Loading...
Minutes 09/09/08 PUBLIC HEARING September 9, 2008 Present: Peter Runyon Sara Fisher Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Resolution 2008-105 Designating September 7 -13,2008 as National Suicide Prevention Week County Commissioners Sgt. Jill Baron of the Eagle County Sheriffs Department spoke to the board. She explained that they had started a heartbeat suicide prevention program in the valley. She thanked the board for their support and provided details of a balloon launch later in the week. Commissioner Fisher reiterated the importance of recognizing the problem in the county and appreciated the recognition of the families who had gone through this terrible type of situation. She read the resolution for the record. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve Resolution 2008-105 designating September 7 - 13, 2008 as National Suicide Prevention Week. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of September 8,2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative B. Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado West Regional Mental Health Center for Last Call Program services Rebecca Larson, Health & Human Services C. Task Order from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) for expanded Reproductive Health Services Jill Hunsaker, Health & Human Services D. Temporary Encroachment Agreement between Eagle County and Saddle Ridge Metropolitan District County Attorney's Office / Engineering Representatives 1 09/09/08 E. Resolution 2008-106 Pinal Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Red Sky Ranch Relocation of Bellyache Ridge Road. Eagle County Pile No. ZS-00032) County Attorney's Office Representative F. Resolution 2008-107 Final Release of Collateral and Termination ofthe Warranty Period for McCoy Springs at Arrowhead. Pile No. PDP-00084 County Attorney's Office Representative G. Resolution 2008-108 Approving and Ratifying Resolution Authorizing Eagle County to Make Application to the State Board of Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Pund Project Agreement with its Terms and Conditions for Submitting a Grant Application to Include Site Amenities at the Eagle River Preserve Project Public Works Representative H. Public Improvements Agreement between Eagle County and Transportation Management Systems, LLC for Colorado Mountain Express Transportation for Eagle-Vail satellite lot. Pile No. ZS-OOI76 Engineering Representative I. Resolution 2008-110 Authorizing Assignment to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHPA) of a Private Activity Bond Allocation of Eagle County, pursuant to the Colorado Private Activity Bond Ceiling Allocation Act Housing & Development Representative Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no revisions or changes. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-I. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed Public Input, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Beaver Creek food Services, Inc. d/b/a Zach's Cabin #04-51098-0006 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with one optional Premise on Beaver Creek Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. 2 09/09/08 B. Beaver Creek Fine Wines, Inc d/b/a Beaver Creek Fine Wines #07-60032-0000 This is a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. C. Vail Food Services, Inc d/b/a Eagle's Nest Restaurant #04-49010-0001 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with three optional Premises located on Vail Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. D. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Inn at Beaver Creek #04-85060-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. E. Vail Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Vail Restaurant #04-49011-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with three optional Premises located on Vail Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for September 9,2008 consisting ofItems A-E. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Pre-construction and Construction Agreement between the Eagle County Justice Center Financing Corporation and FCI Constructors, Inc. for Justice Center Expansion Rick Ullom, Facilities Management presented the proposal Mr. Treu stated that these items dealt with the Justice Center construction and financing. Representatives from the judiciary and Sheriff s department were available for comment. The Justice Center and Courthouse are statutorily required to be suitable facilities. This level of service is mandated, and Eagle County has grown and is no longer providing suitable facilities. There has been a 200% increase in population. This has left the county in a position of having 5 courtrooms with 3 judges, of inadequate size, averages of20 prisoners a day being shipped to other facilities at a cost of about 500,000 a year. Since 2005 this had been in the process of planning. District Court Judge Tom Moorhead spoke in favor of this project. He thanked the commissioners for the opportunity to speak about this. He spoke to the courtroom space and the current inadequacies. The judges and staff have met with the Pacilities Department and Attorney's office and have actively participated in the project. He has personally spoken to various clubs and organizations, on television and to the municipalities to express the need and explain the inadequacies. He has never received a negative comment from anyone in attendance at any of these meetings. As County Attorney in 2001, he attended a meeting with Commissioner Gallagher and County Administrator Jack Ingstad along with other judges. At that time there was a plan in place for expansion of the existing court facility on Chambers. The current plan was a later iteration of the expansion. At that time, Eagle County made it clear to the Chief Justice that the county looked forward to the expansion that was coming and 3 09/09/08 would participate fully in providing adequate space. Since that time, there was an expansion of the capabilities of the fifth Judicial District as provided by the state of Colorado however, the configuration of judges, and their coverage of the county and district has changed. He has served since August of 2002 and continues to serve at this time. In the beginning of this term he sat three weeks in Eagle County and two weeks in Clear Creek County. There has been an increase in case load, and a large percent of this increase has been due to growth in Eagle County. He provided details of the number of judges compared with the courtrooms and office space. The case load has doubled in Eagle County and the number of judges working in the facility has tripled. From the original construction in 1994 they did add an additional courtroom and jury room, but the jury room has been converted to staff space. With the growing case load there are three times as many people working there as were in 1994 since the building was built. Multi party litigation is very difficult with the current configuration. The civil docket in Eagle County is not consistent with a quiet rural community - there is a complex litigation docket. Frequently construction defects, all aspects of the construction industry represent frequent litigation. A minimum requirement suggested by the ABA is 1800 square feet - Eagle County currently has technology technicians literally sitting on the floor. This is inadequate when you look at nature and the seriousness of the litigation being conducted in the community. The hearing room is 250 square feet and the minimum size suggested is over 900 square feet. The absence of attorney / client conference rooms means that private conversations must occur in the presence of the public. The absence of jury rooms means that jurors are mingling with defendants in some cases. The plans will provide two courtrooms of adequate size; 1800 square feet. They will also provide one jury room. Every square foot of the new facility being considered would be immediately occupied and the structure would not offer any opportunity for expansion in the future. The new facility would provide a mediation suite. This service will be expanded into areas not currently offered. They sincerely appreciate the cooperation of the county in listening to the court's needs and adopting a plan for immediate needs. With the future growth this discussion will not be over after the expansion. In Routt, Grand County new buildings have been built, and in Garfield County, they have also provided additional space. Commissioner Menconi thanked Judge Moorhead for his 2-year effort in talking about this problem to the public. Chairman Runyon asked about the future growth issues related to the court's needs. He stated that this had always been a concern for the board. He personally spoke to Judge Ruckriegle about the possibilities. Judge Ruckriegle stated that the need was so great that he suggested going forward now, with a project that could be funded without voter approval of a larger amount. Judge Moorhead stated that the plan being presented is the better course to take at this time as the need is immediate and significant. Bryan Treu stated that in order to have a sufficient courthouse and justice center the board has to provide it, the voters cannot approve or disapprove, but can have a say in how to finance it if financing is not possible within the confines of the county budget. Judge Frederick Gannett spoke to the board. He had never taken the time to speak to the board in the past because the county had addressed any needs in the past. He worked in El Jebel, Division 2, and worked in the basement of the Elks building in a pool hall. When court was called they closed the curtain and the sound of billiards could be heard as court was conducted. There is now a community center in El Jebel that meets the needs fundamentally and in a very satisfactory way. There are four municipal courts that feed into the county court system. In 1987 there was a brand new courthouse and a new jail. The jail was filled up almost immediately. That facility did not consider some of the aspects of how to deal with a criminal docket. That facility had a dedicated space for trustees or for work release. A work release program is controlled by the Sheriff. This creates special stress on a jail. People entering on a daily basis are subject to quarantine so that they cannot introduce any contraband. The program offers the ability to provide access to family, financial obligations and helps them move forward with their lives after their time is served. In the past, they have expanded the role of probation for people who would ordinarily be incarcerated to have electronic monitoring instead. The DUI docket is about 600-800 a year. Around the state, the average state sentence is around 30 days to 1 year. This would increase the jail population by 60-70 people just for this one component of the county court docket. He spoke about some implications oflimited jail space in Eagle County. There are two components to people needing jail space. When someone who has worked their way through the system, and they are being sentenced, the inn is full. If someone is sentenced to six months of weekends in jail, they sometimes cannot fulfill their sentence and have to return at another time to do so. They do not have the ability to use the most important form of sentence; a work release program; for local citizens who need to be punished but for whom this type of program is more reasonable. The current plan calls for increased detention space which could allow for this type of program. They consider this 4 09/09/08 facility to be critical in order to have all sentencing tools available. He spoke about his history in the area in various courthouses and jails. In Pitkin County in the late 1970s they had an airplane for transporting prisoners to other counties. When volumes of people are being moved across stretches of highway there is unnecessary risk to the deputies. When someone is conducted to another facility the actual trial phase is very difficult to conduct as the prisoner is not on site. He encouraged the board to go forward with the approval of the expansion and financing. Sheriff Joe Hoy spoke to the board. He stated that the needs are well documented and he thanked the board for supporting it. Many hours have been spent discussing the project and explaining it to the public. He never heard a negative comment from the public. Commissioner Menconi thanked the Sheriff for his community outreach and the fact that taxes would not have to be raised to build the facility. Mark Hurlbert, District Attorney spoke in agreement with other comments made. He stated that they are packed in the space they currently occupy. When he first moved into the building there were two full-time and one part-time District Attorney's and several staff members. There are now four full-time Deputy District Attorneys and 6 support staff. The case load has increased greatly. Deputy District attorneys should be doing 100 - 200 cases but are doing 250 cases a year. This means that as they get more overworked, public safety is compromised as sufficient time can't be spent prosecuting defendants, and burnout is a major consideration. When Deputy District Attorneys learn that other jurisdictions offer lesser case loads, they are tempted to leave. He believes that the need is critical and it's the right time to expand this facility. Commissioner Menconi thanked him for his time. He asked about a standard docket for felony cases. Mr. Hurlbert restated his previous comments. Commissioner Menconi asked about hiring additional District Attorneys. Mr. Hurlbert stated that Eagle County is close to warranting another person, but the four counties cover the cost. Commissioner Menconi stated that there would be budget planning shortly and he wanted to make sure future budgets could fund the District Attorney's needs. Mr. Hurlbert stated that with a Deputy District Attorney there is also the need for a secretary. Their victim services person is also highly overworked. Commissioner Menconi wanted to be sure that future considerations were known as the budget process continues. Inga Kosi, President of the Local Bar Association spoke. She stated that her capacity requires that she create programs where attorneys can benefit community members. This has been extremely difficult - such as a small claims mediation program, due to the lack of adequate space. They are trying to expand this program to county court due to the positive feedback, but there is no room for this service. They stand in the hallway or sit on public benches. They are mediating important cases to the community and very personal. They would also like to create a pro se clinic for community members to receive free legal advice and direction. The proposed expansion would provide space for these types of programs along with room for education and training opportunities. The community needs this expansion. She has been involved in restraining orders where the victim and perpetrator must stand side by side. She has had to stand with victims who have to stand within inches of the person who has harmed them. This is a traumatic event and she doesn't believe our citizens should have to endure this. She also thanked the staff and the board for considering this. Tom Johnson spoke to the board about some of the concerns about the process. This is a common process used by private and governmental entities. Rick Ullom presented the plan. He is charged with making sure the building is done in a cost effective manner for such a unique project. The contract procurement process brings together the third member of the team; the owner or shareholders; architectural and engineering firms and a qualified contractor. They advertised the solicitation in March of 2007 for the contractor. At that point they were developing the schematic design. Having someone who understood construction procedures and process at the table was helpful. Through this process six respondents sent in proposals. A team was put together of the architect, shareholders and the three of the six were short listed. He read a comment from R.A. Nelson. "many kudos for recognizing the importance of bringing on a strong general contractor at this stage of the game. A collaborative approach is essential to the process." This emphasizes that good contractors recognize that they should be part of the process from the beginning. At this point they went into a competitive process including the financial bids. Through the process they broke it into pre- financing, pre-construction services and finally the construction services. He provided a sample of the bid form required. An independent cost consultant analyzed every cost line item by line item. From the three responses received it was determined that one was non-responsive and incomplete. Ofthe remaining two respondents the one 5 09/09/08 who bid the project at the lowest price was chosen. The existing facility is roughly 50,000 square feet and the new construction will add 31,250 square feet and a remodel of about 20,000 square feet of the existing space. The remodel components include existing Sheriff space and the existing courts. Costs for the jail are around $450 per square foot, and remodel at $250 per square foot. Part of the cost is for a new fire suppression system and mechanical system renovation. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi stated that the county is putting roughly $5,000,000 down on the expansion on a $24,000,000 project. He wondered what the annual payment would be. Mr. Lewis stated that the projected annual payment would be 1.64 million. Commissioner Menconi requested that the commissioners maintain sound budgets to pay for the project and additional financing. He felt that planning for future years is important. Mr. Lewis stated that based on the financing currently available, neither taxes nor debt would be increased. With the help of our bond company, our ratings improved and interest rates would be lower. Chairman Runyon asked how much the new rating would save the county. Dan O'Connell stated that there was no bond insurance available and the underlying rating was more important. The county received a three notch bump from Standard and Poors, and a single notch bump from Moodys which will save 2-300,000 dollars. He stated that the credit rating was uncommon for other Colorado counties. Commissioner Fisher asked about some certificates of participation. She asked the bond counsel for clarification. Anastasia Khokhryakova from Hogan & Hartson spoke. She stated that this type of financing is a lease purchase financing which is structured as a lease. The government which benefits is obligated to enter into a year to year lease with an option to walk away. This doesn't create a multiple fiscal year obligation and is not subject to voter approval. The structure is authorized by Colorado Statute. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this type of financing for capital infrastructure projects. Bryan Treu stated that this same type of structure was used in 1999 to build the Gypsum road and bridge facility. Ms. Khokhryakova stated that after the term of the lease expires, the ownership will transfer to the county. Bryan Treu stated that the county would not incur any debt it would be a private non-profit corporation. The county would be the lessee of the corporation. Commissioner Menconi stated that the main county building was built with general obligation bonds and raising taxes was an option. This option was no longer available. At the time this building was completed there was a separate mill levy created to pay for it. Commissioner Fisher stated that when she took office she learned about this need. She now recognizes the demand and pressures are significant on existing facilities. She now understands that whether this was approved or not by the voters, it would still have to be built. She believed that this method was the most conservative and responsible way to meet today's demands. They are building with the understanding that the facilities could be expanded to a greater level. The Board is charged with hearing those who are affected and meeting the current demand in a fiscally responsible manner. Chairman Runyon reiterated that this is a statutory requirement to insure the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Pre-construction and Construction Agreement between the Eagle County Justice Center Financing Corporation and FCI Constructors, Inc. for Justice Center Expansion. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 6 09/09/08 Resolution 2008-109 Approving a Lease Purchase Agreement, Ground Lease and Related Documents and Transactions in Connection with the Issuance of Certificates of Participation by Eagle County Justice Center Financing Corporation to Finance the Construction of an Addition to the Eagle County Justice Center; Ratifying Actions Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Relating Thereto County Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner Fisher moved to approve Resolution 2008-109 Approving a Lease Purchase Agreement, Ground Lease and Related Documents and Transactions in Connection with the Issuance of Certificates of Participation by Eagle County Justice Center Financing Corporation to Finance the Construction of an Addition to the Eagle County Justice Center; Ratifying Actions Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Relating Thereto. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch Bob Narracci, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 6/17/08 & 7/1/08. To be tabled to 9/16/08 The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan application is to allow the subject 24- acre property to be subdivided into an eight lot subdivision. The eight lots are no less than 2 acres each and are all proposed on the Eagle County portion of the site. That portion of the property located within Eagle County is approximately 18 acres in area. The balance six acres, located in Pitkin County, will remain as 'open space'. ACTION: LOCATION: 2701 Emma Road: On the north side of Emma Road; east of Hooks Spur Lane. The property located in both Eagle and Pitkin Counties. Commissioner Fisher moved to table file PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch until September 16, 2008. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00166 - School House Ranch Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 7/22/08 ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to allow a Resort Recreational facility to include: Boarding Stables; Riding Stables; Petting Zoo; Special Events and Parties LOCATION: FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: 6099 Brush Creek Road; Eagle ZS-00166/ Special Use Permit School House Ranch 6099 Brush Creek Road Lee and Greg Caretto Owners Self Lisa de Graaf 7 09/09/08 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The School House Ranch has been in operation for several years as an equestrian training, boarding and recreation facility. The owners, Lee & Greg Caretto, have owned the historic school house property for 17 years and are skilled horsemen. Services offered on the site currently include horse boarding, horseback riding lessons, private and public parties and a petting zoo (on-site and mobile). This Special Use Permit is required to legalize the existing operation as a Resort Recreation Facility in Eagle County. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: Please see attachment that describes surroundinl! parcel land use. Land Use Zonin1( laM Use .Zontn~ North: Vacant/Ag Resource - - South: Large lot residence Agricultural Residential (AR) - - East: Vacant PUD (Salt Creek) - - West: Large lot residence AR - - Existin2 Zonin2: Resource Zone District Proposed ZoninK: N/A Current Development: Old school house residence; indoor arena and several out-buildings Site Conditions: Flat, mostly dirt and gravel ground surface Total Land Area: Acres: 3 Square feet: I 130,680 Total Open Space: N/A Water: Public: TOE Private: I Sewer: Public: TOE Private: I Aceess: Via Brush Creek Road C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . June 1998 - Applicant submits for Special Use Permit . November 1998 - Applicant agrees to eliminate riding stable use and pursue only horse boarding and application is withdrawn . April 1999 - Code enforcement investigation . July 2006 - Code enforcement for commercial use in Resource zone district . October 2007 - Pre-application meeting with applicant and County staff . February 2008 - Applicant submits for Special Use Permit D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Planning Commission heard this file on July 2, 2008 and requested a tabling until August 20, 2008 in order for staff and the applicant to gather information and address the Planning Commission's concerns. The Planning Commission visited the site and heard this file on August 20; the result was the addition of two (2) conditions, which the applicant was agreeable to. Those conditions are located at the end of this report; numbers 12 and 13. 8 09/09/08 The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.l} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standardsfor building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '" ~8 :.:::6 "'00 =~ ~~ '" "'0 3 Q .::: w-:: '" 5 00 PLUM Designation Eagle Area Communi Plan x x x x x x x x x EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN '5 .~ E ~~ C Q o ~ ~o ~a C'" .9 ~ .E8, ~! FLUM Designation 9 09/09/08 Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority X X X X X Xl of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X Xl- 1 dwelling per 35 acres; this is a legal non-conforming parcel EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN ~ - 5 u 5 5 .... &5 .c ._ i", ~.~ U1;j '" r/:J .- g.~ ]:€ .sa E i '" "Clo. !~ u u ra 8 .- '" '" C<l ;;~ ....:lU :5J: :>6 OQ., ::z:: Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority X X X X X X X of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Potential Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning Compatibility Issues Yes No North: Vacant Resource X South: Residence AR X East: Vacant PUD X West: Residence AR X Please see attached analysis, listing current surrounding uses and zoning ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Resort Recreational Facility Where a resort recreational facility provides accommodations, the maximum number of accommodations shall be limited as follows: 10 09/09/08 Resource (R) Zone District. Twelve (12) dwelling units or forty-eight (48) beds of visitor capacity may be allowed in the Resource (R) zone district; and Not applicable. Backcountry (BC) Zone District. One (1) dwelling unit or twenty (20) beds of visitor capacity may be allowed in the Backcountry (Be) zone district. Not applicable. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS There are no other standards for Resort Recreational Facility for land use 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. ~ 1-< ~ '0 o o '" '0 Z C'- 0; 8 'g ~ ~'S ~z x Xl X X2 X3 X4 X X5 X Xl- The applicant has provided 22 trips per day; however staff has provided trip data in an attached memo from the County engineering department dated August 12 which increase the trip numbers X2- Twenty-two (22) on-site parking spaces are provided see attached site plan; no other parking on the street. Parking on adjacent land is allowed, if the applicant provides proof of permission; X3- Removal of manure is contracted with Johnie's Garden and is done on a bi-weekly basis, or as needed; see Conditions. X4- The applicant hours of operation are from 9am to 5pm, 7 days/week - this will result to lessen the noise to adjacent properties, however the owners of boarded horses are allowed to come & go as necessary - No evening events shall occur. X5- Condition #13 mitigates the potential for nuisance. An additional note; there are a total of seventeen (17) horse stalls for personal and boarding use. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. 11 09/09/08 0 ~.~ ~ i:1 '" ~ 0 '0 .~ ~ 0 e z .<:: ~ '" c.. s:: vi' ... 'S 0 e '" (.) e 0 7i '3~ 0 0 ~~ '0 ~ '0 .<= .- ~ g ~ >. <1) o > .-........ .- c ~c:cl ;; :I: 0 CQ~ U8 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X Xl X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable Xl- Removal of manure is contracted with Johnie's Garden and is done on a bi-weekly basis, or as needed; see Conditions. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.BJ The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. ... 0 >. .~ 'S (.) ... ~.....~ ~>. '" ~8 '" t;; '" 0_ '0 -g .cop' ~8: '" 0 J,..;o...._ 0.<:: S'Sc.. ~ ~ t "g1;j .<:: 0 ~~J5 ~J5 (.) ~ p..p.. p.. rn ~rn Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X Xl X2 X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X X Xl- The applicant states they do not normally supply water, but if asked they will provide From a water purifying system - Kinetico. X2- The wastewater treatment system at the Schoolhouse Ranch is not equipped or certified for commercial use, therefore a portable restroom shall be on-site year around with adequate hand washing facilities; it is suggested that this restroom be handicap accessible and in a sheltered location. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7J The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 12 09/09/08 x Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) x Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) x Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) x Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) x Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) x Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) x Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) x Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) x Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) x Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) x Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) x Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) x Heat, Glare. Radiation and Electrical Interftrence (Section 4-540) x Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) x Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) x Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) x Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) x Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) x Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) x Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) x Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) x Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) x Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) x Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) 3 2 7 4,5 6 6 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 13 09/09/08 B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . County Engineering - see attachment dated June 25,2008 . County Environmental Health - see attachment dated June 24, 2008 . ECO Transit - see attachment dated May 15,2008 . Vendor letter, Johnie's Garden - see attached letter dated June 17, 2008 . Letter of support from citizens are attached: others were presented at the last hearing Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Assessor; Housing Division; Sheriffs Office; Weed and Pest; Road & Bridge; School District; ECO trails; Health & Human Services; Wildfire Mitigation . Colorado State: DOW; Health Department; Water Conservation Board . Ambulance and Fire District: WECAD; Greater Eagle FPD; Holy Cross; Public Service; Qwest; . Town: Town of Eagle . Homeowners association: Adams Rib Frost Creek HOA C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: There are many benefits associated with this Special Use Permit; however, there are some disadvantages as well. The benefits include the fact that this facility provides community-based services such as horse boarding and riding lessons; novice to advance. The children's petting zoo and birthday party amenity is utilized regularly and people enjoy it. The 'zoo' allows the opportunity to educated children about the animals and get up close. This land use is a difficult facility to monitor to ensure the safety of visitors and animals alike. The Ranch's size (just less than 3 acres) limits the use of the number of people and animals that can be allowed on the site at anyone time; minimal parking provided and the wastewater system that is not approved for commercial use are among the challenges. However staff believes the issues can be resolved through conditions of this Special Use Permit to allow the School House Ranch to continue to operate. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the Special Use Permit ZS-00166 request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the Special Use Permit ZS-OOI66 request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the Special Use Permit ZS-00166 request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the Special Use Permit ZS-00166 request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent 14 09/09/08 and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Ms. De Graaf presented the applicant's request. The Planning Commission did a site visit on August 20 and voted unanimously to approve the file. The School House Ranch had been in operation for several years as an equestrian training, boarding and recreation facility. This Special Use Permit is required to legalize the existing operation as a Resort Recreation Facility. A vicinity map, site map, and photos of the site were presented. She read the 13 suggested conditions as presented in the staff report. She stated that the findings for the special use permit had been satisfied. Carly Leblanc spoke on behalf of the applicant. She'd worked with the Caretto's since 2003 and her best experience was working with Lee Caretto. She believed the School House ranch was a historic piece of the county and encouraged the board to approve the application for the sake of the children in the community. Lee Caretto, the applicant spoke. She stated that she wanted nothing more than to give back to the community and those around her. She made a promise to the man she purchased the property from that she would keep the ranch a special place and never tear it down. She hoped to fulfill many more dreams for people now and into the future. Chairman Runyon stated that the regulations did not allow the board to consider in evaluating a proposed special use, the degree to which the proposed use may be popular with county residents or visitors. The comments made during public comment may not be relevant or considered by the board. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Chris Adams, 0476 Mosher Lane resident spoke. His property is adjoined on two sides, the west, and south. He spoke in opposition of their operation. He believed the applicant was trying to put a commercial business in a residential area. He wondered what would happened if the applicant were to lose her lease for the north side of her property. He was concerned with the number of horses that would be kept on the property. He wondered about enforcement of the facility. He believed the facility would negatively impact the residents in the neighborhood. Tim Cochrane, Executive Director of the Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce spoke. He stated that he'd known the Carettos for 30 years and the Chamber of Commerce had used their petting zoo for a number of years. He was pleased that the Carettos had taken the appropriate steps to meet the requirements of getting the required permit. He was pleased that after the site visit the Planning Commission gave approval to move forward. He requested that the board honor the Planning Commission findings and approve the permit. Scott Young, 6455 Brush Creek Road resident spoke. He encouraged that the file be approved with conditions. He believed that the number of horses proposed for the property would not work. He believed there was not enough room for 17 horses and if the Carettos lost their lease with the neighboring property the horses would be limited to a small area. He suggested that the board take another look at the parking and bathroom facilities. He believed it would be easier on the neighbors ifthe property was owner occupied. Chairman Runyon closed public comment Ray Merry stated that the applicant had been in and out of compliance for the last 15 of years. The special use permit process was started 12 years ago and was never completed which led to an enforcement action. There were a number of enforcement factors, which included horse boarding and signage. The challenge had been understanding the use of the property. He believed there was some work needing to be done on the conditions. He believed compatibility was the first issue. Commissioner Fisher asked about the existing zone. Ms. De Graaf stated that a single family home, accessory dwelling unit, and agricultural uses were allowed. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Caretto if she knew of any other properties near by that were operating commercial activities. Ms. Caretto stated that there were other horse operations up the road. She wanted to make it clear that she was a horse trainer and maintained a training facility. Mr. Merry stated that he was not aware of any other commercial uses that were similar in the area. 15 09/09/08 Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Caretto if there would be a significant change in business activity by approval of a permit. Ms. Caretto stated that she expects business to continue as usual. Commissioner Menconi wondered if there would be an increase of use. Ms. De Graaf stated that she did not see any increase in use due to the added conditions. There is nothing new being added. Commissioner Menconi asked Gregg Schroeder of the Eagle County Engineering Department to speak to the concerns of parking. Mr. Schroeder stated that a number of the parking spots are in a stacked configuration. There is no asphalt or lining. The dimensions fit the county's parking dimensions. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Schroeder ifhe had any concerns with the tractor rides on the road. Mr. Schroeder stated that this was the first he'd heard of the use. He believed there could be some safety concerns as Brush Creek Road has no shoulders and tractors would be slow moving. Ms. Caretto stated that she had tried to comply with one of her neighbor's concerns however, she doesn't believe anything they do or say would change anything. Commissioner Fisher stated that she'd heard from neighbors with concerns related to parties. Ms. Caretto stated that parties are rare occurrences and there is no intent of getting a permit to have parties. Commissioner Fisher stated that wanting to be a good neighbor is doing more than just saying it. She would like to avoid any backlash of complaints. Commissioner Menconi wondered if there was a condition that could be placed on a file like this that would provide certainty for the owner and neighbors. Mr. Merry stated that since the beginning they had tried to pin down the land use. He stated that this was the first he'd seen the suggested conditions and there were a number of them that he was not pleased with. The hearing isn't about the Carettos and what they've done in the community it's simply a land use file. Chairman Runyon stated that he was concerned with the specifics as to what could and could not be done on the property. He wondered if the file should be tabled in order to tighten up the suggested conditions. Mr. Merry believed that before moving forward it would be necessary to go through the conditions in order to make them enforceable. Commissioner Fisher believed it would be beneficial to get additional information from other training facilities. Mr. Morris stated that the suggested conditions were subjective and would be difficult to enforceme with without an onsite inspector. He believed the operations needed to be studied and the conditions needed to be more objective. Chairman Runyon requested a tabling. Commissioner Menconi moved to table the File Number ZS-00166 - School House Ranch until Sept. 23, 2008 Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. All refuse must be contained in wildlife-proof receptacles or as permitted in Section 4- 410.C Wildlife Proof Refuse Container/Dumpster Enclosure Standards 3. No parking is to occur along Brush Creek Road and all parking must be contained within the applicant's property unless providing proof of permission by whoever is providing the additional parking. As shown on the submitted site plan, twenty-two (22) parking spaces shall be available at all times. 16 09/09/08 4. Per the County Engineering Departments' memorandum dated August 12,2008, any event at the School House Ranch can generate no more than Fifty-eight (58) vehicle trips per day; assuring that services provided at the School House Ranch cannot run concurrently that would exceed the trips per day allowed. 5. The applicant shall ensure that the driveway culvert is in sufficient operations condition, and provide any necessary maintenance including replacement as required. 6. One portable bathroom shall be provided and maintained on the premises year around and visitors to the Ranch shall not use the restroom located within the residence unless it is certified for commercial use and proof of that certificate is provided to the County Environmental Heath Department. Hand washing and hand sanitizer shall be provided at the exit of petting zoo; when at the Ranch and when mobile at an event. 7. No afterhour's event shall occur on the subject property for which there is compensation. 8. The hours of operation shall be between 9am and 5pm year around, with the exception of the horses boarded on premises; owners shall have access as necessary. 9. Riding lessons shall be limited to six (6) persons and the maximum number of persons for birthday parties shall be limited to fifteen (15). 10. Subject property shall be limited to twenty (20) horses at any time. 11. No activity shall take place on the subject property that would constitute a child care facility, as defined by the Colorado Department of Health and Human Services, without first obtaining the appropriate license from that Department. 12. The petting zoo shall be limited to the number of animals that can be kept safely and humanely in the petting zoo stalls shown on the site plan. 13. A staff administrative review ofthe Special Use Permit shall occur annually for the first three (3) years from the anniversary of the Special Use Permit approval; thereafter the Special Use Permit shall be reviewed on the eighth (8th) year, at which time the Special Use Permit will expire. The applicant shall reapply for a new Special Use Permit if desired. l D\U1v r.... 17 09/09/08