding the Eagle County Fair & Rodeo F) Resolution 2000-163, Final Release of Collateral and termination of Warranty Period for Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 22, Bentgrass, Phase IV G) Contract for State Leaf Grant and Resolution 2000-164 approving the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) Contract #L-21-01 H) Resolution 2000-165, authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle to file a Mortgage Credit Certificate Election in an amount not to exceed $2,895,334.00 with the Internal Revenue Service, in addition to that approved in Resolution number 2000-113, authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County to certify to the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs that Eagle County has implemented a qualified Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, to be administered under the qualified Mortgage Credit Certificate Program implemented pursuant to Resolution number 2000-113, authorizing the execution and delivery of certain related documents and certificates ratifying certain action heretofore taken, and repealing action heretofore taken in conflict herewith. Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated they have no items to be removed from the consent agenda. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1 11-20-2000 Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00260. Bear Paw Lod~e - Phase 3. A Resubdivision of Tract U - Phase 3B. Bachelor Gulch Villa~e Filin~ No.3 - Tracts. A Minor Type B Subdivision, the intent of which is to re-subdivide Phase 3B of Tract U, thereby dividing the Bear Paw Lodge Phase 3 building into condominium units. Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00260, Bear Paw Lodge - Phase 3, A Resubdivision of Tract U - Phase 3B, Bachelor Gulch Village Filing No.3 - Tracts. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-166, To Approve The Combined Sketch And Preliminary Subdivision Plan, And Zone Change Of The Oleson Property (Eagle County File Nos. PDSP-OOOll And ZC-00036). The Board considered this file at public hearing on October 2nd, 2000. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-166, To Approve The Combined Sketch And Preliminary Subdivision Plan, And Zone Change Of The Oleson Property (Eagle County File Nos. PDSP-OOO 11 And ZC-00036). Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-167, To Amend Appendix B, Chapter II Of The Eagle-Vail PUD Guide Section Of The Eagle County Land Use Regulations. (Eagle County File No. LUR-0031). The Board considered this file at public hearing on October 2nd, 2000. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-167 , To Amend Appendix B, Chapter II Of The Eagle-Vail PUD Guide Section Of The Eagle County Land Use Regulations, (Eagle County File No. LUR-0031). The Board considered this file at public hearing on October 2nd, 2000. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-168, To Approve The Amendment To The Eagle-Vail PUD Guide, Including An Amendment Of The Text To The Land Use Regulations (File Nos. PDA-00031 & ZC-00040). The Board considered this request at public hearing on October 16th, 2000. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-168, To Approve The Amendment To The Eagle-Vail PUD Guide, Including An Amendment Of The Text To The Land Use Regulations (File Nos. PDA-00031 & ZC-00040). Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-169, To Amend Appendix B, Chapter II Of The Eagle-Vail pun Guide Section Of The Eagle County Land Use Regulations (File No. LUR-0032). The Board heard 2 11-20-2000 the Applicant's request on October 16th, 2000. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-169, To Amend Appendix B, Chapter II Of The Eagle-Vail PUD Guide Section Of The Eagle County Land Use Regulations (File No. LUR-0032). The Board heard the Applicant's request on October 16th, 2000. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Abatement Hearing for Cordillera Spa & Lodge Max Schlafley, Assessor's Office, presented a petition for abatement, schedule number R031529, Cordillera Spa and Lodge. The Assessor is recommending a revised abatement based on evidence provided by the petitioner. The values are $7,643,940.00 for 1998 and $7,877,640.00 for 1999. The petitioner has indicated the occupancy value for 1998 was 69.4 % to derive an income of$3,532,155.00. He stated the reason for using the occupancy is this property was going into the third year of completion of the structure. The Assessor recommended an actual value of$2,221,674.00 with the tax amount due of$182,783.51 for 1998 and a value of$2,284,510.00 tax due $170,454.14 for 1999. Chairman Stone asked if the petitioner was ready to speak. Tom McIlhaney, representing the petitioner, stated this was a huge step in the right direction but they believe there is a lot more to be done. He stated he based his figures on the actual occupancy during this time frame. He stated since the day this Lodge has opened it has never shown a profit. He stated one of the problems is this hotel is 13 miles down from any other hotel. This hotel relies on a different time of the year. He stated there are currently golf privileges that will be going away. He stated they have provided figures based on actual occupancies during this time frame. Chairman Stone asked about the value between what the Assessor is recommending and what the applicant is recommending. He stated this difference is as a result of the Assessor taking a comparison of other properties and using an area wide number of utilized rooms. He asked if it is typical to use the actual values. Mr. Schlafley stated typically you use the market average to assess the property. Chairman Stone stated the purpose of the Lodge is to promote real estate in the area. He stated the money making venture of Cordillera is the sale of properties. He stated it would not be prudent to judge one lodge differently than the others. It ought to be on, a fair and equal basis. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the rate per night charges. Mr. Schlafley stated the petitioner used the actual income Commissioner Gallagher asked how long this Lodge has been losing money. Mr. McIlhaney stated since 1994. Commissioner Gallagher asked how it has been subsidized. Mr. McIlhaney stated their concern is that Cordillera is going to reach 100% sell out and there will be no other reason to use the hotel. Commissioner Phillips asked how much weight is applied to those not making money. Mr. Schlafley stated it far exceeds replacement. Based on the market this hotel will be sold for over market price, probably at about 10 million. He asked how many rooms are being given away. He stated this is a hard property to value but he believes the Assessor has been very compatible. Chairman Stone referred to an abatement request heard previously. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve an abatement for schedule number R031529, Cordillera Spa & Lodge, as recommended by the Assessor, the abated amount being $418,800.00 for 1998 and $351,030.00 for 1999. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, spoke to the 1997 petition for abatement. Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny the petition for abatement for 1997 for Kensington 3 11-20-2000 Management Partners, Cordillera Lodge and Spa. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Abatement Hearing for Eagle Airpark Partners Max Schlafley presented a petition for abatement, schedule number 047045, Eagle Airpark Partners. He stated this petition is an amended recommendation from the original recommendation. He stated the west building was only partially finished in January 1999. The Assessor recommended a partial abatement in the amount of$2,313.81. He stated he made an on-site inspection of the property and found there was only one tenant during the time frame. Chairman Stone stated he wanted it noted in the record the petitioner did not appear. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the abatement recommendation for schedule number 047045, Eagle Airpark Partners, as recommended by the Assessor. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00030, PDF-00049, Diemoz River Ranch Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file numbers PDA-00030 and PDF-00049, Diemoz River Ranch. She stated there is a slight problem with the final plat with the Engineering Department. She requested this matter be tabled. Chairman Stone suggested they continue and decide later. Ms. Skinner stated it was discovered the acreage was wrong on the original documents therefore the applicant is changing the PUD. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated the Engineering estimate for public improvements excluded estimates for required improvements. It also included a caveat that the estimates could not be relied on. He suggested the Board could approve this final plat with the condition that a proper estimate be submitted to the County Engineer by a date certain. If it was not done by that date it would have to return back to the Board. Chairman Stone stated it was the applicants engineer who provided those estimates. He stated he believes the County should have known before now. Ms. Skinner stated there was mis-communication between the applicant and Eagle County. Leroy Duroux, applicant, stated the engineering estimate was submitted in May and they have had plenty of time to respond. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated they wrote to the Engineer for the applicant indicating they would not accept the estimate. She stated they had also excluded some of the costs that must be collateralized. They have been waiting for a response and the file was scheduled to be heard. She read the disclaimer for the Board. Julie Pratt, representing the Land Studio, stated she spoke with High Country Engineering, who have related this project could sit and not proceed for another year and they do not want to be responsible for changing construction costs. Commissioner Phillips asked about improvements to property that is not going to change. Mr. Fritze stated the subdivision process requires public improvements. Commissioner Phillips stated this applicant does not plan on doing anything to this property at this time. Mr. Fritze stated at a prior hearing the applicant responded they were not going to do anything to this property and he had suggested there be a plat restriction rather than money for collateralization. If there is a plat restriction that prohibits anyone from taking ownership of the property. Commissioner Phillips stated everything has changed but this file has been on-going for several years. 4 11-20-2000 Chairman Stone stated perhaps Mr. Fritze's suggestion is a good one, giving approval based on what is before the Board. He questioned if an estimate will still be needed. Mr. Duroux stated the SIA states all subdivision improvements shall be completed before December 2000. None of the lots can be sold, transferred or conveyed until all improvements have been made. These lots are not intended to be marketed for sale. He stated this matter must be reviewed in three years. Commissioner Phillips asked why not use the plat restriction. Janice Diemoz, applicant, stated they have been in the middle of this for a long time. Chairman Stone stated the Board must follow the Land Use Regulations. Unfortunately, this application is not grandfathered in and they must abide by the LUR. Mr. Fritze stated vested rights can be created in many ways. He stated if there are improvements for four lots the Court would most generally agree, and the applicant would have a vested right. He suggested the SIA be done and not left hanging and there be a completion date. Those improvements would create vested rights. Ms. Diemoz asked since they have made four lots they should be developed quickly. Mr. Fritze stated he knows of very few down zoning in Eagle County. He suggested they continue with the SIA and if they do not want to do the improvements they can ask for an extension. The Land Use Change is one of the criteria that is needed. Chairman Stone stated he recognizes the applicant wants to do some estate planning. But unfortunately the LUR do not contemplate what is being proposed. He stated for the applicant to stay with the SIA with the final date, they would then need to come back in and ask for an extension of those improvements. Mr. Fritze stated the exception is, the other contemplation, the SIA anticipates there was a proper estimate of the work and defines the dollar amount, and would have to be changed before the process starts. Chairman Stone stated the applicant would still be required to come back in three years and either show the improvements or request an extension. Commissioner Phillips asked about the estimate in the SIA. Mr. Fritze stated the only reason to look for the estimate is when they want to remove the plat note. Chairman Stone asked about the 3 year time frame. Mr. Fritze stated he could not think of one at this time. Chairman Stone suggested they could go ahead and hear the first file and table the PDF file until the applicant and the County Attorney come up with a solution to the problem. Commissioner Phillips stated she believes there is a possible solution if the applicant agrees. She stated she believes they should approve the PDA file with the plat restriction and the extension of the SIA would be something to have for the next three years. Chairman Stone stated there are two solutions, one to accept it as it is with a 3 year time limit, the other is to table the matter and have the County Attorney do some research on this matter. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve PDA-00030, Diemoz River Ranch. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Fritze stated the SIA will need to be rewritten. He stated they could re-draft the SIA to do that and the County can conditional the final plat after review from everyone. Commissioner Gallagher stated the LUR needs to be changed to include families. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number PDF-00049, Diemoz River Ranch, with a plat restriction and the expiration being in three years. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Duroux stated they were trying to do what they felt the current Master Plan was saying at the 5 11-20-2000 time. He stated they were trying to reserve the agricultural land. Through the process they would have been better off to come in for approval of 100 units rather than 4. They have spent $70,000.00. He stated they have had to go by the same rules as a large developer. Ms. Diemoz stated Eagle County staff has not been very helpful and she realizes there is turn over and cost of living and such. Commissioner Gallagher stated in three years she should be able to come in for an extension only. Ms. Diemoz stated she would like a copy of the minutes. ZC-00041, SUP-00003, Abrams Subdivision Bob Narracci, Planner, presented file numbers ZC-00041 and SUP-00003, Abrams Subdivision. The applicant seeks to change the zoning of the subject property from Agricultural Residential (10 acre minimum lot size) to Agricultural Limited (5 acre minimum lot size) in order to facilitate a subdivision of the 14.848 acre site into a 9.739 acre lot and a 5.109 acre lot for single-family residential development and accessory agricultural uses. Mr. Narracci reviewed the chronology ofthe application as follows: Mosher Subdivision Sketch Plan and Final Plat approved and rezoned from Resource to Agricultural Resource (File No.s: ZC-198-84 and SU-239-84-S). An Amended Final Plat redefines the subject property as Parcel B of the Seipel-Abrams Parcels Amended Final Plat. Parcel B is comprised of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 8 of the Mosher Subdivision (File No.: SU-252-85-F) The Board of County Commissioners approved a Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for the Abrams PUD (File No.: PDS-00020). One of the conditions of Sketch Plan approval was that the applicant justify the use of PUD zoning for this development. Justification for the use of PUD zoning needs to be established by creating a more desirable environment than would otherwise be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations, or by more creatively utilizing any of the performance standards, to demonstrate that the purposes of PUD zoning for the subject site are being satisfied. Based upon direction from Planning Staff, the applicant was advised that the PUD process was not appropriate for a two lot subdivision and that the goal could better be accommodated via a Zone Change process to conventional Agricultural Limited zoning. Staff finds that this proposal is in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Master Plan, as well as, all applicable Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Engineering: The site plan is missing the detention pond recommended by the drainage report; The construction of the detention pond will require temporary erosion control measures that are consistent with Section 4-660 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; The building envelopes must be labeled on the Plat; The title and the text within the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership and Surveyor's Certificate must be revised to: 'ABRAMS SUBDIVISION A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B OF AMENDED FINAL PLAT SEIPEL-ABRAMS PARCELS'; The vicinity maps must have north arrows; According to Section 5-280.B.4.a.(2).d, the property line ofthe adjacent owner to the east must be shown even though it is separated by a public right-of-way; A road impact fee of$l,OOO.OO will be due at Final Plat. Assessor's Office The ownership indicated is consistent with County records. 6 11-20-2000 Address Coordinator The address for the 9.7 acre lot will remain as 6455 Brush Creek Road. The address for the new lot will be 6425 Brush Creek Road. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District Referral response indicated that the District has no problems with the changes or construction. Eagle County School District RE 50J The District has indicated that it will accept cash in lieu of land dedication for this proposal. The District estimates the cash payment at $201.48. When the fee is collected at Final Plat, the fee should be, recalculated at that time. Colorado Geological Survey: The referral response indicated that the subject property can be successfully developed taking into account the potential for collapsing soils and shallow groundwater table (as per the recommendations set forth in the Geologic Site Assessment report prepared by HP Geotech in February 2000). Also, that the proposed development will not encroach on wetlands located on the site and will produce minimal additional runoff. Colorado Division of Water Resources: The referral response indicated that due to insufficient information, it was not possible to comment on the proposed water supply from the Town of Eagle. The State requires a report from the town documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. Colorado State Forest Service: Wildfire hazard on the subject site is moderate. The applicant has addressed to the Forest Service's satisfaction two concerns regarding emergency vehicle turnaround at the end of the driveway, as well as, the provision of a defensible space within 10 feet of each structure. US Department of Agriculture Referral response indicated no problems with this proposal. Staff findings are as shown on the staff report and as follows: FILE SUP-00003 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of both a Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN x x x x x x x [+] Environmental Oualitv - Proposed development is not within any critical wildlife areas, flood plain hazard area, or likely to impact surface or groundwater quality/quantity of air quality. [+/ -] Open Space/Recreation - Proposed development is in an area suitable for development in terms of compatibility with surrounding uses and avoidance of sensitive lands. However, no common recreation and open space is proposed. 7 11-20-2000 [+] Development - Proposed development satisfies Guiding Polices in this regard. [+] FLUM - The Future Land Use Map shows this area to be "Countryside". The proposed development is consistent with the parameters of that use. [+/-] Open Space Provision - Proposed development is not insensitive to open space values. However, no common recreation and open space is proposed. [+] Visual Ouality - No adverse impacts are anticipated. [+] Development Patterns - This increase in density is not located in or around an existing community, but it is appropriate as indicated on the Future Land Use Map. [+] Hazards - No areas with significant slopes in excess of 40% or natural hazards are located on the site. [+] Wildlife - Proposed development is compatible with nearby critical wildlife areas. [+/-] Community Size & Character - Proposed development would increase the density over what is permitted under existing zoning, although it would be consistent with other properties to the immediate north, south and west of the site. [+/-] Open Space & Recreation - Proposed development would increase the density over what is permitted under existing zoning, although it would be consistent with what is shown for other property to the immediate north, south and west ofthe site. No common open space is proposed. [+] Environment & Sensitive Areas - No conflicts are noted. [+] Affordable Housing - Accessory dwelling units are allowed subject to a Limited Review in the Agricultural Limited zone district. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: 8 11-20-2000 NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance of the proposal in relation to the vision statement) Housing is a community-wide issue. Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes. Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing. Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs The Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan is generally not applicable to this proposed two- lot subdivision. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) The Subdivision Preliminary Plan IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1 ) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Per the Land Use Regulations, a conceptual landscape plan is required with a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision to illustrate the overall intent with regard to landscaping. To identify areas where trees, shrubs and ground cover will either be preserved, removed or replaced. With the two lots being proposed, one of which is already developed, no common areas will be created. The building envelopes for each lot have been identified to protect existing vegetation and pastures to the greatest extent possible. The driveway to serve the new building site will be extended from the existing drive within an easement which parallels the site's natural contours. As such, no cuts or fill will be required. In summation, the applicant proposes and Staff agrees that a landscape plan in this instance would not serve a public purpose and therefore should not be required. [n/a] Si~n Regulations (Division 4-3) [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified to date. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) confirmed that the geologic report prepared for and submitted by the Applicant provides an accurate description of the site. Please refer to the attached referral response from CGS. [+] Wil4fire Protection (Section 4-430) - The applicant has satisfied the Colorado Forest Service's Sketch Plan concerns regarding emergency vehicle turnaround at the end of the driveway, as well as, the provision of a defensible space within 10 feet of each structure. [+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - A maximum of one new technology burning device, which meets EP A, State and Eagle County regulations is proposed to be permitted in each unit. [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The subject site is relatively level and is not in an area designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. 9 11-20-2000 [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The Environmental Impact Report submitted with the application was deemed to be sufficient for Sketch Plan approval. No subsequent environmental issues have since been identified. [n1a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - Internal circulation is via a private shared driveway. Extension of this driveway to the building envelope of the new lot will involve less than one-half acre of site disturbance therefore negating the need for a grading permit. At the time of building permit issuance, plans for erosion control and revegetation associated with the driveway extension will be required. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Eagle County Trails Plan identifies a trail along this portion of Brush Creek Road. The Applicant has discussed this matter with Ellie Caryl of the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority. The Authority has not studied a trail along Brush Creek Road. Ms. Caryl did indicate that adequate space for a trail be accommodated as part of this subdivision. The land adjacent to the east side of the subject property is right-of-way owned by Eagle County which is a remnant from when Brush Creek was realigned to its present location. As such, a minimum 40 foot wide strip of unused right-of-way exists for trail construction adjacent to this site. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - If an irrigation system is intended to be shared by the two lots within this subdivision then, the Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the referenced Section of the Land Use Regulations. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Per Engineering's referral response, "The site plan is missing the detention pond recommended by the drainage report" Also, "The construction of the detention pond will require temporary erosion control measures that are consistent with Section 4-660 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations." Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant will be required to either install the detention pond or, will be required to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and post a performance guarantee with Eagle County for the necessary improvement. [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The common driveway already exists and any grading required to construct a residence on the new lot will be controlled through building permit(s) which will include revegetation and erosion control measures. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - All utilities and easements necessary to serve both proposed lots are already serving the existing single family residence. [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - A letter from Mr. Tom Boni to Bob Narracci, dated October 13,2000, indicates that, "Mr. Dusty Walls, Director of Public Works for the Town of Eagle, has confirmed the existence of two (water) taps and their respective meters". Please refer to the attached letter. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Wastewater will be accommodated through Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. There is currently one ISDS serving the existing home. In response to the Colorado Geologic Survey's referral response with regard to ISDS construction on this property, the Applicant has agreed to place a plat note upon the Final Plat to ensure that an engineered sewage disposal system will be required at building permit for the new residence. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) - A road impact fee of $1 ,000.00 will be due at Final Plat. The Eagle County School District RE 50J has indicated that it will accept cash in lieu of land dedication for this proposal. The District estimates the cash payment at $201.48. When the fee is collected at Final Plat, the fee should be recalculated at that time. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development 10 11-20-2000 Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. 1. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Given the proximity of the subject property to Brush Creek Road and the Town of Eagle water main, the use oflndividual Sewage Disposal Systems and similar development in the immediate vicinity, the resulting spatial pattern does not cause inefficiencies. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. No natural or man-made features or hazards have been identified which should preclude the subject site from being deemed suitable for development. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. If approved, this two lot subdivision will be in character with existing and allowed land uses in all directions from the subject site. This proposal would not negatively impact the surrounding vicinity of Eagle County. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. FILE ZC-00041 Requirements for a Zone Chan~e - Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for Amendment to the Official Zone District Map: STANDARD: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] Whether and extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan. This proposal to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Residential (10 acre minimum lot size) to Agricultural Limited (5 acre minimum lot size) is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Eagle County Master Plan and FLUM. The Plan recommends the subject site for 'Countryside' 11 11-20-2000 development with lot sizes ranging from 2 acres/du to 2:10 acres/duo [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] The proposed zone change designation IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM ofthe Eagle County Master Plan. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; If approved, this two lot subdivision will be in character with existing and allowed land uses in all directions from the subject site. This proposal would not negatively impact the surrounding vicinity of Eagle County. [+) FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The zone amendment IS compatible with the uses that surround the applicant's property, and IS the appropriate zone district for the land. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity; Based upon historic land use patterns in the Brush Creek Valley, development of the valley has slowly increased in density/intensity. Depending on the outcome of other pending land use applications in the vicinity, change may occur more rapidly. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] There ARE changed conditions that require an ame.ndment to modify the density and intensity. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands; This proposal intends to preserve the natural environment through the use of building envelopes. By siting the new home in the most suitable location (considering drainage, amount of vegetation, access etc.) the development minimizes environmental impacts. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4] The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts to the natural environment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] Whether and the extent to which the proposed arnendment addresses a demonstrated community need; Housing demands in Eagle County are ever-present, and are therefore a community need. [+] FIl~nI~a; (.Jommunity need. [Section 5-230.D.5] The proposed amendment DOES address a community need, STANDARD: Developmentpqtterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in{l logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting developm~nt can logic{llly be provided with necessary public facilities and services; , Based upon developm~l1t patt~rns within the north, south and west of the subject site, the two lot subdivision resulting froW this prQPosal will be logical and consistent with adjacent properties. Existing zoning to the north, south and west pf Abrams property is currently zoned Agricultural Residential (AR), however, the land has been subdivided into parcels which are smaller than the minimum 10 acres required by AR zoning. This proposal to change the zoning to Agricultural Limited will be consistent with adjacent existing and allowed residential development. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] The proposed amendment WILL result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. 12 11-20-2000 STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. If this zone change is approved, existing agricultural land uses in this vicinity of the Brush Creek Valley will be preserved, thereby protecting the public's interest. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply HAS changed and continues to change indicates that it is in the public interest to encourage a new density in the area. Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services, stated Mr. Narracci summarized the process very well. In this case the applicant could use the building envelopes to protect the pasture land. He stated they have proceeded with a preliminary plan. He stated they have worked with staff to comply with the conditions. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. ZC- 00041, Abrams Subdivision, incorporating all Staff findings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. SUP- 00003, Abrams Subdivision, incorporating all Staff findings, and the following condition: 1) Inclusion of a plat note on the Final Plat which will require that an engineered sewage disposal system be required at building permit for any new residence. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00067, ZS-00068, ZS-00069, Netbeam Wireless Jena Skinner presented file numbers ZS-00067, ZS-00068 and ZS-00069, Netbeam Wireless. Netbeam, Inc ("Netbeam") is applying for 3 separate Special Use Permits to allow the installation, maintenance, and operation of three, separate wireless antenna sites around Eagle County. The first site, located in the Kaibab Subdivision will contain: omni directional/directional antennas on the side of the peak of the roof, and an electronics package near the deck. 1. The second site, located in Eby Creek Subdivision will contain: an omni directional antenna on the side of the peak of the roof, and an electronics package near the deck. 2. The third site, located in Edwards, will contain: two misread panel antennas on the roof of condominium Building' H', and an electronics package on the side of Building' H' . Netbeam provides Wireless High Speed Internet Services to rural markets. Ms. Skinner reviewed the chronology of this file as follows: April of 2000: Code Enforcement opened up a "special investigation" to "check on Netbeam cell, site and antenna locations in Eagle County." It was discovered that two (2) sites, one in Kaibab and one in Eby Creek existed without Special Use Permits. April 2000: Netbeam meets with Staffwho inform them that they need to apply for Special Use Permits for any Telecommunication Facilities in Eagle County. June 2000: Netbeam applies for application- incomplete / not accepted. September 2000: County accepts applications for sites, which includes the Edwards site. The Planning Commission had no issues with any of the aforementioned files. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval on File No.s LEA-00031 ,32,33 (Location and Extent) as well as ZS-00067,68, and 69 (Special Use Permit) incorporating staff findings. Ms. Skinner reviewed the referral responses as follows: Eby Creek Homeowners' Association, C/o Wendy Sacks The Board of Directors inspected the site / met with applicant. At the meeting of the Board of Directors October 25th, the Board approved the antenna installation. 13 11-20-2000 DISCUSSION: NOTE: Discussions are directly related to specijicjindings that must be made. Not all requiredfindings are discussed TO BE FOUND: Section 5-250.B.1 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 of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. The Master Plan Analyses Below Consider The Proposal as Submitted. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN K,E,M Rural Center K,E,M K,E,M K,E,M K,E,M K=Kaibab, E=Eby Creek, M=Edwards (Morningstar) EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN K,E,M K,E,M K,E,M K,E,M K, E, M K,E,M K=Kaibab, E=Eby Creek, M=Edwards (Morningstar) EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN K, E, M K, E, M Residential K,E,M K,E,M K,E,M 14 11-20-2000 K=Kaibab, E=Eby Creek, M=Edwards (Morningstar) There are no master plan issues with this application. [+] 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. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Due to the both the size and the placement of the equipment, the difficulty to see the equipment from the road and neighbors, Staff can make a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses STANDARD: 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 AlJplicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards AlJlJlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. This proposal responds to all applicable portions of referenced sections (3-310 and 3-330) adequately. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the 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. ST ANDARD: 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. Netbeam minimizes impacts in several ways. Those include: painting the equipment to blend in with the surrounding colors and textures; using electricity, resulting in a quiet, clean facility emitting no ' noxious odors, heat, noise, or other pollutants; using established access to the site / no new development is proposed outside ofthe site boundary. This is also a private location not necessitating access for public, multi parking or road improvements. [+] FINDING: 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. STANDARD: 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. This proposal demonstrates substantial conformance with the requirements of this section. [+] FINDING: 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. STANDARD: 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 15 11-20-2000 services. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by existing public facilities and services, such as roads. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). Proposed signs do not require a permit. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - [+] Wil4fire Protection (Section 4-430) - [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-4S0) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-S) [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [nla] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). This application does not have a need to provide employee housing. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 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. [+] FINDING: 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. Ms. Skinner stated the applicant is applying for three separate special use permits. Ralph Exavior, Jr, applicant, stated he was present for questions. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the nature of these antenna's. Mr. Exavior explained the antenna for the Board, explaining access to the sites. Commissioner Gallagher asked about additional antenna. Mr. Exavior stated if the business picks up they would be asking for more. These antenna do not, have a large capacity. He explained the service. Commissioner Gallagher assumed his companies policy is to get a lot of business. Mr. Exavior responded favorably. Chairman Stone asked why this differs from someone putting out a satellite dish for television. He stated the satellites were allowed to be placed due to telecommunications. Commissioner Gallagher asked about each of the sites being a relay. Mr. Exavior that is correct. For the subscribers there is a small box that goes on their residence 16 11-20-2000 which picks up the signal from repeater which comes from the primary site. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00067 incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00068 incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00069 incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00024, Kodiak Park Sketch Plan lena Skinner presented file number PDS-00024, Kodiak Park Sketch Plan.. Due to this file being, tabled by the Roaring Fork Planning Commission the applicant is requesting it be tabled to January 2, 2000. Commissioner Phillips moved to table file number PDS-00024, to January 2, 2000, at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDF -00055, Cordillera Filing No 39 Matt Gennett presented file number PDF-00055, Cordillera Filing No. 39. He stated the intent of this plat is to create three single family residential lots, as well as associated access and utility easements for these lots. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: a. This final plat conforms to the of the approval of the Preliminary Plat for subdivision. b. Required improvements are adequate. c. Areas dedicated for public use and easements are acceptable and; Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FL UM of the Master Plan (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. a. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. i. Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions are consistent with the utility's service plan or shall be required prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions are consistent with the Ea~le County Road Capital Improvements Plan. ii. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under- sized lines. iii. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions are allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 17 11-20-2000 iv. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00055, Cordillera Filing 39, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Hearing of FY 2001 Budget Julie Snyder Eaton, Finance Department, stated the next item on the agenda was a public hearing on the FY 2001 Budget. Commissioner Phillips moved to table the public hearing on the FY2001 to December 11,2000. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until December 4, 2000. Attest: Clerk to the Bo ~~ Chairman 18 11-20-2000