HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/16/2001
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 16,2001
Present:
Michael Gallagher
Am Menconi
Tom Moorhead
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Chairman Pro-tern
Commissioner
County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
Absent:
Tom Stone
Chairman
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Consent Agenda
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated the next first before the Board was the Consent Agenda as
follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for the week of October 15,2001, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of payroll for October 18,2001, subject to review by County Administrator
C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of October 2,
2001
D) Agreement between Eagle County and Danco Building Systems, Inc., for renovation
of the Eagle County Regional Airport's maintenance hangar
E) Eagle County Airport expansion underground power line.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the
Consent Agenda.
Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated Mr. Moorhead could not be here at this time but
related he is unaware of any items that need to be removed.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked about item D.
Ed Store, Acting Airport Manager, stated the building is a hangar they bought last year because
they were short of storage space. He stated the roof needs repair. It is located on the north side ofthe
airport.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher acknowledged Ellie Caryl, Trails Director, for the award recently
presented to her. He stated it was for her efforts in transportation and more particularly in trails. He
thanked Ms. Caryl for her efforts and for being a member of Eagle County Government.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
5MB-00281. Final Plat and Condominium Map. Snow Cloud in Bachelor Gulch. He stated
the intent of this Type B Minor Subdivision is to combine Lots Dl and D3, Bachelor Gulch Village,
Filing 3, into a single lot (Lot D1), and to create and define 26 residential condominium units, common
1
0-16-2001
elements and future development areas in the Snow Cloud Condominiums. The Arrowhead at Vail PUD
Guide defines the land use designation for Tract D as "Village Core", and lists condominium structures
as an allowed use. Staff findings are as follows:
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 Menconi moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00281, Snow Cloud in
Bachelor Gulch, incorporating staff findings.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
Approval of Settlement Stipulation
Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated at this time they are proceeding with working through
some of the appeals. The group today had been scheduled for arbitration. The Assessor's Office has
met with the property owners, a number who were represented by Jay Peterson. The first property is
owned by Oscar Tang, located at 130 Buck Creek Road, schedule number R018365. Evidence was
presented by Jay Peterson indicating that the vacant property is negatively impacted by poor topography
and poor access. The buildable area for this parcel is approximately 1.5 acres. At the present the Town
of Avon has not given any approvals for development. Based on sales of vacant land with similar use in
the area and making adjustments for location and access, a site value of $500,000.00 would be
appropriate. The original Assessor valuation was $969,650.00.
Chairman Gallagher asked if the property owner's are in agreement with the stipulation.
Mr. Moorhead stated that Jay Peterson represents the property owners and has the authority to
make determinations on their behalf.
Mr. Moorhead stated the next property is also owned by Oscar Tang, schedule number R014676.
The subject property is located along Metcalf Road, north of 1-70 in Avon. The petitioner's attorney
presented evidence indicating the vacant property is not buildable due to the poor topography and lot
configuration. The building envelope is negatively impacted by the road setback, the creek bed and
power line easement. An appraiser from the Assessor's Office inspected the property to verify the
petitioners claim and is recommending that the valuation be based on an open space value of $3,500 per
acre due to the limited use of the property. The initial Assessor's appraisal was $448,980.00 and the
new valuation will be $9,840.00.
Mr. Moorhead stated the next property is owner by Susan and H. Frank Connally, schedule
number M031306. The petitioner stated this mobile home was damaged beyond repair by a Town of
Eagle water main break in the winter of 1999. This unit is a 1062 model and has a value of salvage. The
petitioner states it will cost her $2,000.00 just to have it removed from the land. An inspection of the
unit this month, verified the damage and its in-habitability. They also verified the Town of Eagle
removed this unit from its water and sewer roll. This mobile home is currently unoccupied and has not
had anyone living in it for over 18 months.
Mr. Moorhead stated the next property is also owned by Oscar Tang, schedule number R014678.
2
0-16-2001
The subject property is located along Metcalf Road, north of 1-70 in Avon. The petitioners attorney
presented evidence indicating the vacant property is negatively impacted by poor topography, therefore,
reducing the allowable density for this parceL The attorney presented evidence that the owner is going
through the approval process with the Town of Avon, requesting approvals for a density of27 units for
employee housing to be built on this parceL Based on sales of vacant land with similar use in the area, a
value per buildable unit would be $21,400. The Assessor's Office is recommending a reduction to
$579,000.00. The original appraisal was $762,000.00.
Mr. Moorhead stated the next property is also owned by Oscar Tang, schedule number R014741.
The subject property is located along Metcalf Road, north of 1-70 in Avon. The petitioners attorney
presented evidence indicating the vacant property is not buildable due to the poor topography and lot
configuration. The building envelope is negatively impacted by road easement and steep hillside. An
appraiser from the Assessors Office inspected the property to verify the petitioners claim and is
recommending the valuation be based on an open space value of $3,500 per acre due to the limited use
of the property. The Assessor's original value was $257,740.00 and the new valuation will be
$5,640.00.
Mr. Moorhead stated the next property is also owned by Oscar Tang, schedule number R018364.
The subject property is located along Buck Creek Road, north of Nottingham road and 1-70 in Avon.
The petitioners attorney presented evidence indicating the vacant property is negatively impacted by
poor topography and poor access. The buildable area for this parcel is approximately 3 acres. At the
present, the Town of Avon has not given an approvals for development. Based on sales of vacant land
with similar use inn the area and making adjustments for location and access, a site value of $700,000.00
would be appropriate. The adjoining property that fronts this property is valued at $753,760.00 with 2.5
acres and has a superior location and topography. The Assessors Office is recommending an adjustment
to $700,000.00 from the original value of$I,074,050.00.
Chairman Pro-tern asked to clarify that there are not impacts on previous years payments.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve the six Stipulations as presented.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
Final Settlement, B & B Excavating, Inc.
Tom Moorhead, Attorney's Office, presented final settlement for B & B Excavating, Inc., for the
Honeywagon Trail Project, dated July 24, 2001. Mr. Moorhead stated this matter was published and no
claims have been received.
Chairman Pro-tern asked if they know what the Honeywagon Trail project is.
Mr. Moorhead replied it is the trail in Arrowhead and proceeds east.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final settlement for B & B Excavating, Inc., for the
Honeywagon Trail Project, dated July 24, 2001.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
Public Comment, Colorado Mountain College Ground Lease
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated the next item on the agenda was public comment concerning
the Colorado Mountain College Ground Lease and the Intergovernmental Agreement creating the
Partnership for Education. He asked who is here to speak on the issue. There was one person.
Mr. Moorhead stated he received a letter by fax from Dudley Irwin dated today's date. He read
the letter as follows:
"Dear Tom, I am writing regarding the proposed deal between the Commissioners and CMC to
3
0-16-2001
lease the land on Berry Creek 5th Filing. I would like this letter read at the public input and/or entered
into the minutes of the meeting.
I would have attended the meeting in person, but I work for a living and am unable to get away.
I would like to relay my vast sense of frustration and disappointment to the Commissioners,
especially Tom Stone and Mike Gallagher who sat through the public input meetings last year. During
the public input meetings people representing various aspects of recreation within Eagle County met
with, spoke with, argued with and eventually came to an amicable resolution with the Commissioners
about what was going to be placed on the Berry Creek 5th land.
Suddenly, out of the blue, at the very last minute waltz's in CMC proposing to buy-lease land to
put up a college campus. The Commissioners coddled to this idea with virtually no regard to the past
meetings and Public input. The key word here is public, the Commissioners have the weighty
responsibility of investing the taxpayers money. The taxpayers spoke, yet the Commissioners paid us no
heed.
The arrogance of this act by the Commissioners is only exceeded by their comment that the
process will not be driven by special interest groups. Grow up. Do you think for one minute that CMC
is not a narrow special interest group? To the Commissioners, please do not speak down to the people
of Eagle County, you are our employees, not visa versa.
Cloaking this arrogant act of leasing the land to CMC was the clause that the Berry Creek 5th was
for recreation and alternative use. Further clouding the hyperbole is the moronic concept that CMC will
further diversify the economic base of Edwards. How many dormitory rooms will they be building? Oh,
I see, none. So what you're relying on is people moving to one of the costliest Counties to go to a
community college to learn a trade? Please, this is getting insulting. In short, the diversification of the
economic base is simply going to come from residents either choosing to go to a restaurant, a movie or
night school. The money flow will not grow due to CMC building it's grandiose mountain campus in
Edwards or Eagle County.
Instead of building/leasing CMC any land, why not go back to what you, our elected officials,
agreed to do, put in the high school and lower school (as per the original plan) and return the remaining
land to recreation and open space.
On a personal note, and no I do not represent any special interest group, do no void the remaining
tidbit of trust the public has with our elected officials, stand tall, be responsible and make decisions that
might not make you a hero to some but will stand the test of time. Make the choice to send CMC
packing for a different location.
By the way, the Brotman Land Exchange is coming under scrutiny for price, think about how the
public is going to SCREAM when they find out how much the taxpayers spent buying the land and then
how much you soldlleased it to CMC for. $800,000.00 for 16 acres of flat land in Eagle County, put it
out for auction and lets see how much people are willing to pay for it. To my eye, $50,000.00 per acre
represents a price you could find in 1984. 1/3 of an acre in surrounding Edwards goes for upwards of
$200,000.00.
Are you, our elected officials, valuing our precious recreation land at a lowly price? Shouldn't
the price be more like$8,000,000.00? Is this price being driven by a special interest group?
And finally, in my dealings with the County for other business items, I have been repeatedly told
that the County can not sign any contract exceeding 12 months, why then are the rules once again being
rewritten to accommodate CMC with a 10 year lease?
I'm sorry Tom, Mike and Arn, but can't you see that ifthis deal goes through as it stands that
there are going to be significant charges of malfeasance?
Please reconsider the back room deal you are ready to strike with CMC and return to the plan you
agreed upon with the public.
An angry Eagle County Tax Payer,
Dudley M. Irwin.
4
0-16-2001
PS; you give me the chance and I will personally buy the 16 acres for a 15% premium over what
CMC is willing to pay, after all, aren't you charged with getting the best and fairest price for the tax
payer?"
The letter was signed by Dudley Irwin.
Nancy Cole, president of the Board ofthe Berry Creek Equestrian Center, read her statement for
the Board as follows:
"Approximately a year ago, I stood before you in a planning meeting for the Berry Creek 5th
parcel, thanking you for generously leaving the equestrian center with 24.7 acres in the Master Plan.
Now I stand before you in disbelief that after all of the meetings, public input, surveys and all of the
taxpayers dollars spent on companies to design the Master Plan (even design a new equestrian center) we
currently find ourselves left with nothing!
Because the School Board has generously decided to switch parcels for the meantime, we are
allowed to stay until the high school is built. However, the bottom line is that the County
Commissioners sold us out. You didn't listen to the community. You went behind our backs and made
a deal with Colorado Mountain College. We found out about the deal through outside sources, not from
the County Commissioners.
When Eagle County bought the parcel from the Recreation Authority District, all of the entities
sold their shares with the understanding that the equestrian center and rodeo would stay in Edwards.
What happened to that agreement? What gives the County the right to not uphold the agreement? What
gives you the right to break your promises to the people of Eagle County?
After the meetings during last summer, the residents of Eagle County had spoken. They strongly
expressed that they wanted the equestrian center to stay. They made it very clear that they did not want
an events center as was originally proposed. Planting a Colorado Mountain College campus on that
parcel would have a worse impact than an events center. Both Homestead and Singletree residents are
worried about the traffic and bright lights from an events center. How many people would be driving in
and out of that campus on a daily basis? A traffic light will not solve the Spur Road traffic problems.
What about the bright lights of an entire college campus on all night, every night?
I would like to share with you some of your quotes and articles from the past several years:
"The equestrian center and the rodeo represent something of our western heritage that we need to
maintain." Tom Stone, published in the Vail Daily, 11-4-99.
"Initially, the strongest input for the use of the Berry Creek 5th parcel came from the equine
community, which wanted to protect an established use on the property. Edwards are citizens were also
consistent in their objections to a proposed large events center, citing concern about traffic and
neighborhood impacts." Staff reporter, published in the Daily Trail, 10-25-00.
"A team of consultants unveiled detailed master plans for the Berry Creek 5th parcel. We tried to
work all the comments into a workable scheme," said John Norris, a planner and landscape architect,
withthe Denver firs Norris Dullea. "Focusing first on the Edwards facilities," Norris said
"accommodating the equestrian community, which has a long history at Berry Creek, was top priority.
Hence a 23.7 acres Equine Center to replace the existing rodeo grounds." Staff reporter, published Vail
Daily 10-25-00.
"The horse ranch should stay and ways to work with the stables and the road should be
developed. I am running for County Commissioners to help find ways to support our children. I believe
that Berry Creek 5th could be a symbol and space for this effort. What a great area for the youth that use
the stables, schools and playgrounds to have between 200 and 300 acres of recreational space." Arn
Menconi, Elections Special Vail Daily, 8-2-00.
Do the County Commissioners simply tell people what they want to hear when it makes them
look good? I guess I'm just too naive to believe that our politicians actually mean what they say. In the
past I had faith in all of you.
The three of you need to be reminded that you work for us, the taxpayers, the residents of Eagle
5
0-16-2001
County . You need to be held accountable for your actions while you are in office. Sure, it would be
easy for me to simply decide not to vote for you the next time around, but this does not stop you from
making the wrong decisions while you are representing the taxpayers. You are supposed to be the voice
of the people. Just remember, you should not use your position as a means to accomplish your personal
agendas. You are in office to make decisions based on what the public wants and what the public needs.
When the three of you are no longer County Commissioners, will you look back at what you have done,
which is develop every available inch of open space in the valley, with a sense of pride?
I've noticed that you are doing everything possible to attract people to the Town of Eagle. Why
wouldn't you, Eagle is the so-called seat of power for the County, but in case you haven't noticed, we
live in Edwards. We would like the equestrian center to stay in Edwards. People who attend the rodeos
at Berry Creek are residents and tourists of Vail, Beaver Creek, Avon and Edwards. It's not just the
horse people that want the equestrian center and rodeo to stay at the Berry Creek 5th, it's the entire
community from East Vail to Wolcott and that includes residents and tourists as welL
I would like to leave you with these questions. What happened to the public process with the
CMC deal? How can the County sign a deal with CMC when the residents of Eagle County have not
been informed properly or given a chance to express their opinions on it? Isn't it about time for the
County Commissioners to go back to the drawing board and offer up a viable solution for all the parties
involved, including the residents of Edwards?
Given the bad press that all of you, the County commissioners, have been receiving lately, this
would be a great opportunity for you to step up and save face in front of the entire community. Please
make the right decision for everyone involved. Thank you in advance for your time.
The statement is signed by Nancy Cole.
Brian Nudell, Edwards resident, stated he wants to mirror the comments made in the letter read
by Tom Moorhead and from Nancy Cole. He does not believe there has been enough process to get this
information out to the public. He suggested that what appears to have happened between the Board
of Education, Colorado Mountain College and the Commissioners, has not happened with due process
and investigation of the overall impacts to Edwards. He stated they would like to work with the Board
and has belief in the Board. He suggested that maybe Edwards should be incorporated, slowing down
the process to accommodate that. He cautioned the Board on the process and how quickly it has
happened and the amount of exposure to the general public. He asked they slow down the process a
little before they make it a done deal and the public has to deal with the issues in the future. He thanked
the Board for their time and looks for a positive response.
Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked if there were any additional people to speak. There were
none. He closed public comment.
Commissioner Menconi asked if they could take a short break and that he would like to reply to
the public comment.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated that he would like to make a point. He stated he sincerely
appreciates those present taking time out of their day and come and speak with the Board. He stated he
would like them to understand where they are at in the process. They have yet to go through a Planned
Unit Development process for that property. They are by exempt from that by State Statute. They have
made themselves subject to that process so they will be going through the PUD process. The lease
agreement framework they are making, enables them to have that use of the property as one of the
proposals for the PUD. It is not an executed lease but rather allows the lease to happen. That will
depend on the PUD process. It is not backroom, a deep dark secret. It will be a very public process.
Commissioner Menconi asked Tom Moorhead for an explanation of what Commissioner
Gallagher had just stated.
Mr. Moorhead stated the lease agreement requires that CMC go through the PUD process as
required by law. He stated their requirements are essentially the same as those for Eagle County School
District. He stated the document itself, however, is a lease with that provision in it. The lease further
6
0-16-2001
specifies that CMC has agreed to have additional participation from the School District in the planning
process and a continued participation from the School District and Eagle County through the Partnership
for Education into the planning process. This process will include not only the placement of appropriate
facilities on that property but also will continue to provide for benefits to the Eagle County public
through the School District and through the County, as far as professional development and credit course
opportunities.
Commissioner Menconi stated he wanted to address some of the issues brought up. He stated he
has expressed to the County Attorney, the County Manager and the other Commissioners his concern
with the speed with which this process has taken. His expression to the others has lead to at lease having
the input into the lease and the additions to the lease to assure the development of CMC has the
appropriateness. If they do not build out it will revert to the County. He stated the listening that he has
done over the past year is that this property is a partnership between the County and the High School. It
was property the high school had that they expanded on in hopes to bring in a common good for the
community. That would be the college. He has had conversations with Sara, Nancy and other horse
borders as to the type of opportunities that were available to them and what they were trying to work
with the public on. He apologized if he did not make himself clear in past conversations in trying to find
out and disclose what they were doing. He stated at this time as a Commissioner and a member of the
public he is trusting the process that the County has and what the Attorney has related to determine what
is important to put on this site. He stated he is hearing from people around the community that they
would like to see a community college. He stated Mr. Irwin has pointed out some of the same concerns
he has about the price and the different items. In meetings he has been very concerned with the price
that has been worked out with CMC. He was very vocal in his opinion to price it at the going rate and at
what other properties were selling for. Would that not be responsible on the reason they have that land
and what could be created on that parcel. He would like to stand up for the statements he has made in
the newspaper concerning his stance for the horse boarders. He stated he has had conversations with
members of the public as to how he was re-shaping his opinion. If they are not in accordance, he stated,
he is sorry for that misrepresentation he created.
Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated the School District and the County agreed to work
together for the development of this parcel. As owners of the property they had to start somewhere. The
agreement has been put together to get it started. The next step is the Planned Unit Development
process, which is where they un-vail the proposal of the plan between the two land owners and begin the
public process of getting comments, making changes to the plan as any developer would do and
ultimately getting the approval of both entities. It is a very unusual process because there are two
governments that own different pieces of the property. Mr. Ingstad believes that a lot of people are
mistaking the initial agreements as a done deal. Nothing is complete until the County gets to final plat.
He stated things seem to change hourly, but that is how the process works. He thinks that it is important
for the public to stay involved throughout the process.
Nancy Cole stated she thought they made a difference last year.
Mr. Ingstad stated they did, but that was with the Master Plan, which is a guiding document for
the planners to work with. It does not set anything in stone because it is not an adopted plan from the
standpoint of the County's Master Plan. It helps to guide them as the property is developed.
Mr. Nudell stated what they haven't seen is the word come out in the press that this is not a done
deal. The PUD process is very clear.
SUP-00005, Eby Creek Ranch
Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number SUP-00005, Eby Creek Ranch. He stated the
applicant is requesting this matter be tabled pending resolution of a variety of items to December 4,
2001.
7
0-16-2001
Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number SUP-00005, Eby Creek Ranch to December
4,2001, at the applicants request.
Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
ZS-00080 San Isabel Telecom
Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number ZS-00080, San Isabel Telecom.. She stated the
applicant desires to construct, operate, and maintain a Low Power Telecommunications Facility on the
Cliver property near the Cordillera Valley Club Subdivision in Edwards. The facility is proposed to
consist of a 36' tall, 16" wide, stealth monopole which encases the cellular antennas, and a small
equipment shed (8' X 12'), located near the base ofthe monopole (see attached). This monopole is
designed to accommodate co-locators, however, any increase in either the height and/or width of the
pole, or increase of size of the equipment shelter, would require additional Special Use Permit
approvals. At this time, only one company (San Isabel), has interest in this location.
The chronology ofthe application is as follows:
June 2001- In order to increase the cellular coverage for wireless users in the Lake Creek area, a
Special Use Permit for a new Telecommunications facility is being proposed.
There were no issues that surrounded this application. During deliberation however, the
Planning Commission stressed the importance of proper paint selection to the applicant. The applicant
had no problem with analyzing the landscape, and determining which color would be best suited for that
particular site.
The Planning Commission voted approval of this file, incorporating Staff findings and conditions
as proposed. The vote was unanimous [4:0]
Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows:
There were no referral comments received for this file.
Referrals were sent to the following agencies:
Eagle County Attorney, Sheriff; Colorado State Forest Service, Division of Wildlife;
BLM; Public Service/KN Energy; Fire District; Cordillera Valley Club Homeowners; and
Adjacent Property owners.
Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review
of a Special Use Permit:
ST ANDARD: 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 of the Master Plan and the FL UM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and
structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use.
THE MASTER PLAN MATRIX THAT FOLLOWS ANALYZES THE PROPOSAL AS
SUBMITTED.
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
Community!
Center
8
0-16-2001
II
Not
Applicable
x
x
x
x
x
II
Community Centerl is has be established for both commercial and residential uses. However, the
Eagle County Master Plan is silent in regard to Telecommunication Facilities.
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
Land u~e
~
~ ,
I
I .r.
~ 'wu
I ,
I 1"""
~ut, ,
I .
I I
Ism
I
x
x
x
x X
X
X
EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
The application site is situated within the watershed boundary. The site, however, is not directly
adjacent to any water course, or collector area. Due to the nature of the equipment, this proposal is not
anticipated to degrade the watershed. Staff can make a favorable finding.
[+] 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.
Several telephone/power poles of similar height exist within close proximity of the proposed
facility. Additionally, the proposed site should not compromise view sheds from locations off-site or the
character of the surrounding vicinity of Eagle County. 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
9
0-16-2001
particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Residential,
Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular
Commercial and Industrial Uses.
The new Telecommunication Facility will be located in the Resource zone district. There are no
specific standards for these types of uses found in Section 3-310.
[+] 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 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and
Resource Uses
STANDARD: 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.
The proposed monopole structure is designed to encase the antenna array minimizing the visual
impacts of the structure. The pole shall be painted to blend in with the surrounding landscape, and shall
not emit any odors, noise, glare or vibrations.
[+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design ofthe proposed Special Use
DOES adequately minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent
lands; furthermore, while the proposed Special Use CAN avoid significant adverse impact on
surrounding lands regarding trash, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, glare, and vibration, it
CAN avoid adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding noise and traffic, and WILL 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.
The proposed Special Use is designed to minimize environmental impacts and will not cause
significant deterioration of water, air, wildlife habitat, scenic or other natural resources.
[+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use WILL
fully minimize environmental impacts, and will not cause significant deterioration of water and air
resources, wildlife habitat, scenic, 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
services.
The proposed facility is un-manned. Power and telephone are available. The existing road used
to access the site is adequate. Staff can make a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by
public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities,
parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
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).
[+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410)
[+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420)
10
0-16-2001
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430)
[n/a] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) No wood burning devices are proposed.
[+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450)
[+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was not
necessary for this Special Use Permit.
[+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
[+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520)
[+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the
standards are not anticipated as a result of this development.
[+] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) There have been no
complaints received concerning this finding. All Telecommunication facilities have to comply with
FCC standards (the regulating authority).
[+] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550)
[+] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560)
[+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) No new roads will be created.
[n/a] 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)
[n/a] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Standards in this section do
not apply.
[+] FINDING: Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES fully comply
with all applicable standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards.
STANDARD: 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 Regulationsfor
use, layout, and general development characteristics.
No other provisions of the Land Use Regulations are applicable to this proposal for a Special Use
Permit.
[+] 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
characteristi cs
Brent Wagner, applicant, explained there was a problem with site or coverage in Lake Creek. He
stated Quest comes to Avon and stops and their tower goes from Avon/Edwards to Glenwood. This site
will help lay down the pattern of their signal, cover Lake Creek and Wolcott.
Commissioner Gallagher asked how far west he will be able to call.
Mr. Wagner stated right now they have a seamless system so he could make a call from Denver
to Glenwood Canyon. After the first of the year Quest no longer wants to do the switching. They may
have to do a hard hand off for Avon and Edwards. It will still work but will not be able to hold a call
across that border.
Commissioner Menconi asked about blending the tower to match the surrounding area.
Mr . Wagner stated he will match the green paint that is on the water tank at Cordillera.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated on Monument Hill the stealth pole looks like a pine tree. He
asked about other stealth poles.
Mr . Wagner stated all the trees in the area are very small and they cannot match them. If painted
green it will at least match the area.
11
0-16-2001
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked if there was any public comment. There was none.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00080, San Isabel Telecom,
incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the
Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval.
2. Applicant (San Isabel Telecom) shall notify the Community Development Director when
altering or modifying equipment on the Telecommunications Facility. Notification shall include both a
written description and detailed plans showing equipment on the inside of the pole, as well as any
modifications to the equipment shelter. Any increase in the height of the monopole, or increase of the
equipment shelter will necessitate a new Special Use Permit.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
October 23,2001.
Attest:
Clerk to the Boar
c~~
12
0-16-2001