Loading...
Minutes 11/19/2002 PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 19,2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board Absent: Tom Stone Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation in a water rights case with Colorado Springs and Aurora. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone was not present at this hearing. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the next item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of November 18, 2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Agreement between Eagle County Health & Human Services and Beth Hervey for Core/Wrap Services C) Contract between the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Safety and Eagle County, for funding a Leaf Project for the enforcement oflaws pertaining to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs D) Resolution 2002-162, authorizing Michael L. Gallagher, Chairman ofthe Board of County Commissioners, to make application to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Safety for funding a Leaf Project for the enforcement of laws pertaining to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs E) Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Airplanners, LLC F) Avon to Dowd Junction Grant Application signatures. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes in the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated there are no comments or changes to the consent agenda. Commissioner Menconi asked about item F, Grant Application from Avon to Dowd Junction. He asked for a summary. 1 11-19-2002 Ellie Caryl, Eco Trails, stated this is a grant application they would like to submit to Go Colorado and State Trails for the annual trails program. It is due next week. The project is Avon to Dowd Junction, Phase I. It is estimated to be a $2 million dollar project. They plan on a shortfall of $700,000 and they are requesting $400,000 leaving a shortfall of$300,000. They are hoping to backfill through donations and moneys secured from the County. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone was not present for this hearing. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00314, Berry Creek Ranch Filing 4, Blocks 5, Lot 10. He stated this was a Final Plat, the purpose of which is to subdivide Lot 10, Berry Creek Ranch, Filing 4, creating two (2), ~ duplex lots, Lot lOA and Lot lOB, and an access easement. 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-00314, Berry Creek Ranch, Filing 4, Block 5, Lot 10, incorporating staff findings. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-163, to Approve the Special Use Permit to allow a Low Power Wireless Telecommunications Facility for Union Pacific Railroad on Blowout Hill (Eagle County File No. ZS- 00097). The Board considered the Applicant's request on October 29th, 2002. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-163, to Approve the Special Use Permit to allow a Low Power Wireless Telecommunications Facility for Union Pacific Railroad on Blowout Hill, Eagle County File No. ZS-00097. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 2 11-19-2002 Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Buxman Enterprises, Inc. Village Market, Edwards Riverwalk Wines & Spirits Stop & Save #18 Edwards Liquors Chairman Gallagher stated they are here today to hear four Show Cause cases. Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, explained that South Forty Liquors and Shop & Hop have been continued to December 10, 2002. She explained she did one staff report for all four files. These are all show cause hearings based on a sting operation held on September 5,2002, in which all establishments sold alcohol to a minor. All applicants have stipulated to the violation. At this hearing they will focus on the penalty phase. Everyone is concerned with liquor violations. Staff and the applicants met to discuss the problems and to come up with solutions on how they can be prevented. The violations are occurring when the owners are not present. In the past the County tried something a bit different with a couple of establishments that seems to have worked well. Those two establishments were Sato Sushi and Gore Range Brewery. They were also cited for service to a minor. The minutes from those meetings are included in the Board packets. The Board also has copies of alcohol management plans for each establishment. The plans include items such as incentives, zero tolerance programs, sting operations performed by the owners to termination. Staff believes the applicants have worked hard to try and eliminate this problem. Staff is recommending the Board find there was a violation, suspend the licenses for a certain number of days and then hold all of those days in abeyance for a period of one year. This program has worked with other establishments and staffhas no reason to believe it would not work here as well. In the past the Board has suspended establishments for four (4) days for a first offense, eight (8) days for a second offense and six months for the third. These applicants will continue to work hard and with staff to prevent these violations. If a violation occurs within the next year, this suspension plus the penalty for a second violation will both come into play. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board will now hear from the liquor license holders separately. John Buxman owner of Village Market in Edwards and Rob Bratz, Store Manager, were present for the hearing. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the stipulation. He asked if it was signed by Mr. Buxman. Mr. Buxman stated he did sign it. Chairman Gallagher asked if there have been any previous violations. Ms. Roach explained there was a violation for sale to a minor February 24, 1998. Mr. Bratz stated they have gone through and reviewed their policies. He stated together with what the County and the State have provided, they do have a front end manager who will be training all employees regarding the sale of alcohol. He stated they will also have a form for all employees to sign regarding a zero tolerance policy. Any employee caught in a sting operation will be terminated. Commissioner Menconi asked when the Village Market had a similar problem in 1998 he asked what the penalty was. Ms. Roach stated they suspended them for four days and held two in abeyance. Commissioner Menconi asked if there were other establishments in the area that had the same expenence. Ms. Roach stated there were, however the other businesses have changed ownership. 3 11-19-2002 Commissioner Menconi asked the store manager if it is difficult for a store of their size not to serve underage people because of the congestion. Mr. Bratz stated it is not difficult not to sell. He stated they have a fairly high rate of turnover. In the past they have geared their carding to 21 or under. He stated since he has been the store manager they have gone to the 35 and under for purposes of carding. Commissioner Menconi asked how long he has been the store manager. Mr. Bratz stated he has been there a year. Commissioner Menconi asked what happened in this case. Mr. Bratz stated the sales person did ask for identification, but the person buying stated they did not have it. Commissioner Menconi asked for a recap of the sting operation. Ms. Roach stated in this case the person when asked for ill was to ask if it was necessary. Iftold that it is, the person leaves. If told it is not required, she then makes the purchase and asks for a receipt. Commissioner Menconi asked ifMr. Carlson asked for ill. Ms. Roach stated she believes he did but made the sale without it. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Carlson was terminated from his employment. Mr. Bratz stated he was not. Terry Benedict, President ofRiverwalk Wine and Spirits was present for the hearing. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was a history with this license holder. Ms. Roach stated there is not. Chairman Gallagher asked how long they have been the holders of the license. Ms. Benedict stated for six years. She stated they have been in business for six years and have passed at least two other stings. She stated she takes the issues of selling to minors or to people who are intoxicated very seriously. She stated they do not have high turnover and have well trained employees. She spoke to the packet she submitted and the policies and procedures in place prior to September 5. She spoke to the TIPS training and that all employees have been TIPS trained. She stated she does a number of TIPS training programs. If the employees are not trained on the day they begin working, she does a thorough summary with all employees until they are actually TIPS trained. She stated in the existing policies they address the habitual drunkards and they refuse sales to those who are intoxicated. She stated it is in the policy and procedure book that they will not sell to repeat offenders. She stated there is an incentive for the employees not to sell to minors and/or intoxicated individuals. Since the sting they have gotten together as a group and brain stormed how they can be sure they will never sell to a minor or to anyone intoxicated. She stated they have three pages of ideas created by the employees. She spoke to the monthly staff meetings and keeping these issues on the agenda. She noted a couple of the more important ideas. She spoke to a newsletter to be drafted and included with each paycheck. She stated the employees understand that the owners of the establishment will be providing their own stings. She stated the employees have asked for a provision that through the newsletters, monthly meetings and discussions, that the plan be addressed and improved as they become more educated. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Benedict if Mr. Constatine is still employed at Riverwalk. Ms. Benedict stated he is. He has been an employee for four years, but he did receive a suspension for a week. Commissioner Menconi asked if they card anyone under the age of35 and how long have they had that policy. Ms. Benedict stated they do card 35 and under and have done so since day one. Commissioner Menconi asked how long they have had the bonus program of $250 for surviving a sting. Ms. Benedict stated it has been in place for two years and there has not been a sting during that time. 4 11-19-2002 Commissioner Menconi asked about management incorporating stings. Ms. Benedict stated that is a new policy. Commissioner Menconi asked if there has been a sting a Riverwalk in the last two years. Ms. Roach stated there has not. Ken Frieling, Vice President and Bonnie Lightfoot, Personnel Supervisor of Feather Petroleum Company, were present for the hearing. Chairman Gallagher asked who signed the Stipulation. Mr. Frieling stated that it is signed by an officer of Feather Petroleum Company who is director of operations. Chairman Gallagher asked ifhe had the authority to sign the stipulation of violation. Mr. Frieling stated he did. Chairman Gallagher asked about a history of violations. Ms. Roach stated there is no history as this is a new owner. Ms. Lightfoot stated Feather Petroleum Company stated they are highly motivated to have training regarding alcohol service. She stated she and Thomas Chicone are TIPS certified for training. She stated their policies have been effect since November of 2000. She stated they card every person every time with no age limit. She spoke to the newsletters they do to alert employees to any concerns, All of the employees have been notified there was a failed sting in the Edwards store. She stated they have approximately 140 employees. In this particular instance, Heraldo was issued a written warning and was in jeopardy of losing his job. The manager then worked with each employee in the sting. Heraldo is a valuable employee and has had TIPS training. She stated they take this matter very seriously. Commissioner Menconi asked about Feather Petroleum owning other Stop and Saves. Ms. Lightfoot stated there are 16. Commissioner Menconi asked ifthey are all in Colorado. Ms. Lightfoot stated they are. Commissioner Menconi asked about the purchase by Feather Petroleum. Mr. Frieling explained the merger. Commissioner Menconi asked if this is his first show cause hearing. Mr. Frieling stated it is not. Commissioner Menconi asked about previous hearings. Mr. Frieling stated the Gypsum Store did have a show cause hearing in the past. He stated they have totally revised their policies and procedures. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Lightfoot if she has ever participated in a license hearing previously. Ms. Lightfoot answered no. Jean Fiamonti, Sady Family, Inc., stated she and her husband are co-owners ofthe business. Her husband Ken Sady and she run the business. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Fiamonti about the signature on the Stipulation. Ms. Fiamonti stated the signature is her husband and co-owner, Ken Sady. Ms. Fiamonti stated they take this very seriously and this has been a very disturbing matter to them. She stated they have used the 35 or under policy but since the sting they have increased that to everyone will be carded who is under 50. They have trained all of their employees and they have all received TIPS training. She stated they have not terminated the employee, but he has been placed on probation. Since this happened they have taken extra steps including signs at the door and at the cash registers. She spoke to the age verification machine for tobacco and they are using that and the calendar for age verification. She spoke to meeting with Tanny McGinnis and the plan for training every six 5 11-19-2002 months for refreshers on TIPS training. She stated they will also be doing their own stings. Terry O'Conner was present as the attorney for the Corporation. Commissioner Menconi asked for the location ofthe liquor store. Ms. Fiamonti stated in the Northstar building across from Wendys. Commissioner Menconi asked how long they have owned the business. Ms. Fiamonti stated two and one half years. Commissioner Menconi asked how many business were involved in the sting operation. Ms. Roach stated there were six of the County's license holders. She is not sure how many more there were in the towns. Commissioner Menconi asked if they targeted these stores directly and if they also target restaurants and bars. Ms. Roach explained she believes they hit about 15 establishments however only six of those were in unincorporated Eagle County. Commissioner Menconi asked if all six of the package stores in the Edwards area were included. Ms. Roach stated that is correct. Chairman Gallagher asked if Ms. Roach has seen the teenager used in this sting. Ms. Roach stated she did. Chairman Gallagher asked if that person appeared to be older than 21 or 35. Ms. Roach stated she appeared to be 18. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice concerning sentencing. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from executive session and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher asked if the principals would come forward. He stated they have considered various fractions of the violations and the remedial actions that have been taken. He stated it is this Commissioner's opinion that service of alcohol to a minor is the same as allowing a child to play with a loaded gun. He stated they are now saying that they are carding individuals who are 35 or under however, the individual did not look that age. He stated she was not carded. Commissioner Menconi thanked the various persons for all ofthe policies they are implementing since this sting operation. He stated he has chosen to be a County Commissioner because of his calling to public service. He spoke also to his work with the Eagle River Youth Coalition. He stated Eagle County's youth and drinking are higher than the national average. He stated underage drinking is a severe problem in this community and he is pleased that they are looking to effect the concern of underage drinking. He suggested they also work with the different non profit organization to help protect our children. Chairman Gallagher stated they will make motions in order of the agenda. Commissioner Menconi moved to find a violation for Buxman Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Village Market and suspend the license for a period often days with eight being held in abeyance for a period of one year. The applicant may choose the two Sunday's in which they will serve the suspension within the next 60 days. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved the board find there is a violation of the Colorado Liquor Code, 12-47-901 (a) for Edwards Liquor Mart Inc. dba of Riverwalk Wine and Spirits, and suspend the 6 11-19-2002 license for a period often days, nine of which shall be held in abeyance for a period of one year and one shall be served. The applicant shall pick the day of suspension but it may not be on a Sunday or Christmas within the next 60 days. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved the board find there is violation ofC.R.S. 12-47-901 (a) for Feather Petroleum Company, d/b/a Stop and Save #18, and suspend the license for a period often days, nine of which will be held in abeyance for a period of one year. The applicant shall pick the Sunday they will serve the one day within the next 60 days. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to find there was a violation ofC.R.S. 12-47-901 (a) for Sady Family, Inc., d/b/a Edwards Liquors, and suspend the license for a period often days, nine of which shall be held in abeyance for one year. The applicant shall pick the day to be served within the next 60 days and it shall not be Sunday or Christmas. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Bryan True, Assistant County Attorney, related the Commissioners have allowed the applicants to choose their own day of closure within the next 60 days, but the applicant must work with Ms. Roach to schedule the day. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Budget Insurance Discussion This item was tabled to a later date. Public Budget Hearing Mike Roeper, Finance Director, stated the next matter was the public hearing for the 2003 County Budget. He stated the first thing to look at were the accomplishments for this year and last year. He stated the Bond Rating raised to an A from an A-. General Obligation Debt is only 8% of what is allowable. The County received the Award for Financial Reporting Excellence. The budget is balanced. They have healthy fund balances of$52.6 million of which the General Fund is $9.3 million. They have received a clean audit opinion. The investment portfolio is solid. The 2003 proposed budget increases the services with no new positions and no lay offs. They have continued the Employee Benefit Package at no additional costs to the employee. Conservative spending patterns indicate the Department Heads stick to their budgets. Budget guidelines for 2003 is to continue the core business at a high level of quality, adjust revenue forecasts to a very conservative level, maintain a positive cash flow and healthy fund balance, which ensures the County's ability to repay debt and not incur additional debt, and to meet operational expenses and finally to maintain a quality workforce. Revenue Assumptions: Sales Tax was kept at the same as 2002, the mill levy has not changed, property tax values up 3.8%, licenses and permits are kept the same as 2002, and interest earning show a 17.5% reduction. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed Public Comment. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated the next step will be a work session on insurance 7 11-19-2002 benefits. There will be another public hearing and final adoption of the budget on December 10, 2002. Commissioner Menconi thanked the people here who work for Eagle County government, the elected officials, department heads and managers. He stated that Mr. Ingstad and Mr. Roeper have done a great job. He spoke to some ofthe additional issues they still need to address including the Child Care facility, bike routes between Avon and Dowd Junction and the IT upgrade. Chairman Gallagher thanked everyone and stated again that the County's most valuable assets are the people who work here. PDF-00077, Berry Creek Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDF-00077, Berry Creek. He stated this is a final plat for Miller Ranch, Tract D ofthe Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, which would create 57 single-family, duplex and townhome lots, 1 multi-family parcel, 1 community center parcel, 7 park-open space parcels, 1 tract for future development, and public rights-of-way. He explained the location of the tract. The chronology ofthe application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1999 - The Eagle County Recreation Authority (later Eagle County) and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J) entered into a Intergovernmental Agreement to develop the site on a joint basis. 2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - Combined PUD Sketch/Preliminary Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - Final Plat for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. All referral responses have been satisfactorily addressed. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Pursuant to Section 5-280. B.5.b(3). Final Plat for Subdivision - Action by the Board of County Commissioners. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following finding is made: The Final Plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for Subdivision for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development, and Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e, Subdivision Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following findings are made: (1) Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES 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; (3) Spatial Patterns 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. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) 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. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions ARE allowed only when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 8 11-19-2002 (4) 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. (5) Compatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Mr. Forinash stated there are a couple of outstanding issues. One deals with the Covenants, Conditions and Restriction agreement and a Subdivision Improvements Agreement both to be satisfactory to County Attorney. In addition the certificate of Dedication and Ownership to reflect Wells Fargo Bank as a lien holder on this property. He stated they have provided a revised suggested motion including conditions to cover these outstanding issues. Staff recommends approval with the conditions as stated. Vince Hooper, applicant, was present to answer questions. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Menconi stated he was contacted by Sandy Donnelly who was present earlier. He asked Mr. Forinash ifhe had any idea why she might have a concern. Mr. Forinash stated since this is a final plat, it did not go to the Planning Commission. He stated the Planning Commission looked at the specifics of the proposed development. Commissioner Menconi asked if staff had any knowledge of other concerns. Ms. Mauriello stated she believes all comments have been supplied to the Board. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve the final flat for the Miller Ranch, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, subject to a revision of the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership to reflect Wells Fargo Bank as lien holder, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00077, Berry Creek, incorporating the Staff findings, with the following conditions: 1) Completion and execution of a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Agreement and a Subdivision Improvements Agreement satisfactory to the County Attorney; and 2) A revision ofthe Certificate of Dedication and Ownership to reflect Wells Fargo Bank as lien holder; and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00041, Airport PUD Amendment Cliff Simonton presented file number PDA-00041, Airport Amendment. He stated topics covered in a brief discussion prior to the Commission's unanimous recommendation included: Differences in the types of fuel stored at the airport facility. Future plans for fuel storage facilities at the Airport. The Airport pUD Guide directs land use on the 476 acre Eagle County Regional Airport property. Airport Administration (hereafter the Applicant) is requesting a minor amendment to Section II Uses to be Allowed on the Airport of the Guide. The following is proposed (see attached page): 1) Drop the word "Contemplated" from the Section II title so that it reads "Uses to be Allowed on the Airport" instead of "Contemplated Uses to be Allowed on the Airport"; 2) Within Section II, drop the words "for Juveniles" from subsection item "0" so that it reads 9 11-19-2002 "Group Home" instead of "Group Home for Juveniles" 3) Within Section II, drop the word "Underground" from subsection "V" so that it reads "Fuel storage" instead of "Underground fuel storage" The words highlighted in grey above are to be removed from the document. No other changes are proposed. For "housekeeping" purposes, Copies of the most current Eagle County Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Services and Airport Rules and Regulations, approved by the BoCC on May 28, 2002, will be attached and recorded as exhibits to the amended PUD Guide. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: May 28,1986 - The Board of County Commissioners approved the Airport PUD (file PD-259- 86-P) August 19, 1986 - The Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment to the PUD, increasing its size by one acre (file PD-259-86-A) June 18, 1996 - The Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment to the Airport PUD revising height limitations from 45 feet to 65 feet to accommodate the doors on airplane hanger buildings (file PD-259-96-A). Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering (10/09/02) Responded with no comments Gypsum Fire District (phone call of 10/1102) Fire Chief Dave Vromann confirmed that the installation of fuel tanks at airport facilities is regulated by the Uniform Fire Code, and that the local fire authority having jurisdiction would be involved with any plans for tank installation. Dave noted that planning should be undertaken to design and locate a permanent "Fuel Farm" on the airport property. Referrals were sent to the following agencies, with no response: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Colorado State Health Department, Army National Guard and the Town of Gypsum. Twenty six adjacent property owners were notified (see attached list) with no response. Staff findings are as shown on staffreport and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Eagle County Regional Airport PUD is owned in its entirety by Eagle County. This application was submitted by the Manager of Airport operations. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person! entity. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. This application proposes minor amendments to the wording of Section II of the PUD Guide, which lists the uses allowed within the PUD. Should this application be approved, the word "Contemplated" would be removed from the Section II title, the use "Group home for juveniles" (item 0) would be changed to read "Group Home", and the use "Underground fuel storage" (item V) would be 10 11-19-2002 changed to read "Fuel Storage". Otherwise, no new uses are proposed as a part of this Amendment. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations ", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. No change to the existing standards for dimensional limitations is proposed. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these per (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. At the time of the approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan, it was found that adequate, safe and convenient off-street parking had been provided. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the adequacy of the existing off-street parking and loading. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing landscaping nor require additional landscaping. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved PUD Preliminary Plan DOES comply with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT impact existing landscaping nor require additional landscaping. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD ) shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan 11 11-19-2002 for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on signs other than those already provided in the Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of these facilities. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been found that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that adequate 12 11-19-2002 improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely effect the adequacy of these improvements nor warrant additional improvements. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been found that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. ( e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development was compatible with other development in the area. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect this compatibility. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). It has previously been found that the PUD is in conformance with the Master Plan, and all applicable sub-area Master Plans. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter attributes that affect conformance with current Master Plan documents. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Master Plan. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary PZanfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing is not required for this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. i. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of- ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use 13 11-19-2002 Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for aU landowners within the PUD. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that adequate open space was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing common recreation and open space nor warrant additional common recreation and open space. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been found that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that recommendations regarding geology, soils, wildfire and wildlife were considered to mitigate hazards and protect resources. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely impact natural resources. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS previously been found that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents were considered prior to approval ofthe Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect natural resources. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch 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. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD Amendment IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).u 14 11-19-2002 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 Develooment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the provisions of the approved PUD. Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan was approved, it was found that the applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment does not create any non-compliance. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT create any non-compliance with any provisions ofthe current Land Use Regulations. 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. (c) 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have available a "full range of public services", and promote maximum "economy of development". The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely affect the spatial patterns in the area. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the area was "compatible with the characteristics" ofthe proposed use. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found that the site was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT alter the suitability of the property. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed 15 11-19-2002 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely affect the compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been found that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the compatibility of the resulting development with surrounding uses. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." A draft amended Planned Unit Development Guide is provided. The proposed changes occur within Section II on page 2, which describes the uses allowed on the PUD. See related discussion under "Project Description" on page 1 and under "Uses" on page 3 ofthis report. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] The Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section are fully met. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] -No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon afinding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The modification proposed by this amendment of descriptive text within Section II of the PUD Guide will not create a discernible difference in the nature of the development. The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing PUD, will not affect nearby property owners, and would not be granted solely to confer a special benefit on anyone individual or property owner. [+] FINDING Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment ofland abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Mr. Simonton showed various aerial photographs of the location. He stated the file is represented today by Kenny Mempah and Brian Bums, President of the Vail Valley Jet Center. He spoke to the above ground fuel storage tanks. They contacted a number of airports with fuel storage facilities. He stated they all have above ground fuel tanks/fuel farms. He stated all except Aspen prefer the above ground tank systems to underground systems as they are more susceptible to corrosion. He stated Jim Elwood of Aspen stated he would prefer the below ground tanks because of the esthetics and the space they actual take up. Depending on the design, above ground tanks may require additional protection. He stated some airports use trucks while others use a self service mechanism. The regulation regarding the storage of fuel on airport property are governed by Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety. They are closely monitored by the FF A and EP A. He stated airport management has provided cut sheets of the various options. Regarding any proposal for new storage, he asked them to review page 2 of the PUD Guide. He stated prior to use on the airport grounds it must come before the County Commissioners. He spoke as well to the Airport Minimum Standards, section 1, page 3, statement of policy, there is a statement that says the County 16 11-19-2002 further reserves the right to designate the specific airport areas in which these services can be conducted. These include fuel services. He stated as a Board they very much control and will stay in the loop of any proposed storage at the airport. He directed them to the section on fixed based operators and the detailed description of the standards for fueling or fuel storage at the airport. He stated he does not believe that the approval of the amendment would open up any liability for the County. Chairman Gallagher stated he wants to separate the amendment from any permission to store fuel. Mr. Simonton stated they are only approving the amendment today and not approving the use itself. Chairman Gallagher asked if section 5 deals with fuel service. Mr. Simonton stated it deals with the types of dispensers, the types of filters and the size of tanks. It will always be with inspections. Chairman Gallagher asked if self- fueling is an existing permitted use. Mr. Simonton stated it is not specific to that. Chairman Gallagher asked if it should be. Mr. Simonton stated that would depend on what the needs of the Airport operations are. Chairman Gallagher stated there is a big difference in safety, commerce and self-serve. He asked the County Attorney if there is a need to modify this. Ms. Mauriello stated what the provision proposes is only addressing above ground storage. She stated either use will have to come back before the Board. Regarding self-fueling, this does not contemplate that. Chairman Gallagher asked if in the PUD Guide there is a significant difference between the FBO doing a commercial fueling operation and a self serving fueling operation. Ms. Mauriello stated it seems to her that fixed base operator is a permitted use under the guide, but it is not specific as to what they may be allowed to do in operating their business. Mr. Ingstad stated this amendment came about at a request from the Vail Valley Jet Center to utilize self-fueling. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDA-00041, Airport PUD Amendment, incorporating staff findings. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00100, Pearch Accessory Dwelling Unit Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number ZS-OOlOO, Pearch Accessory Dwelling Unit. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed the availability of a second water tap on the site and the nature and adequacy of augmentation required for water well. He stated this is a Special Use Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit on a legal non-conforming lot (less than 35 acres in size) in the Resource zone district. The site is improved with an 850 sq. ft. modular unit in which the owner/applicant currently resides, and a 1 ~ story log and stucco structure which is not served with water, gas or electricity, plus several other accessory buildings. The Applicant proposes to be able to construct a new 2,356 sq. ft. primary residence and let the existing modular unit become the accessory dwelling unit. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Department Not all ofthe drainage standards ofthe Land Use Regulations have been satisfied. The drainage standards must be met or a variance form improvement standards obtained. Additional erosion control measures are required on the site, especially due to proximity ofthe site to Brush Creek. 17 11-19-2002 The site is limited to one access from Brush Creek Road, rather than the two proposed. Town of Eagle The Town requires that an Annexation or Pre-Annexation Agreement be finalized prior to providing water service outside its' corporate limits. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District There appears to be adequate room to turn our apparatus around. Will use Colorado State Forest Service recommendations for wildfire information. Colorado State Forest Service Wildfire hazard rating for the site is low. Recommends keeping flammable vegetation at least 15 feet from the new structure. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) No comments. Additional Referral A~encies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Housing Department, Eagle County School District, Colorado Division of Wildlife. 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: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.1] - 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. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance Xl X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable X I - With recommended conditions, minimizes adverse impacts to environment and preserves surface and ground water quality/quantity. EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Community Open Space & Environment & Economic Affordable Circulation& FLUP Size & Recreation Sensitive Areas Development Housing Transportation Map Character Conformance Xl X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance 18 11-19-2002 II II Not Applicable x x x x x Xl - Maintains existing zoning and density. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.1] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies ofthe Master Plan and the FLUM ofthe Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. This site is located along a portion of Brush Creek Road that has various single family dwellings on similar sized lots. Immediately south of this site, across Brush Creek, is the Eagle Ranch Subdivision in the Town of Eagle with lots generally 0.5i: acres in size. On this 2.49 acre lot, two dwelling units, one primary and another secondary, are appropriate. [+] FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - 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. The only serviceable dwelling unit on the site is an 850 square foot modular unit. Another existing residential structure does not have utilities connected and will continue to be unused for residential purposes. The intent of the Applicant is to build a primary dwelling unit of approximately 2,356 sq. ft., and use the existing modular unit as an accessory dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit of up to 1,800 square feet is permitted as a use by right on conforming lots in the Resource (R) zone district. This 2.49 acre lot is non-conforming, therefore a Special Use Permit is required. Certain standards are established in Section 3-31 O.A., Accessory Dwelling Unit, ofthe Land Use Regulations, and relate to [1] number of accessory dwelling units (ADU), [2] size and use of the ADUs, [3] location, [4] parking, [5] ownership, [6] dimensional limitations, and [7] adequate facilities. It appears that all of these standards can be satisfied and will continue to be applicable throughout the life of this Special Use Permit. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] - 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 site is not located in any of the mapped critical wildlife areas, nor in mapped areas of possible ridgeline impacts. The addition of a second dwelling unit on the site is not expected to create other significant adverse impacts, nor be a nuisance. However, the Eagle County Engineering Department has noted that drainage and erosion control measures beyond those shown on the application materials are required to satisfy the applicable 19 11-19-2002 provisions of the Land Use Regulations. As a condition of approval, applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations regarding drainage and erosion control shall be met to the satisfaction ofthe Eagle County Engineer prior to implementation of this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 1] [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] The design ofthe 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 shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] - 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 Eagle County Engineering Department has noted that drainage and erosion control measures beyond those shown on the application materials are required to satisfy the applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. As a condition of approval, applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations regarding drainage and erosion control should be met to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer prior to implementation ofthis Special Use Permit. [Condition # 1] [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] 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: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] - 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 servlces. The existing dwelling unit on the site is currently served by a water tap from the Town of Eagle. It is proposed that the second dwelling unit be served by a private water well. A copy of a well permit has been provided. As a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should be subject to compliance by the user of the conditions of approval of the Well Permit issued for this site by the Office of the State Engineer. [Condition # 2] The site has an existing individual sewage disposal system (ISDS). A second ISDS is proposed for the new dwelling unit. An application for an ISDS Permit has been submitted to the Eagle County Environmental Health Department. As a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should be subject to the completed installation and on-going maintenance of adequate individual sewage disposal systems. [Condition # 3] Other public facilities are available in a manner appropriate for the rural location ofthis site. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical servIces. STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standards. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([ + D or does not meet the standard ([ - D, or the standard does not apply ([ n/a D. [+] Division 4-1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards The site is adequate to meet the parking and loading and snow storage standards. [n/a] Division 4-2. Landscaping and Illumination Standards These Standards do not apply to this Special Use Permit. 20 11-19-2002 [nla] Division 4-3. Sign Regulations No signs are contemplated for this residential Special Use. [ +] Division 4-4. Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4-410. Wildlife Protection The site is not located in any mapped critical wildlife areas. [+] Section 4-420. Development in Areas Subiect to Geologic Hazards No geologic hazards have been identified. [+] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subiect to Wildfire Hazards The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has determined that the wildfire hazard rating for the site is low. CSFS recommends that flammable vegetation be kept at least 15 feet from the new structure. As a condition of approval, flammable vegetation should be kept at least 15 feet from the new structure. [Condition # 4] [+] Section 4-440. Wood Burning Controls The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [nla] Section 4-450. Ridgeline Protection This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map. [nla] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report An Environmental Impact Report has not been required for this Special Use Permit. [+] Division 4-5. Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. [+] Section 4-520: Noise and Vibration Standards The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-530: Smoke and Particulate Standards The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-540: Heat. Glare. Radiation and Electrical Interference The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-550: Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [nla] Section 4-560: Water Quality Standards This Section in not applicable to a non-commercial use. [ +] Division 4-6. Improvements Standards [nla] Section 4-620: Roadway Standards There are no new roadways proposed as part of this Special Use Permit. [nla] Section 4-630: Sidewalk and Trail Standards No required sidewalks or trails are being recommended as part of this Special Use Permit. [nla] Section 4-640: Irrigation System Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Section 4-650: Drainage Standards The Eagle County Engineering Department has noted that drainage measures beyond those shown on the application materials are required to satisfy the applicable provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations. As a condition of approval, applicable provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations regarding drainage shall be met to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer prior to implementation of this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 1] [n/a] Section 4-660: Excavation and Grading Standards No issues related to excavation and grading have been identified. [+] Section 4-665: Erosion Control Standards The Eagle County Engineering Department has noted that erosion control measures beyond those shown on the application materials are required to satisfy the applicable provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations. As a condition of approval, applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations regarding erosion control should be met to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer prior to implementation 21 11-19-2002 of this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 1] [n/a] Section 4-670: Utility and Lighting Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Section 4-680: Water Supply Standards The existing dwelling unit on the site is currently served by a water tap from the Town of Eagle. It is proposed that the second dwelling unit be served by a private water well. A copy of a well permit has been provided. As a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should be subject to compliance by the user of the conditions of approval of the Well Permit issued for this site by the Office of the State Engineer. [Condition # 2] [+] Section 4-690: Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards The site has an existing individual sewage disposal system (ISDS). A second ISDS is proposed for the new dwelling unit. An application for an ISDS Permit has been submitted to the Eagle County Environmental Health Department. As a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should be subject to the completed installation and on-going maintenance of adequate individual sewage disposal systems. [Condition # 3] [+] Division 4-7. Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [n/a] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards Since this Special Use Permit application does not involve the subdivision ofland, the provisions of this Section are not applicable. [+] Section 4-710: Road Impact Fees Road impact fees will be payable prior to issuance of a building permit for the second dwelling unit, pursuant to Section 4-710, Road Impact Fees, ofthe Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - 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. The Eagle County Engineer has noted that, since Brush Creek Road is classified as a Major Collector Road, only one access onto Brush Creek Road is allowed, rather than the two proposed. As a condition of approval, the number of accesses to Brush Creek Road should be limited to one. [Conditions # 5] [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] 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. Mr. Forinash stated there are a couple of letters that they have received today. One from Richard and Valerie Kesler and one from Mary Moe & Thomas Armstrong. Both expressed a desire to not have this approved. Heidi McCollum, attorney for Barbara Pearch, stated the concerns from the Planning Commission meeting have been addressed. Part of the concern deals with the clutter on the property. There are ongoing efforts to try to clean that up. Mrs. Pearch is 86 years old and having a difficult time taking care of that. She explained that with the family moving on to the property, they will be able to assist her in removing the trash. Chairman Gallagher asked if a County building permit was issued for the modular unit. Terry Fisher, representing the applicant, stated she does have one for the foundation. Chairman Gallagher asked about a permit for the existing structure. Ms. Fisher stated it is on a foundation. Ms. McCollum stated the original building was erected in 1991 and there was a building permit 22 11-19-2002 filed. Anne Colby, area resident, stated she is a property owner in between the two that wrote the letters. She stated they have no opposition as far as the modular. She stated the Fishers have worked very hard at cleaning up the property. She stated this is a real win/win situation and will greatly improve the whole site in general. She stated the people voicing concern moved into the area with modulars in place. She stated the Pearch's and the Colby's have a long history and she has no concerns with what they are trying to do. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the collection of stuff. Ms. McCollum reminded the Board that the Pearch's purchased this property in the 1950's and they have over half a century of living there. Chairman Gallagher asked who owns the property between the Pearch's and Eagle Ranch. Ms. McCollum stated that is owned by the Town of Eagle. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00100, Pearch Accessory Dwelling Unit, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. Applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations regarding drainage and erosion control be met to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer prior to implementation of this Special Use Permit. 2. This Special Use Permit be subject to compliance by the user of the conditions of approval of the Well Permit issued for this site by the Office of the State Engineer. 3. This Special Use Permit be subject to the completed installation and on-going maintenance of adequate individual sewage disposal systems. 4. Flammable vegetation be kept at least 15 feet from the new structure. 5. The number of accesses to Brush Creek Road be limited to one. 6. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations ofthe Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Chairman Gallagher asked about item #4 and where that came from. Mr. Forinash stated that came as a referral from the Eagle Fire Protection District. Chairman Gallagher asked if in the future that compliance with Fire Wise might be a more defensible condition. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ZC-000057, Lot 5, Mosher Subdivision Joseph Forinash presented file number ZC-000057, Lot 5, Mosher Subdivision. He stated this was an application to re-zone a 10 acre parcel from Resource to Agricultural Limited (minimum lot size: 5 acres) for the purpose of subsequently applying for subdivision into two 5 acre parcels. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial with Staff Findings with a 4-2 vote. They deliberated on the suitability of site for subsequent subdivision, applicability and conformance with Eagle Area Community Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan Map and precedence which may have been set by clustered subdivision to the north (Ladybelle View) and Abrams Subdivision to the east along Brush Creek Road. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1974 - Plat recorded which created ten 10 acre parcels, collectively known as Mosher's Subdivision, including this Lot 5. 1979 - Final Plat approved for Mo's Subdivision, immediately south of Mosher's Subdivision, which created four lots ranging in size from 8.095 to 10.435 acres. 1987 - Final Plat approved for Ladybelle View Subdivision, immediately north of Mosher's 23 11-19-2002 Subdivision, which created one lot of 28+ acres and four clustered lots of 5+ acres. 2001 - Final Plat approved for Abrams Subdivision, immediately east of Mosher's Subdivision, which created two lots of5.1 acres and 9.7 acres, respectively. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering Department Driveway to proposed north lot will have a grade of approximately 13% assuming the existing driveway is used. Lot is on a hill side with an average slope of 25%, making construction of structures and septic systems difficult. Cedar Lane ( off-site) is outside of easement provided for that purpose. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District No comments. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Housing Division, Eagle County Surveyor, Town of Eagle, Colorado Division of Wildlife, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations: STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l.] - Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the Master Plan. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Qualitv Recreation Housing Services Conformance X4 Non X2 Conformance Mixed Xl X3 Conformance Not X X X Applicable Xl - Site is located in Mule Deer Winter Range, Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. It may be possible to mitigate adverse impacts during subsequent subdivision review. x2 - Further subdivision of the site would tend to allow more dense uses away from an existing community. Further subdivision ofthe site would not be consistent with the Future Land Use Map. x3 - Greater density on the site may be consistent with the spirit of this Policy. However, the site is not close to transportation and jobs, as proposed for affordable housing. x4 - It appears that the intent of the Future Land Use Map maybe to include this site in an area designated as "Countryside", which includes an expected dwelling unit density range of from 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 35 or more acres. Community Open Space Environment Economic Affordable Circulation & FLUP Size & & Recreation & Sensitive Development Housing Transportation Map Character Areas EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN 24 11-19-2002 Conformance Non Xl X2 X5 Conformance Mixed X3 X4 Conformance Not X X Applicable Xl - Further subdivision ofthe site would be contrary to the policy of concentrating development in and around the Town of Eagle. Site is well beyond the "10-20 Year South Growth Boundary". X2 - Further subdivision would be contrary to policy of retaining existing resource development densities of 1 unit per 35 acres. X3 - Site is located in Mule Deer Winter Range, Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. It may be possible to mitigate adverse impacts during subsequent subdivision review. X4 - Greater density on the site may be consistent with the spirit ofthis Policy. However, further subdivision of the site would not be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map. X5 - Site is well beyond the "10-20 Year South Growth Boundary" on the Future Land Use Plan Map. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X Non Xl Conformance Mixed X2 Conformance Not X X X X Applicable Xl - Further subdivision of the site would be contrary to the policy of concentrating development in and around existing communities to enhance open space values in the outlying areas. X2 - Site is located in Mule Deer Winter Range, Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. It may be possible to mitigate adverse impacts during subsequent subdivision review. Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Xl Conformance EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN 25 11-19-2002 II Not Applicable x x x x II Xl - Site is located in Mule Deer Winter Range, Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. It may be possible to mitigate adverse impacts during subsequent subdivision review. Based on the above analysis, the proposed zone change and intended subdivision is clearly not consistent with the Master Plan. However, there a number of other factors which exist that should taken into account during the consideration of this Standard, including the following: The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Eagle County Master Plan recognizes this area comprised of from 5 to 10 acre lots which have existed for a number of years, some even preceding zoning in the unincorporated areas of the County. An area designated as "Countryside" is shown on the FLUM in the general area of these smaller lots. "Countryside" indicates areas with expected density of from 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 35 acres. While the detail on the FLUM showing the extent of the "Countryside" area is not entirely clear, it appears that the intent of the FLUM may be to include this subj ect lot in the "Countryside" area. What is not clear from the FLUM is what lot size for this particular site is appropriate, that is, 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres or 1 dwelling unit per 35 acres, or at what point in between. That determination must be determined by other factors. While the subject site is located in areas indicated as critical wildlife habitat, it is located on the fringe of those areas. If subdivision were subsequently proposed for this site, it may be possible to adequately mitigate adverse impacts. The Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) Map in the Eagle Area Community Plan (EACP) shows greater detail in this area. A strict reading ofthe FLUP Map indicates that this subject lot is in an area with density of 1 dwelling unit per 35 acres, even though this lot and others in the immediate vicinity are less than 35 acres. It appears that zone changes to increase density for this particular lot, and others in the immediate vicinity, are not contemplated. The FLUP Map of the EACP (adopted in 1996) has a 20-year growth boundary extending from the community center of the Town of Eagle which is well northwest ofthe subject site. That is to say that the subject site is well outside the 20-year growth boundary. Considering both the analysis of the proposed zone change and the factors enumerated above, Staff concludes that density that currently exists in the area of the subject site is consistent with the Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Map and the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Eagle Area Community Plan, but that the increase in density that would result from the proposed zone change is not consistent with the Master Plan. [-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.] - The proposed amendment IS NOT consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the 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. The proposed zoning would permit subdivision of this site into two 5 acre lots. Issues raised by the County Engineering Department include the suitability of the site for a second building site on what would be the north lot, if subdivision into two 5 acre lots were to be approved. Specific issues included the necessary grade of the driveway to the proposed north lot, and the slope of proposed second building site. The Applicant has responded that both issues can be addressed satisfactorily. There is no conclusive resolution of these issues at this point. Detailed consideration of these issues might better occur at the 26 11-19-2002 time an application for subdivision was under review. With respect to surrounding uses, the area in the immediate vicinity includes residential and agricultural lots ranging from 5 to 10 acres. Other than with respect to density, the proposed zone change would result in a land use which would be generally compatible with the existing agricultural and residential uses surrounding the subject land. The proposed increase in density would not be compatible nor appropriate for this part of the Brush Creek Valley. [-] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] - The proposed amendment IS NOT compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and IS NOT an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district. 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. Certainly, the Eagle area and the Brush Creek Valley have changed since the existing zoning was established. There has also been changes since the Eagle County Master Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan were adopted in the mid-1990s. However, most of the recent development which has occurred in the area has been closer to the community center near the Town of Eagle. The pending status of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD application creates a degree of uncertainty with respect to the nature and degree of the changed conditions. However, even if the proposed Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD were to be approved as proposed, with its' gross residential density of one unit per 20+ acres on 1627+ acres and minimum lot size of 4 acres, the density in this area would be greater than that of the proposed Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD. The extent of the changed conditions in this area are not sufficient to warrant the increase in density that would be permitted by the proposed zone change. [-] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] - There ARE NOT changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA.] 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. Adverse impacts on the natural environment might occur since the site is located in Mule Deer Winter Range, Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. Given the location of the site on the fringe of these critical wildlife habitat areas, it may be possible to mitigate adverse impacts during subsequent subdivision review. Other adverse impacts on the natural environment do not appear to be likely. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA.] - The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need. The Applicant notes a community need in the form of addressing a wide range of housing options. Staff agrees that the proposed zone change would serve to accommodate this need. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] - It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed amendment addresses a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern, and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. The proposed zone change, and the subdivision application which is expected to follow, would 27 11-19-2002 begin to substantially increase the intensity of the use in this part of the Brush Creek Valley. The recently approved zone change to AL (minimum lot size of 5 acres) and subdivision ofthe Abrams Subdivision had in its' favor the fact that it is adjacent to Brush Creek Road. The greater distance ofthis subject site from Brush Creek Road makes the smaller lots less appropriate. And it is likely that a number of similar zone changes which could be proposed for this area could result in a significant concentration of 5+ acre lots. It is further noted that the existing dwelling is served by municipal water from the Town of Eagle. Since the Town of Eagle is not currently selling water taps outside its' corporate boundaries, a second dwelling would necessarily have to be served by a private well. This points out the limits of being able to provide necessary public facilities and services. [-] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] - The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in a logical and orderly development pattern, WILL constitute spot zoning, WILL NOT logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. 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. The factors discussed above with regard to Standards for Consistency with the Master Plan, Changed Conditions and Development Patterns suggest that the area in the vicinity ofthis subject site may have changed or may be changing in the direction of increased residential density. However, it is not clear that the change is sufficient to warrant AL (minimum 5 acre lot) zoning on this subject site. To the extent that other property owners in the area were to be encouraged to seek changes to AL zoning, the resulting density in the area could be more than that would best serve the public interest. [-] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] - The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAS NOT changed or IS NOT changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Commissioner Menconi asked about the lot division proposal. Mr. Forinash stated they are proposing to divide the lot east and west into two 5 acre parcels. He stated staff could not find in favor of this file and they are recommending denial. Chairman Gallagher asked to return to the graphic showing the surrounding lots. Chairman Gallagher asked when this was zoned. Mr. Forinash stated in 1974. Chairman Gallagher asked if one of the negative findings was zoning. Mr. Forinash stated all of the findings have to do with zoning. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the minimum size and the resource designation. He asked if all resource zoning is 35 acres. Mr. Forinash stated there are some that are non-conforming. Chairman Gallagher stated they have the six ten acre lots that are not 35 acres. He asked why they don't change the zoning to reflect the reality. Mr. Forinash stated the review includes whether or not it conforms to the Master Plan. Chairman Gallagher questioned why they don't change the zoning. Mr. Forinash stated it can be done, but they must have an applicant who wishes to do so. It is certainly legal to have a non-conforming lot. Chairman Gallagher asked the applicant for their presentation. Tom Boni, Knight Planning, introduced Rob and Jan Marmon, owners of the property. He stated the presentation will of course be in support of the zone change. He stated it will not be a comparison of what was done historically. Zoning is dynamic. He asked Ron to speak to the lay of the land and how it sits relative to his neighbors and how the new lot is configured. Ron Marmon stated he and J an have been here since 1977. He stated they have owned the 28 11-19-2002 property for 15 years. He stated one of the main reasons they came before the Board is because last year when the Abrams property was subdivied, they thought it might be time to do this. He showed on the topo the location of their property and the two building sites. He showed the access road and to the two building sites. He stated the area of the second building site is basically a hidden canyon. He stated they sent out letters to all the neighbors and have received no negative comments. He stated their neighbors, the Belafew's, were going to come and speak on their behalf, but they were not able to do so. He stated nobody can see their property and they can not see each building site from the other building site because of the topography. He stated each of the building sites has about an acre of flat building envelope and they are in their natural state. The roads and parking are established. He stated one of the main reasons they want to do this subdivision is when the Abrams/Seiple subdivision was taken care of they felt that was leading them in this direction. He stated on the bottom section of the property there is a mobile home with a Town of Eagle water tap and the top site has electric and a well. He stated they have an existing well on the property that was put in in the late 1970's. He stated they are hoping that this is within the conforming of what the Planning Commission was concerned with. The Planning Commission was concerned that this might set a precedent. Jan Marmon stated she and Ron have lived here since 1979 and they own three businesses. She stated they have worked really hard on this property, it has a hill and is very secluded. She stated they have no children and have recently divorced. They are still very good friends and they would like to be able to stay here and have use of the property. She stated from the two units they can not see each other. She stated they are just trying to be able to afford to live here. She stated they have owned the mobile home since 1979. Mr. Boni explained the location of the property up Brush Creek being 2.3 miles south of Eagle Ranch and 1/3 of a mile north of Frost Creek. He showed the overall area of the Town of Eagle. He stated it is important to recognize the context of the property in relationship to the growing Town of Eagle. He stated the town boundaries are within 1.5 miles of the area they are talking about. He spoke to the new commercial area in Eagle Ranch. The additional identification of a recreation facility in the Town of Eagle will be just to the southeast ofthe Terrace. With the community center/commercial area in Eagle Ranch there will be two interconnections of the Brush Creek Road diverting people off of Capitol. They think that this emerging context of the growth certainly changes the context where this property lies. His stated this history is a variation of what was shown by Mr. Forinash. He spoke to their conversations and those with the Planning Commission. There were mixed findings. The decisions were not unanimous. The purpose of this history is to show the evolution of the area and the changes that have taken place in the Brush Creek Valley. He spoke to the Seipel Subdivision and the Abrams Zone change in 2001. He stated the Master Plan identifies this location as countryside. That designation means anything from 1 unit per two acres up to one on 35. It is guidance that the County says will operate over time and the property fits within this. The Brush Creek Elementary School was constructed in 2001, the commercial center in Eagle Ranch in 2002 and the proposed recreation facility. He spoke to the Standards for Zone Change and this not being controlled by one factor. The Board shall consider the following, consistency with Master Plan, compatibility with surrounding uses, changed conditions and the effect on natural environment. He spoke to there being other 5 acre parcels along Brush Creek Road. He stated the Planning Commission did recognize that this zone change would not have an effect on the natural environment. It already has roads and municipal water. The community need is a broad topic. As the Eagle area develops more commercial activity, there are more jobs and a greater population. He spoke to looking at acreage some time ago and there just wasn't any minimal acreage available. He spoke to the development pattern and that this area is served by a road and served by water as well as the pattern of five acre properties. He stated when the Planning Commission reviewed this they were positive about the fact that the parcels are secluded. The precedent issue was a concern. He stated one of the issues that will reduce the precedence is the water supply. In this instance, the Marmon's have a legitimate well that allows them to provide water to the property. The water 29 11-19-2002 system, when built, went through the Mosher subdivision. Lastly is compatibility. Whenever one tends to up zone there are usually concerns to the neighborhood. He stated the layout holds the addition well. They are compatible with the surroundings and the fact that no one is here, speaks well for it. This application was forwarded to the Town of Eagle and did not receive any negative response. This is appropriate in the County Master plan at five acre zoning and they believe they have a strong presentation in meeting the findings for a zone change. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commission Menconi asked Mr. Forinash why he does not feel this complies with the Master Plan. Mr. Forinash stated there is room for discretion. He stated the Master Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan discourages zone changes that increase density throughout this part of the valley. He stated the reality of the Brush Creek Valley is there are a number of smaller parcels along there. He stated looking strictly, much of it has to do with increasing density and their comments on this are stronger because there are a number of smaller lots occurring in this area. It is more a direction from the Board. Commissioner Menconi asked why the Abrams file was approved. Mr. Forinash stated the primary issue was the closeness to Brush Creek Road as well as the two water taps already on the site. It was another judgement call. Commissioner Menconi asked if there was staff approval on the file. Mr. Forinash stated he believes there was. Commissioner Menconi asked ifMr. Forinash has visited the site. Mr. Forinash stated not to this particular site but he did visit the Abrams site and is familiar with the area. Mr. Marmon explained the location of the property and the contours of the hill. He stated the canyon is hidden from Brush Creek, Mosher and Eden Lane. Commissioner Menconi asked if there was a home built there if they could see it from the road. Mr. Marmon stated you can not see that from Brush Creek but you can see it from further up the Road. Commissioner Menconi asked if the building envelop is on a ridge. Mr. Marmon stated there is a natural bench that is there and about an acre square for the building site. Chairman Gallagher asked about accessory buildings. Mr. Forinash stated there would be but they would be limited in size. Chairman Gallagher asked about building another site. Mr. Forinash stated they could depending on the size of the main structure. Chairman Gallagher asked if they would be able to protect their individual property rights without subdividing. Mr. Marmon explained they would like to have their own separate property. Chairman Gallagher questioned the ability for them to own the property in conjunction and construct a second home. Mr. Marmon stated there is always the option of an accessory dwelling, but they would each have to co-sign for the others property. Ms. Marmon stated the friendship is there, but it would be a lot easier to not have to maintain this as a corporation. Mr. Marmon stated it is not conducive for the low end property owner. Mr. Boni stated he sympathizes with the many situations the Board has to deal with. He stated as a consultant he struggles with how much to bring to the table. He stated he believes he has presented a case on its own merits without any consideration of the Marmon's personal situation. The key ingredient in the Abrams subdivision were the water supply and the area had changed. He stated he 30 11-19-2002 didn't present this situation in the same manner to the Planning Commission as to the Board. He stated he wants to separate the applicants personal concerns from the land use issues. Commissioner Menconi asked if they have looked into the value of the ten acre site. Mr. Marmon stated they had it assessed last year. Ms. Marmon stated they had two assessments one at $225,000 and one at $270,000. She stated she would be reducing the square footage and if they sold it they would be down grading. Commissioner Menconi asked ifthe assessed value was under $300,000. Ms. Marmon stated it was. Chairman Gallagher asked about the Ladybell Subdivision and if the portion on the east is owned III common. Mr. Forinash stated he does not believe that is the same as those to the west. He stated there may be a Homeowners Association. Mr. Boni stated there is a home on the 28 acres and that home is not in anyway associated with the homes on the left. Chairman Gallagher asked about the 4.5 acres. Mr. Boni stated that was created in 1989 and is known as the Seipel Subdivision. He stated there are two homes there. Chairman Gallagher asked Justin Hildreth to comment. Justin Hildreth, Engineering Department, stated the average slope on the side ofthe hill is 29%. He stated the existing driveway has a slope of 13% and they will probably address that if they get the subdivision approval. The third comment is the swerve of Cedar Lane. Mr. Boni stated he does have some photographs to submit. He explained the first photo shows a portion ofthe bench and the second is a photo ofthe driveway. The third photo is the existing mobile home and on both of the sites there is more than adequate area for a single family home. Commissioner Menconi stated he is inclined to approve this application but would like to create conditions. Mr. Forinash stated the specifics would come at building permit. Ms. Mauriello stated the zone change is purely to allow the division they are talking about. Anything related to the building permit would come about at a later time. Commissioner Menconi asked if at a future date they come before them and the Planning Commission with concerns about the building envelop, would the applicant have a problem with the conditions. Mr. Marman stated they would not have a problem with that. Commissioner Menconi asked about problems with the concerns about grading. Mr. Marman stated that is not an issue. It is all south facing. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. ZC-00057, Mosher Subdivision. Chairman Gallagher asked Ms. Mauriello what happens if there is a split vote. He suggested this is spot zoning and that it seems to be an enclave of ten acre parcels. He suggested he might change his mind but at this point it does seem to be spot zoning. Commissioner Menconi stated this is not an easy one for him and it goes against the grain of previous decisions of the Master Plan. He spoke to the Abrams property and the property to the south and feels that this fits into the interpretation that one may have as it fits into the Master Plan. He stated each of the negative findings could go either way with staff or the Planning Commission. At least for the present use of this property they are both intending on living there and for a really stretching community need it is worth keeping both of you folks here. Commissioner Menconi withdrew his previous motion to approve this file. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file No ZC-00057, Lot 5, Mosher Subdivision, at the applicants request. Chairman Gallagher asked for a date. 31 11-19-2002 Mr. Forinash suggested January 14, 2003. Commissioner Menconi added the date of January 14, 2003 to his motion. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher stated at one time the whole County was agriculture and they zoned to accommodate growth. Commissioner Menconi requested the applicant please bring their neighbors in to testify on their behalf at the next hearing. Chairman Gallagher suggested they not be surprised if they show up to look at this. ZS-00103, Beaver Creek Receiving & Delivery Cliff Simonton presented file number ZS-00103, Beaver Creek Receiving & Delivery. He stated this file was tabled at the Planning Commission meeting, therefore the applicant is requesting it be tabled to January 21,2003. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number ZS-00103, Beaver Creek Receiving and Delivery to January 21,2003, at the applicants request. Chairman 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 November 16, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the Boali 32 11-19-2002