Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/30/2001 PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 30, 2001 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Arn Menconi Tom Moorhead Jack Ingstad Earlene Roach Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board 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 the week of October 29,2001, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for November 1,2001, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for October 16,2001 D) Resolution 2001-130, abatement of taxes for the Berry Creek Equestrian Center, schedule number R022036 (now R049766) and R028468 (now R049765) E) Animal Control Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Vail F) Animal Control IGA with the Town of Minturn G) Animal Control IGA with the Town of Eagle. Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, Deputy County Attorney, stated there are no changes. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Chairman Stone stated there were no plats or resolutions for the meeting today. Settlement Stipulation Diane Mauriello stated she has a settlement stipulation which results in more than a 10% change in the value. She stated the initial valuation was $324,730.00 to a stipulated value of$277,880.00. The basis of that is that the unit was purchased in the appropriate time frame and the price was adjusted. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the settlement stipulation for the property listed on Exhibit A, schedule number R033129 Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. National Guard Annexation, Town of Gypsum Diane Mauriello stated the next item was the annexation of the National Guard Facility into the Town of Gypsum. She stated this matter comes in the form of a petition. She stated the purpose is to 1 10-30-01 allow for water and sewer from the Town of Gypsum and to incorporate this property into the municipal boundaries. Chairman Stone stated the County is the one initiating the petition as they are the owner of the property . Ms. Mauriello stated they are waiting for the map, indicated in paragraph 4 of the petition. She stated the maps are being printed by the consultant. She stated she has a draft of the map for the Board to look at. Ms. Mauriello stated the National Guard Site is in yellow and part of Cooley Mesa Road is shown in blue. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the petition for annexation concerning the National Guard Facility into the Town of Gypsum, deleting paragraph nine from both petitions. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Cooley Mesa Road Annexation, Town of Gypsum Chairman Stone stated the next matter was annexation of a portion of Cooley Mesa Road into the Town of Gypsum. Ms. Mauriello stated the Board has a petition for annexation for a small portion of Cooley Mesa Road which was overlooked in 1996 annexation. Chairman Stone questioned improvements to the road. Ms. Mauriello stated that will be listed on the annexation agreement which is not being dealt with at this time. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve and sign the petition for annexation, annexing Cooley Mesa Road into the Town of Gypsum. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-131, Transfer of the Gypsum Gun Club Chairman Stone stated the next item before the Board was Resolution 2001-131, the Gypsum Gun Club land transfer to the Town of Gypsum. Jeff Schroll, Gypsum Town Manager, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Menconi asked about the background and why the Town of Gypsum is interested in this property. Mr. Schroll stated several years ago the BLM issued a patent to the County for the gun club. He stated the Town met with the County and discussed transferring the property to the Town which would allow the Town to provide water and sewer and help with improvements. The Town of Gypsum is ready to make this gun club part of their recreation package. He stated there is a stipulation that the Town cannot take this property and sell it or use it for other purposes. It must remain as a gun club. Commissioner Menconi stated he would like to know the background of this property and why the Town is interested in this property. Chairman Stone stated the County and the Town have been discussing this matter for a long time. The members of the gun club would like to make some improvements, including restrooms and such. He stated the long range plan is being accommodated. He does not believe the County is giving up anything. Law Enforcement will continue to be able to utilize the facility. Mr. Schroll stated the gun club is a benefit for everyone and helps eliminate those individuals from going onto BLM and Forest Service property and placing targets and shooting up the property. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated he believes there should be a motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolutions 2001-131, authorizing the Chairman to sign the transfer of patent transferring the Gypsum Gun Club property to the Town of Gypsum. 2 10-30-01 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00125, Mountain Meadow Ranch Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number AFP-00125, Mountain Meadow Ranch. He stated this was an amended final plat which would delete the existing building envelope on a 46.78 acre lot and create a 3.23 acre primary building envelope (for a residence) and a 2.1 acre auxiliary building envelope (for agricultural buildings). A primary purpose for the amendment is to move the primary building envelope out from under a major overhead electrical power line. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1974 - Board of County Commissioners approved the Final Plat which created the Mountain Meadow Ranch, Second Filing Subdivision. 1998 - Board of County Commissioners approved an Amended Final Plat which re-subdivided Lots 27, 28, 34 and Vista Hi Drive and created Lot 34 in its present configuration. 2000 - A nearly identical amended final plat was submitted on behalf of a prospective owner who subsequently declined to purchase Lot 34. The application was withdrawn prior to being considered by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Community Development Staff has made the following findings: a. The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversely affect adjacent property owners. b. The Amended Final Plat IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. The Amended Final Plat DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. An Improvements Agreement IS NOT applicable. e. This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note. Gary Wright, Attorney representing the applicant, stated he is familiar with the property and knows this issue has become very upsetting to some of the neighbors. He stated this property is 47 acres and has no covenants, plat notes or County Regulations that would impact it. He stated there are no impacts to wildlife. He stated he believes the Board will find that staff has done an excellent job in evaluating this application. Mary Bright, area resident, stated she is above this property and objects to the current proposal as it will affect her views. She stated they bought their property based on the building envelope for this property. She stated Ms. Fender related it was their intent when they owned the property to never have buildings in the middle of the property. She related she has a landscaping company and is willing to help bury the overhead power lines. Ms. Bright stated she has a petition of over 50 signatures of neighbors that are opposed to the proposal. They would like to work with the applicant to find a different location for the building envelopes. Chairman Stone stated the Board does have a copy of the petition referenced by Ms. Bright. Commissioner Menconi asked if all the property around this proposal is in Eagle County. Mr. Forinash answered yes. Commissioner Menconi asked where those that signed the petition live in relationship to the applicants property. Ms. Bright pointed out on a map the location of the streets in proximity to this property. Commissioner Menconi asked if those areas pointed out were in a subdivision. Mr. Forinash stated there are two different subdivisions. He stated compared to this application the other properties are a lot smaller. Greg Bright, area resident, stated he believes that Ms. Fender planned to stay on the property 3 10-30-01 until the end of time but could not. He stated she placed the current building envelope in its location for a reason. He stated a house sitting in the middle of the property would take away the character of the neighborhood. He stated all the houses to the side would look right down on the proposed new building envelope. He related the Division of Wildlife has signed offthat it would not be an impact, but there are deer and elk constantly on the property. He stated he put up everything to purchase their current home and one of the main considerations was the view corridor. Don Snider, area resident, stated he has lived in the area for 35 years and purchased his property through Ms. Fender. He stated when the property was subdivided the property in question was to be considered open space. He stated there has been 60 to 75 deer in the area throughout the day and he has counted up to 38 elk on this property. If the shoe was on the other foot, he believes the applicant would be opposed to the change also. Michelle Wilson Zusinski, area resident, read her statement for the record as follows: "Greg Bright and Craig Zusinski have been friends for many years and went to school together. Their fathers have been ski patrol partners for the past twenty-five years. November 1987, Greg and Craig moved to Aspen together. With this established history it is safe to say that Craig is one of the strongest character references for Greg. Craig has watched Greg and his wife Mary Bright set goals. He has witnessed them starting a business and the determination to become well established. He saw the hours ofthe Bright's own labor to remodel their first home to make it what it would become. This past spring he saw the same motivation when the Bright's purchased lot 27 of Mountain Meadow Ranch from Mrs. Ruth Fender. Greg and Mary purchased 1844 Upper Cattle Creek with the knowledge that the adjacent lot, lot 34, that sits on 46 acres, that had a building envelope to the side of their 10 acre property. The Kim's also purchased their property from Mrs. Ruth Fender and closed the same day as the Bright's with the same knowledge of the building envelope location. If the Kim's had issue with the location of the building envelope, it should have been brought to light with the seller of the property before closing. It is safe to say, knowing Greg and Mary, they would not have purchased a house with the knowledge that another house would be built directly in front of them, especially with the amount of available acreage. As it stands now, the open meadow and mountainous view are phenomenal and the Kim's will enjoy the same view from the current building envelope location. The Kim's protest is based on esthetics of visible power lines. Holy Cross has said that lines can be buried. With this knowledge we find it quite selfish ofthe Kim's to try to move the envelope. This past May, Craig and I spent the night with Greg and Mary to wake up and find a herd of elk in the meadow directly in front of their home, where the Kim's wish to build. Furthermore, I have been to the Bright's home seven of the past nine days and have seen the elk everyday in the meadow. This herd has not been in the area very long according to Mrs. Fender. Please do not let the selfishness and unjustified reasoning of the Kim's ruin the re-introduction of wildlife in a rapidly growing neighborhood that needs open space for the survival of wildlife." Angela Schmel, area resident, stated she would like to reiterate what has been said. This particular site when the Kim's want to build, destroys the integrity, privacy and value of the Bright's property. It also devalues the other homes in the community. She stated they ask the Board not allow the Kim's to build at this particular site. Scott Dewind, area resident, stated he purchased his property from the Dewell's who had purchased it from the Fenders. He stated one of their considerations was the views. He stated they came up with the notification of the proposal and it appeared the main reason for the change was the overhead power lines. Holy Cross has related the power lines can be buried. If that is the primary purpose he believes the lines should be buried and not move the building envelope. He stated the owner of the property purchased the property knowing where the building envelope was. In moving the building envelope there has been no consideration as to what they plan to build in that envelope. Either they are planning to build a monstrosity of a house or put it where ever they want within that envelope. He strongly opposes this proposal. He stated there are deer and elk there and he reiterated he is strongly 4 10-30-01 opposed to the proposal and not knowing what is going to go where. Chairman Stone noted for the record the Board did receive a letter from Scott and Nancy Dewind. Nancy Dewind, area resident, spoke to the size ofthe building envelope. She stated if there is a problem with burying the power lines where they are, they can be moved. She related Ms. Fender had no plans to move the building envelope. She stated there does not seem to be much research being done by the applicant and this proposal affects everyone's views. She stated the views in the area are from the top down. She stated the beauty of this land is outstanding. She stated the mesa is beautiful and breathtaking. If the building envelope was to be moved it would destroy the views forever. Chairman Stone closed public comment. Mr. Wright stated the Kim's did do their homework in considering this proposal. He stated Ms. Fender is the one who first submitted the application for moving the building envelope. He stated there were other issues involved with the first application. He stated the applicant is not subject to covenants. Some ofthe other lots did not have building envelopes but rather they used set backs. He stated the building envelopes were cited with a balancing approach. They are well aware of wildlife on the property but the majority is on the lower end of the property. Many of the homeowners won't see the buildings. He stated this 46 acres has never been depicted as open space. He stated the Board is faced with a challenge. Staff has done an excellent job and found there was no basis to not permit this application. Chairman Stone asked if this was part of a platted subdivision. Mr. Forinash answered yes. Chairman Stone stated however, this property was platted and had an established building envelope. Mr. Forinash stated that was correct. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this is the same subdivision as some of the neighbors. Mr. Forinash answered. yes. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the open space. Mr. Forinash stated this property has never been noted on a plat as open space but rather Ms. Fenders wished it remain open space. Mr. Wright stated there is a portion of the property that is designated as open space. Alexander Kim, applicant, stated the open space is not within the 47 acres but rather was a separate parcel deeded as Eagle County open space. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the property and the differences in elevation. Mr. Forinash stated the elevation does drop off and in some places you cannot see the other residences. Chairman Stone read the list of individuals who submitted letters of opposition from those not present today, Paul Johnston, Penney Evans Caruth, John Martin, Pam Nelson, Susan McNally, Hiram and Ann Richardson, David and Linda Baggerman, Terry Kefferson, Frank Sinton. All of those letters have a tone of opposition. Mr. Forinash showed a map of the property, showing the difference in elevations. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the purpose of building envelopes. Mr. Forinash stated they are generally to restrict any type of construction of a building anywhere on a parcel, other than the building envelope. There could be geologic concerns, wildlife corridors, view corridors and structures effect those. Commissioner Gallagher asked about County Regulations for size of a building envelope. Mr. Forinash stated there is nothing in County Regulations that limits the size of a building envelope. Commissioner Gallagher stated he is trying to imagine a house that is 35 feet high with a three acre footprint. 5 10-30-01 Mr. Forinash stated the applicant has related they wanted the building envelope to be three acres but only to situate the house somewhere within that three acres. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the open space requirement. Mr. Forinash stated it was his understanding that Ms. Fender proposed the restriction and was interested in the open space. He stated the restrictions from 1998 and present day were initiated by the applicant at that time. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the applicant in 1998 who wanted open space was the same applicant who then filed an application to move the building envelope into that open space. Mr. Forinash stated that was correct. At the time the amended final plat application was submitted, the applicant at that time had a contract to sell the property and that sale was contingent on the moving of the building envelope. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the applicant has tried working with the neighbors. Mr. Kim stated in the beginning they tried working with the neighbors but got nowhere. Commissioner Gallagher asked about burying the power line and how that would meet the applicants needs. Mr. Kim stated burying the power line is not an option as it is cost prohibitive. He stated it would cost approximately $100,000.00 and he would still not feel comfortable living above them or below them when there are other options on the property. Chairman Stone asked about staff findings and the first one which states this proposal does not adversely affect adjacent property owners. Mr. Forinash stated when the findings were made there were no letters of opposition and staff must try and weigh all the positives and negatives of an application, the interest of the adjacent property owners and the rights of the applicant. Commissioner Menconi asked ifMr. Forinash to repeat his answer for open space. Mr. Forinash stated when the 2nd filing was approved there was no designation for open space. In 1998 Ms. Fender expressed an interest in having part of the property as open space. He stated when Ms. Fender made application in 2000 there was a buyer for the property. Commissioner Menconi asked if Ms. Fender was interested in moving the building envelope to help with the sale of the property. Mr. Forinash answered yes. Commissioner Menconi asked why are the building envelopes so large. Mr. Wright stated the size ofthe building envelope does not mean that is how big the building is. Relative to the size of the lot, the building envelope represents about 20% of the size of the lot. The size of the building envelope is to allow for moving the placement of the house. Commissioner Menconi asked about the letter dated June 20, 2000 from Kelly Wood, Division of Wildlife, apparently listed certain things that should be followed. The auxiliary building envelope should be moved next to the primary building envelope to decrease the loss of habitat. The letter also speaks to dogs, fencing, storage of trash. Is this something that would need to be conditions to the file or is it suggestions. Mr. Forinash stated these things are suggestions and recommendations. In order to enforce those items there would need to be plat notes placed on the plat. He stated this matter was discussed and there was a great deal of reluctance to place any plat notes on the plat. He stated it was deemed that as the entire subdivision did not have those restrictions it would not be wise to place those on one lot. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Kim has read the letter from the Division of Wildlife and if he has a problem placing those conditions on his property. Mr. Wright stated Mr. McGill, a professional land planner was retained and most of the interactions were based in part on the prior application from Mrs. Fender and from the discussions and recommendations Mr. McGill made to the applicant. He stated generally, the less restrictive conditions on the property the more one can do with it and those conditions were not placed on any other property. 6 10-30-01 Mr. Kim stated one ofthe requirements was fencing that wildlife can get through. Commissioner Menconi reiterated the concerns from the Division of Wildlife, in regards to the auxiliary building, the pinon and juniper trees and shrubs to remain undisturbed, dogs should not be allowed to run at large, fencing should be restricted throughout the development, there be no outside storage of trash or garbage, regardless of how brief, the residents be prohibited from using compost piles, receptacles be certified by the North American Bear Society National Park Service or the CDOW. He stated it appears that someone from the Division of Wildlife has concerns with someone living on the property co-existing with the wildlife. Mr. Wright stated they would have no problem with those conditions becoming plat notes. He believes they are reasonable. Commissioner Menconi asked how the original building envelope was determined. Mr. Forinash stated it existed on the plat in 1978 or 1979. It was determined to be the corner of the lot nearest the meadow, in terms of preserving the wildlife and keeping the improvements in a clustered area. Commissioner Menconi asked what was to the right of the original building envelope. Mr. Forinash stated those were residential lots. Chairman Stone stated though it does not show up in the Land Use Regulations, but when there are applications as this he likes to employ the good neighbor policy. He stated he does not believe the applicant has done a very good job in working with the neighbors. He stated he is disappointed that the applicant has not attempted this. He stated it would be very reasonable for the neighbors to rely on the building envelope that is in place when they purchased their property. If there is no building envelope in an area of the property it is obvious they did not want any buildings in other locations. He stated the reason the building envelope was put where it was is to protect certain things. He stated he does believe there is the opportunity to work with the neighbors and find an alternative building envelope. He suggested the applicant work with the neighbors and place the building envelope where it benefits everyone. He suggested maybe the Board would consider a site visit to the property. He suggested the applicant request this matter be tabled, work with the neighbors and come back with something that works for all. Mr. Wright stated one ofthe problems with being a good neighbor is that it takes two. The neighbors have stated they do not want them to build anywhere where it can be seen, which makes placement of the home difficult. Chairman Stone stated he understands and would like to see a little more work with the situation. Commissioner Gallagher stated a site visit would be helpful. He expressed sympathy with the applicant as he understands that the applicant would like to be able to place his home where he wants to on his own property. He stated he agrees with Chairman Stone in asking the applicant to work with the neighbors and see if everyone can find a solution. Commissioner Menconi stated the only thing he would like to share is that the key word is neighbors and trying to work together. There are more things that can be done in the decision making process. He agreed with the Commissioners in asking for a tabling and work with the neighbors and also to come back with some idea of the size of the house. Chairman Stone stated it will also be just as important for the neighbors to work with the applicant. Commissioner Gallagher agreed and sympathized with the applicants as they do own the property and would like to put their house where they would like. Mr. Wright stated they requested this matter be tabled to work with the neighbors and see about any modifications. Mr. Forinash suggested January 8, 2002. Ms. Bright assured the Board they will work with the applicant 7 10-30-01 Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners table File No. AFP-00125, Mountain Meadow Ranch, to January 8, 2002, at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00ll1, Colorow at Squaw Creek Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number AFP-OO 111, Colorowat Squaw Creek. He stated this was an Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to move and rotate the previously platted building envelope. This proposed amendment has been approved by the Colorow Homeowners Design Review Board Committee. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has considered the following in the review of the Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent Property. The proposed amendment does not adversely effect adjacent property owners; b. Final Plat Consistency. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat; c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The proposed amendment is in conformance with Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines; d. Improvements Agreement. An improvements agreement is not applicable; and e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. A restrictive plat note alteration is not applicable. John VanDyke, applicant, was present for the hearing. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. AFP-OOlll, Colorow at Squaw Creek, incorporating staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00085, The Learning Group Matt Gennett presented file number ZS-00085, The Learning Group. He stated the proposal calls for an Educational Facility to be located in the Agricultural Residential (AR) zone of Eagle County, at 2200 Spring Creek Road. The Learning Camp is a facility that offers supplemental academic teaching for learning challenged students in a natural setting that provides a fun and stimulating atmosphere. The camp will conduct sessions that last for several weeks at a time, with a maximum of 50 students per session. The staff to student ratio is 4: I with teachers & counselors residing on-site for the length of the seSSIOns. The site upon which the facility is to operate consists of a three-lot subdivision, named the Ute Springs Subdivision, and complies with the standards ofthe Agricultural Residential Zone. Four outbuildings and one single-family home presently exist on the site. The single family home is owned and occupied by the applicant and is included as a use in this permit. A 3,500 square foot lodge to contain kitchen and eating facilities, an area for classrooms, an infirmary, an office, and shower / bath facilities. The lodge structure is to be located within the previously platted building envelope on Lot 3. Six yurts are to be utilized for overnight accommodations and will be situated within the platted building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3. The preexisting structures on the site will be maintained by the staff of The Learning Camp. Active and passive recreation areas will be facilitated within the platted open space area, in addition to assorted other locations throughout the lots. The Learning Camp, Inc. currently has a special use permit for an educational facility located at 19877 Highway 131, pursuant to Eagle County Resolution 97-56. The existing permit was approved 8 10-30-01 with conditions in May of 1997. One of the conditions specified a five-year term for the special use, with its expiration set to occur in May of 2002. The educational facility is licensed by the State of Colorado and has operated in compliance with local, state and federal requirements. The applicant submitted their proposal for the Ute Springs site on July 16th, 2001. The Eagle County Planning Commission (ECPC) inquired about the status of the subject property, whether the applicant currently owns the proposed site, and if the camp would only operate during the summer. The ECPC's deliberation focused on the comments ofthe Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and whether the applicant is in agreement with their suggestions. The applicant made clear that compliance with their suggestions would not be a problem, excepting two, and came to a compromise with representatives of CD OW which is made clear in the Conditions of Approval. Referrals were sent to Eagle County Engineering, Gypsum Fire Protection District, Colorado State Forest Service, Eagle County Airport, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado State Engineer, Holy Cross Energy. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: Section 5-250.B.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 FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. Section 5-250.B.1 Findin2: [+] 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. The FLUM designates the area in which site is contained as "Countryside". The Master Plan states: "isolated commercial activities which are permitted by special review may occur within or adjacent to developments designated Countryside when they are compatible with the character of adjacent uses and meet the other criteria of the Land Use Code"(p. 87). The Land Use Regulations state that an educational facility is allowed in the AR zone by special use permit. The adjacent uses are either open space or single family residences that are well distanced from each other. 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. Section 5-250.B.2 Finding [+] Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location, and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the proposed site is sparsely populated, with neighboring homes spaced a considerable distance from the location of camp activities. The existing single-family home will continue as such and be inhabited by the applicant. Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. Section 5-250.B.3 Findings: [+] 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. Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. 9 10-30-01 The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. Section 5-250.B.4 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. Since the applicant is proposing to build only one permanent structure of less than three- thousand square feet and utilize yurts for overnight accommodations, the overall impact to the site will be minimal. The applicant has also pledged to be a good neighbor and not allow the proposed use to become a nuisance. Section 5-250.B.5 Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Findings [+] Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Section 5-250.B.6 Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Section 5-250.B.6 Finding [+] Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services. The applicant has demonstrated adequate service by public facilities. The Environmental Health Department is currently working with the applicant on the design of their septic system and water supply. Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Section 5-250.B.7 Findings [+] Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Section 5-250.B.8 Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Section 5-250.B.8 Findings [+] Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The small amount of development activity that will occur in association with the approval of this special use permit is to be soundly designed and properly laid out. Ann Caffcart, applicant, stated everything discussed is at the maximum level. Currently they take 35 children at a time and only operate in the summer. She stated the current building is at 2,300 square feet rather than 3,500 square feet. She stated they have been operating for six years. She stated they are asking for a special use permit for this permanent location. She stated they have worked with all the neighbors who are in support of this proposal. She stated they would like to have a year round 10 10-30-01 operation but for the current time it is only a summer operation. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the location that used to be off Highway 131. Ms. Caffcart stated they closed that site at the end of summer. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the closeness of the neighbors. Ms. Caffcart explained stated they are surrounded on three sides by BLM property and on the fourth side there is a house about every 22 acres. Commissioner Gallagher stated he had received complaints from the prior location and questioned those. Ms. Caffcart stated when that site was approved there was one gentleman who did not want them there. He vowed to do everything he could to get them out. She stated they tried everything they could to make him happy. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the yurts. Ms. Caffcart stated yurts are canvas domed structures that normally are put up in the summer and taken down in the winter, unless someone needs to use those in the winter months. The yurts will not be heated. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the curriculum. Ms. Caffcart stated the children spend three and a half to four hours with the teachers practicing reading, writing and math. The academic component was designed to meet the students needs. Commissioner Gallagher asked about funding. Ms. Caffcart stated the funds comes from tuition and from the corporation. Commissioner Gallagher asked about tuition. Ms. Caffcart stated the tuition went from $2,600.00 to $2,800.00 for a three week session. Commissioner Menconi asked about wildfire mitigation. Mr. Gennett stated there is a memo in the Board's packets regarding wildfire protection. He stated Captain Rick Fluegge has related there will be defensible space around the units. The Forest Service has related the fire hazard for this area is moderate. There is water on site and could be an easily augmented water system to address any fires on site. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the yurts are fire retardant. Ms. Caffcart answered yes. She stated they will work with the Gypsum Fire Department and adhere to all conditions. Commissioner Gallagher asked about adults in the yurts with the youth. Ms. Caffcart stated the adults will be sleeping on the decks at the yurts. Commissioner Menconi moved the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approve File No. ZS-00085, The Learning Group, incorporating staff findings and with the following conditions: 1. Applicant agrees to all the provisions of the Division of Wildlife response letter dated August 29, 2001, with the exception of condition # 1, which shall now read: The only dogs allowed on site are to be those owned personally by the property owner, but in no case shall exceed 2 dogs, and condition #8, which shall now read: Applicant agrees to comply with the rules and regulations of the BLM in regards to the use of public properties. 2. Upon activation of this Special Use Permit, the current Special Use Permit for the Learning Camp, Inc. located at 19877 Highway 131 shall expire. 3. Prior to commencement ofthe Learning Camp's operation, a Well Permit or Water Augmentation Plan approved by the Colorado Division of Water Resources shall be obtained by the applicant which reassigns the use from purely residential to one that specifically applies to the proposed use. 4. The comments of the Gypsum Fire Protection District outlined in their letter dated August 27, 2001, shall be adhered to by the applicant. 5. Except as otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations of the Applicant in 11 10-30-01 this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Ann Caffcart stated they are currently in the process of the water augmentation but asked if the process was slowed, could they use the bottled water. The Board concurred they would have to come back and ask permission. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-00037, Land Use Regulation Amendment Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number LUR-00037, Land Use Regulation Amendment. He requested this matter be tabled to December 4,2001. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table file number LUR-00037, Land Use Regulation Amendment, to December 4,2001. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Two Rivers Metropolitan District, Extension Chairman Stone stated the next item on the agenda was a proposed Resolution for extension of the Two River Metropolitan District Service Plan. Diane Mauriello refreshed the Board on the happenings at the last hearing. She stated they have listened to all tapes of previous meetings. On August 10, 1998 the Board approved a Resolution for the applicants Service Plan. That district was formed to construct, create and maintain services and facilities of the Two Rivers Village. At that time the Service Plan was conditionally approved. She stated the statement "the approval of the Service Plan should be rescinded if the property within the Service Plan is not granted an approval of a final plat by November 1, 1999". She stated that has, over a period of time, been extended by various Resolutions before the Board. The justification is not entirely clear but it may have been incorporated from a previous file. In October 1998 the Board considered and approved a preliminary plan. Later in 1998, District Court enter a decree and formed the District. In 2000 the Board passed a Resolution modifying the Service Plan condition, extending that deadline of November 1,1999 to November 1,2000. They did the same thing again. In January 2001, the Board passed a Resolution amending the Two Rivers PUD and that approval did not have any restriction to what is similar than what is being dealt with now. Now the applicant is filing for an extension. She stated there are two separate and distinct legal issues here. The Special District Control Act which is found at the CRS 32-1-101, which contains the provisions on how the districts get created and modification and compliance of the Service Plan. Also in force are the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. These two processes are separate and distinct from one another. The Board is allowed to place conditions on a Service Plan. In some circumstances that may be the appropriate thing to do. The time frames that the Board is faced with are very inconsistent. It does not make sense to have a deadline that is attached to the final plat when there is a preliminary plan approval in place. It is the Attorney's Office recommendation the conditions that were placed on this application do not go away. Chairman Stone asked if it would be safe to say that if the Board took an action to tie the Service Plan to the final plat, would that be more in concurrence with the Land Use Regulations. That would preserve the original intent and would be more in line with the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. Ms. Mauriello answered yes. Chairman Stone stated the Board could go with the original request, they could have a motion that would change that condition so the Service Plan would expire if final plat was not reached by its expiration. Ms. Mauriello stated the deadline of September 18, 2005 is the expiration for the preliminary 12 10-30-01 plan. Chairman Stone asked about other options. Ms. Mauriello stated if the Board has concerns with keeping the Service Plan relevant, the Board can request that the Special District file an annual report that addresses information on the progress of the District. She stated another option is to eliminate the time frame on the Service Plan permanently. Chairman Stone stated it would become a condition because if there is no final plat the Service Plan would go away. Ms. Mauriello stated the plan does not disappear or go away however there is a provision in the Statutes that allows for dissolution of a Metropolitan District. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, stated they agree that the date of expiration should ride with the preliminary plan which is 2005. Commissioner Gallagher stated it does make sense that it be tied to something like the preliminary plan. He is interested in the annual report and has heard enough concern of people about the life of the project. Commissioner Menconi stated it is his understanding that the applicant had information to update the numbers for the Service Plan. He stated there is interest from the applicant in submitting an annual report. Mr. Isom stated their annual meeting is in November and they can provide that to the County. Commissioner Menconi asked about the different ownerships since the beginning of the development. Mr. Isom stated the original owners were Bill Stevens, Gerald Gallegos and Richard DeClark. Now it is owned by Ken Kriz and Bill Stevens. Commissioner Menconi asked if that was when the amendment was filed for the preliminary plan. Mr. Isom answered yes. Commissioner Menconi asked if that had bearing on the first extension. Mr. Isom stated that was correct. He stated they had submitted a final plat, which they withdrew, then amended the preliminary plan. Commissioner Menconi stated he would like to see the Service Plan tied to the 2005 date and see that annual reports be submitted. Mr. Isom requested the wording be that the Service Plan is tied to the final plat or the expiration of the preliminary plan. Commissioner Gallagher stated in number 9 of the Service Plan, it stated the District, when organized, shall submit an annual report. He asked if those reports have been submitted. Mr. Narracci stated there is no indication that annual reports were submitted. Commissioner Gallagher moved, for Two Rivers Metropolitan District, condition number 3 in Resolution 98-097 and extended by Resolutions 2000-046 and 2000-161, shall be modified as such, that approval of the Service Plan shall be rescinded at the same time as the current Two Rivers PUD Preliminary Plan expires, which is September 18,2005. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 13 10-30-01 Commissioner Menconi moved that Two Rivers Metropolitan District shall file an annual report by January I st of each year, commencing January 2002, with the Board of County Commissioners, currently permitted by Colorado Revised Statutes 32-1-207. Such report shall include but shall not be limited to information on the progress of the Special District and the implementation of the Service Plan shall include financial information illustrating the financial position of the District 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 November 6,2001. Attest: Clerk to the Boa Cha~+ 14 10-30-01