Loading...
Minutes 01/27/09 PUBLIC HEARING January 27, 2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Acting County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney 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. Special Recognition - Wellness Program winners Jill Hunsaker, Wellness Committee The Board of County Commissioners congratulated several employees for participating in the 2008 Wellness program. These employees earned points by exercising on a daily basis; completing online health care modules educating them on proper nutrition; and attending seminars put on by Eagle County's wellness partner Vail Valley Medical Center. Lynn Laposky stated that wellness committee started the program in early 2006. They collaborated with Vail Valley Medical Center and Heath Breaks, Inc and together came up with the program. 1. Kris Aoki 10,245 pts 2. Rita Bossow 15,440 pts 3. Jennifer Cuevas 13,470 pts 4. Laura Fawcett 16,985 pts 5. Megan Morrissey 11,405 pts 6. Abbie Rittmiller 11,840 pts 7. Sandy Skiles 13,385 pts 8. Karen Valas 13,495 pts 9. Jeffrey Wetzel 11,490 pts 10. Amanda Bay 10,230 pts 11. Shannon Cordingly 10,075 pts 12. John Fay 10,005 pts 13. Janice Miller 10,1l0pts 14. Elaine Wolf 12,490 pts 15. Brenda Wright 17,600 pts Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of January 26,2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative 1 01/27/09 B. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Avon for Animal Services Natalie Duck, Animal Services c. 2008 Highway User Tax Funds Mileage Certification Road & Bridge Representative D. Agreement between Eagle County and Menendez Architects P.C. for Architectural Services Project Management Representative E. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Transportation-Aeronautics Division for Airport Rehabilitation Project Management Representative F. Termination Agreement for Parking Covenants Pertaining to Lot B Adjacent to Avon Center Facilities Management Representative G. West End Reaffirmation and First Amendment to 1996 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District/Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Easement County Attorney's Office Representative H. Resolution 2009-005 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 0250658434 in the amount of$140,297.37 for the Account of Dotsero Realty Partners, LLLP - Two Rivers Village Phase III County Attorney's Office Representative I. Resolution 2009-006 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 0250658435 in the amount of $99,092.18 for the Account ofDotsero Realty Partners, LLLP - Two Rivers Village Phase II County Attorney's Office Representative J. Resolution 2009-007 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 0260295433 in the amount of $90,600.00 for the Account of Dotsero Realty Partners, LLLP - Two Rivers Village Phase I County Attorney's Office Representative Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney requested that Item G be pulled in order to obtain signatures from all parties. The item would be brought back next week. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-J, excluding Item G. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed Public Input, as there was none. 2 01/27/09 Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Board Meeting Airport Representative 1. Approval of minutes ofthe November 18, 2008 meeting Mr. Runyon moved to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2008 meeting Ms. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Appointment of board members Mr. Treu stated that the bylaws of the ECAT board stated that there needed to be 6 directors. The directors included the Board of County Commissioners, Ovid Seifers, and John Lewis, so a sixth director still needed to be appointed. Ms. Fisher moved to appoint Keith Montag a director to the ECAT Corporation. Mr. Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Treu stated that an appointment of officers was also needed. Mr. Lewis was still the Treasurer but a new president was needed to replace Arn Menconi. Mr. Runyon moved to appoint Sara Fisher as the president of the ECAT Corporation. Mr. Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Treu stated that a new secretary needed to be appointed to replace Sara Fisher. Mr. Runyon moved to appoint Keith Montag as secretary of the ECAT Corporation. Mr. Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. Approval of 2009 budget Chris Anderson stated that the Finance Department had made some needed adjustments with regards to the investment income being reduced. He stated that the current year would be challenging from a revenue standpoint. He expected revenues to be down 20% due to the runway closure. They are looking to reduce the budgeted expenses by $100,000. The total net income for 2009 will be $323,000, which is a reduction from 2008 because of the investment income and lower income due to the runway closure. This would leave $1,008,000 for capitol projects. Mr. Stavney asked about the difference between the project projections and actual funds available. Mr. Anderson stated that any remaining money would be used for potential overruns or could be rolled over to 2010 projects. Ms. Fisher asked about the capital projects that would be funded. Mr. Anderson presented the projects in order of their priority. There would be a backup generator added, an expansion of the ladies rest rooms on the public side of the terminal, a revenue control system for parking, sidewalks and street lights, improvements to address ice issues behind the bag drop, and improvements to the flight information display system. Mr. Stavney asked for more information regarding the revenue control system of the parking. Mr. Anderson stated that any revenue would cover maintenance on the lots and partially fund some needed future lot expansions. The system is needed to control parking at the airport. Mr. Stavney asked what the daily rate for parking would be. Mr. Anderson stated that a daily rate had yet to be determined. Mr. Stavney asked if there would be any further public process regarding the final implementation. Mr. Anderson stated that the ECA T board would be kept up to date on the process and would have to approve the final contract. 3 01/27/09 Mr. Stavney wondered why the terminal roof snow break improvement was left off. Mr. Anderson stated that he believed the snow break improvement could be worked into the Operations and Maintenance part of the budget. Mr. Stavney asked about the use of asphalt tailing from the runway project. Ovid Seifers stated that the intent was to use millings on the non-paved lots. This would reduce dust and be a great enhancement to what currently exists. Mr. Montag asked ifthere would be any cost associated with putting the milling down. Mr. Seifers stated that the costs were previously covered in the contract. Mr. Montag asked if any of the revenue from parking would not show up in 2009. Mr. Anderson stated that it could potentially show up in 2010. Mr. Ovid stated that some of the airports that do charge parking range anywhere from $5-10.00 a day. Ms. Fisher believed it made great sense to manage the parking and have a control mechanism in place. She believed it was important to provide quality parking for the users of the airport. Mr. Runyon had no questions or concerns. Mr. Runyon moved to approve the 2009 budget. Mr. Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4. Concession Agreement: Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Display Advertising Concession Agreement between ECAT and TIGA Advertising, Inc. Mr. Anderson stated that there had been many revisions however; the contract appeared ready to be signed. Mr. Treu stated that they were still working on one change. There is a provision in the contract that would allow termination of the contract if all bonds were paid at the airport, this having to do with the 6320 corporation status. He believed the revision made sense. He suggested that the board approve the contract and authorize the president to sign once a signature was received from Greg Moffat. He stated that the contract would provide a significant increase in revenue for the airport. Mr. Runyon asked Mr. Anderson to explain the selection process and the range of bids. Mr. Anderson stated that last summer they issued an RFP to get another concessionaire for advertising services in the terminal. They received 3 proposals and of the three, TIGA came in the highest for the initial investment for the first 5 year term. They are proposing to install $151,500 worth of improvements in advertising displays in the terminal. Thru that they would be opening up new advertising areas in the terminal which would generate more money. They proposed the most LCDs and would work with Slifer management and interior design group to provide greater design detail to the static display frames. They also proposed a minimum manual guarantee that was $820,000 in the first 5 years. Mr. Runyon wondered the implications if they don't reach the annual minimum. Mr. Treu stated that they had to pay the annual minimum or they would be in violation of the concession agreement. Mr. Stavney stated that he had reviewed the proposal and there were some letters from some prominent citizen supporting the agreement. He was pleased to employ local business. Ms. Fisher concurred and appreciated the fact that TIGA was not only a local business but also a community partner in giving back to the community in many ways. 5. Mr. Runyon moved to approve the concession agreement between Concession Agreement: Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Display Advertising Concession Agreement between ECAT and TIGA Advertising, Inc. and authorize the president to sign the agreement when it is returned. Mr. Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 6. New business There was no new business. 4 01/27/09 Ms. Fisher thanked the airport staff for their hard work managing the airport with a sense of pride and a real understanding of what it takes to be a world-class airport. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Community Service Grants Suzanne Vitale, Health & Human Services Recorded Planning Files LUR-2053 Landscapinl! Storal!e Yard Adam Palmer, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Land Use Regulation is to allow Landscaping Storage Yards in Rural Residential and Agricultural Limited zone districts with approval of a special use permit where it is currently not allowed. LOCATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: N/A Eagle County Department of Community Development Eagle County Department of Community Development 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Proposed for amendment to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is to allow landscaping storage yards in Rural Residential (RR) and Agricultural Limited (AL) zone districts with approval of a special use permit where it is currently not allowed. In 2007, LUR-0075 was approved, creating a definition and specific special use process for a Landscaping Storage Yard. Currently, the zone districts which can apply for a special use permit to allow a landscaping storage yard use are Resource (35-acre minimum lot), Resource Limited (20-acre), Resource Preservation, and Agricultural Residential (to-acre) only. While no special use applications have been received by the Eagle County Community Development office since the landscaping storage yard land use regulation amendment went into effect in 2007, there has been interest from property owners in Rural Residential (2-acre lot minimum) to apply for such use. Reasoning for not allowing this use in the RR or AL (5-acre lot minimum) zone districts originally was concerning the higher density and/or residential nature of such zone districts and appropriateness of such a use thereon. However, staff recognizes the fact that numerous legal-nonconforming Resource-zoned properties exist I-acre and smaller which could apply for such a special use permit. Also, staff recognizes that there may be properties zoned RR or AL which may be appropriate for such uses, and that a special use permit process and associated criteria can adequately determine if the proposed use and plan is appropriate for the location or not. From Article 2: Definitions: LANDSCAPING STORAGE YARD means a parcel of land, or portion thereof, used for the purpose( s) of storing landscaping materials, including plants, trees, masonry, dirt, mulch, gravel and 5 01/27/09 equipment necessary for the landscaping operation; as well as horticulture or protection of plants within a greenhouse. Any motorized equipment or machinery is required to be stored entirely within a garage, shed, or other enclosure. Onsite sales of materials are not allowed. (orig. 10/09/07) TABLE 3-300 RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICTS USE SCHEDULE (am. 05/!j(07) Uses: R= Use By Right; L= Allowed by Limited FHI RMF RSM RSL RR AL AR RL R RP BCz Standards Review; S = Allowed by Special Review; N = Not AlloWed "'ommercial UseslPersonal Services Landscape Storage Yard N N N N NS NS S S S S N Sec. 3-310 Ee 3-310 Ee: Landscaping Storage Yard 1. Parking. A landscaping storage yard shall demonstrate adequate parking for employees working from the site. Employee parking shall be behind any structures on site and/or effectively screened. One parking space shall be required for each employee. Any mechanical equipment, work vehicles, or machinery stored on the property would require demonstrated storage space inside a garage, shed, or other enclosure. 2. Signs and Illumination. Signs, illumination, and other outdoor structures advertising the business shall not be permitted. 3. Patrons. Patrons shall not be served on the premises. 4. Sales. Sales of supplies, services, or products shall not be permitted on the premises. 5. Nuisance. The landscaping storage yard shall be in compliance with Noise and Vibration Standards (Section 4-520); Smoke and Particulate Standards (Section 4-530); Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference Standards (Section 4-540); Storage of Hazardous and Non- Hazardous Materials Standards(Section 4-550) and Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560); and shall not operate or generate vehicle traffic in such a manner as to create a public nuisance or disturb neighbors. Hours of operation shall be restricted to daylight only, and may be further restricted if necessary. 6. Screening/fencing. A fencing and/or landscaping plan is required that demonstrates adequate visual screening from adjacent properties, applicable view corridors, and/or public roads and rights of way. In some cases wildlife fencing may be required to prevent deer and elk from causing damage to trees and/or plants on the property. 7. Scale. The use shall be in a scale that retains a rural character, is ancillary in nature (if a dwelling unit exists on the property), and maximizes open space on the subject property. 8. Wildfire Hazard. In applicable wildfire hazard areas, building materials and storage of plant and tree materials shall be in compliance with Section 4-430 Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazard Areas. 9. Access. Legal access shall be established for the operation pursuant to Section 4-620.9. Where required, an access permit may be necessary for the proposed operation. Road Impact Fees may apply pursuant to Section 4-710. 6 01/27/09 10. Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit shall be renewed every five years after its issuance to demonstrate compliance with the standards listed above. The renewal shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. If the special use permit is not renewed appropriately or compliance with these and other applicable standards is not clearly demonstrated, it will be terminated and such uses shall cease accordingly. Eagle County Planning Commission hearing December 17, 2008: ECPC voted to recommend APPROVAL of the LUR-2053 6-0 with the following condition: 1. Approval of a Landscape Storage Yard shall not be in conflict with a Homeowner Association or similar local property owner entity if such exists. Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission hearing December 18, 2008: RFVRPC voted to recommend APPROVAL ofLUR-2053 5-0 with the following conditions: 1. The use shall be ancillary in nature to a primary residence on the property. 2. Heavy trucks or equipment shall not be used or stored on the property. 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Letter from Town of Basalt, attached . Letter from Environmental Health, attached . Letter from Anne Austin-Clapper from RFVRPC Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney's Office, Eagle County Engineering Department, Eagle County Department of Environmental Health, Eagle County Assessor's Office, Colorado Department of Local Affairs (Division of Planning), all private planning firms in Eagle County, all private engineering and surveying firms in Eagle County, all registered design review boards, homeowner associations, and metro districts in Eagle County; Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Basalt, and Town of Gypsum. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals, the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Building Resolution, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. No changes to the map are proposed. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. 7 01/27/09 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable: STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the Comprehensive Plan. AJ. Commercial development should fit a regional a economic structure that promotes a coherent n regional 'community' while respecting sub-area d character and identity. " caping storage yards that are currently not allowed in RR or AL zone districts have created an unmet demand for landscaping and local horticulture needs. The use is both commercial and agricultural in nature; a landscaping storage yard that does not allow onsite sales is a low-impact activity which can be compatible with adjacent rural land uses when done properly. However, such uses allowed without site- specific review could create compatibility issues and unwanted impacts and/or proliferation. Since a special use permit would be required for such uses, it is expected that the potential for such impacts would be reduced or eliminated. Determine and work to resolve both the unmet commercial demand and overcapacity of certain commercial types in the region. c. Future economic development in Eagle County should center on area's existing amenities, while encouraging new knowledge and technology based enterprises. Provide a positive regulatory and tax environment that rewards viable entrepreneurial activity. Support small business incubator programs in Eagle County. Encourage home occupation (lone eagle) uses. Allowingfor landscaping storage yards supports these policies and action items from the Comprehensive Plan. First, allowing these uses supports viable entrepreneurial activity that is currently unreasonably limited. Also, this use is more typical of a small business operation and would support local business owners and entrepreneurs. The use would also allow for home occupation/business opportunities on RRlAL-zoned property since it may be an accessory use to a residence on the property or as a stand alone commercial use. f. Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers. Currently a landscaping storage yard would be allowed in existing commercial and industrial zoned properties, as well as in existing towns. This amendment would allow a commercial use outside of existing towns and community centers. However, staff sees landscape storage yard uses appropriate in fringe districts as a transition between a town and rural areas, where there is enough lot size to make such a use functional, but still close to other businesses and services. The use must be appropriately scaled to the site and designed to retain a transitional rural/agricultural appearance. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE 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. 8 01/27/09 It is the intent of the proposed regulation amendments that the proposed uses and compliance with the proposed standards for special use permit approval demonstrate compatibility with surrounding uses and character. Also, by placing a 5-year lifespan on the special use permit, if unforeseen issues are raised during the operation of the landscape storage yard which were not adequately addressed, or the use was expanded in some manner which was not originally proposed in the special use permit, the permit would not be renewed and would cease to exist on the property. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3.] Whether and the extent to which there is a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed use. There is an ongoing need for landscaping services, as well as landscaping materials and horticulture. Currently, most of the landscaping materials used in Eagle County are imported from elsewhere, partly due to the fact that unreasonable restrictions exist on landscaping storage yard uses. Allowingfor such uses through a special use permit would allow for a public benefit to be met by using locally grown materials and/or landscape storage yard uses to support ongoing landscaping demands. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Change of circumstances. [Section 5-230.DA.] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or the greater Eagle County community? Historically, Contractor Storage Yards were allowed as a use by right in Eagle County. However, after the proliferation of such uses created numerous coriflicts and impacts, the use was removed from the land use regulations altogether for residential/agricultural zone districts. While this move may have been appropriate at the time, the undue side effect was to eliminate less impactful uses such as landscape storage yards that if allowed through a special use permit, can be controlled in a manner to eliminate or reduce the potential for negative impacts to adjacent property owners and the local community. This combined with the increase in developed properties in Eagle County demonstrate a trend for a increased ongoing demand that is not able to be met. A resulting consequence of this trend is the increasingfrequency of illegal landscaping operations which have created a significant burden on the Environmental Health Code Enforcement staff. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5.] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer, and other public use facilities? This standard is not applicable to the proposed amendment. I EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 9 01/27/09 W MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE C. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve LUR-2053 without conditions. 2. Approve LUR-2053 with conditions 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 and nearby neighborhood properties. Recommended conditions from ECPC and RFVRPC Planning Commissions: 1. The use shall be ancillary in nature to a primary residence on the property. 2. Heavy trucks or equipment shall not be used or stored on the property. 3. Approval of a Landscape Storage Yard shall not be in conflict with a Homeowner Association or similar local property owner entity if such exists. 3. Deny LUR-2053. 4. Table LUR-2053 either to a date certain or indefinitely. DISCUSSION: Mr. Palmer presented the application. He stated that the amendment would allow landscaping storage yards in rural residential and agricultural limited zone districts through a special use permit. Currently, the zone districts which could apply for the storage yard are resource limited, resource preservation, and agricultural residential only. He presented the restrictions related to parking, signage, patrons, sales, nuisance, screening/fencing, scale, wildfire hazard, access, and explained the renewal process. He stated that the ECPC voted to recommend approval of the file with the condition that the storage yard would not be in conflict with a Homeowner Association or similar local property owner entity. The RFVRPC voted to recommend approval of the file with 2 conditions as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Runyon asked the specifics of what was being proposed. Mr. Palmer stated that the amendment would add the optional land use as allowed through approval of a special use for rural/residential and agricultural limited zone districts only. It would be the Planning Commission as well as the Commissioner's job to determine the conformance of the proposal with the specific standards. Commissioner Runyon wondered what triggered the amendment. Mr. Palmer stated that the proposal would allow small local businesses to start up where there had been a demonstrated need. There would be options for those who are already are operating landscaping businesses without permits and other interested parties looking to start a small business. Commissioner Runyon wondered what was currently permitted on 2-10 acres. Mr. Palmer stated there are home business and occupations that are permitted. Most agriculture uses are allowed beyond 5 acres. Commissioner Runyon wondered if this would be a significant change and if it would open the floodgates. Commissioner Stavney stated that he believed that the proposal made sense and because an application would have to go through the public process to be approved, he was comfortable with the proposal. He asked Mr. Palmer if had taken the proposal to the Roaring Fork Valley. Mr. Palmer stated that he did and did not expect it to pass. It was recommended for denial last year when the storage yard proposal was presented. Most of their concerns were around scale and what would be appropriate. He believes the two conditions recommended by the Roaring Fork Planning Commission were appropriate. 10 01/27/09 Mr. Morris suggested that if the board were to approve the file he suggested changing condition 3. He would like to see the applicant provide proof that the request was not in conflict with a declaration of covenants and conditions applicable to the property in question. This way the burden would be on the applicant to affirm that there is no such conflict. He expressed concerns that it would also be a great enforcement responsibly for the Environmental Health Department. Ray Merry, Eagle County Environmental Heath Director stated that he felt it would an opportunity for a violator to come before the board and establish the appropriate bookends. He believed it was in the best interest of the community to have a mechanism in place. It would be inappropriate to grant a special use for a landscaper/contractor storage yard in a zone district that is supposed to be residential. Chairman Fisher wondered what would happen if the sentiments of the neighborhood changed when the permit came up for renewal. Mr. Palmer stated that renewals would be approved by the Director of Community Development and would be approved so long as they demonstrate compliance with all of the standards. If there were complaints and the Director chose not to renew the permit the applicant could appeal to the board. Commissioner Stavney asked if the neighbors would be notified when permits were up for renewal. Mr. Merry stated that he believed it was important to notify both the neighbors and the owner of the special use. Mr. Morris believed that a full hearing on a special use as apposed to an administrative review would be more desirable. Mr. Palmer stated that a hearing and adjacent property owner notification made sense. Chairman Fisher asked about the condition related to nuisance. She wondered how one would define what is a disturbance to the neighbors and whether it would apply to more than vehicle traffic. Mr. Merry suggested further discussion to better define what a nuisance is and what it isn't. He wondered if tabling the file would be an option. Mr. Palmer presented a map that illustrated the different zone districts within Eagle County and pointed out the various rural residential properties. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Lukas Peck, attorney for a property owner that would like to see the proposal pass spoke. He was comfortable with the 5-year renewal process. He believed the closer businesses are to residential neighborhoods the easier it is to service the neighborhood. He spoke about the recommended conditions and believed that the condition concerning their heavy vehicles needed more definition. He believed that condition 1 would exclude anyone that didn't have a primary residence and possibly encourage one to build a primary residence. He was also concerned with the condition related to HOA approval and didn't think the county should get involved in those disputes. Mr. Morris stated that the county did not want to get involved in interpreting or enforcing covenant conditions but he was in favor of the condition and requiring the piece of evidence. Chairman Fisher asked Mr. Peck to explain his client's interest and their challenge. Mr. Peck stated that his client ran a landscaping business currently on the edge of an old two county subdivision. They were recently sited with a code violation and had been searching for another property but so far were unable to find anything affordable. Without an opportunity to present their case, they would go out of business. Commissioner Runyon wondered what the tax implications would be. Mr. Palmer stated he could not adequately answer the question. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Runyon believed that because there was no great urgency it would be appropriate to table the file in order tighten up the loose ends. Commissioner Stavney stated that he wanted to respect the Roaring Fork Planning Commission recommendations but preferred not to apply them in a blanket sense. He would like to memorialize the conditions but not impose them as conditions across the board. Mr. Morris stated that he didn't think it would be legal to do that. II 01/27/09 Commissioner Runyon moved to table the file until February 10,2009. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Runyon believed there needed to be more clarity on the general terms, such as nuisance and heavy equipment. Mr. Palmer asked the board how much definition they wanted and believed that there were pros and cons to adding to much definition. Chairman Fisher stated that defining heavy equipment parameters would be useful. She also thought that defining nuisance and including smells was needed. Mr. Merry stated that he could compile a list of some of the basic things they hear about. Chairman Fisher stated that although she sees this as a great opportunity for local small business operators she sees some problems with lots of unfortunate public relations between neighbors that are unforeseen. She would like enough teeth in the specifics that they have plenty in the special use permit review to delineate what is appropriate and what is not. Commissioner Runyon wondered if it made sense to have a list the variables available to the board when reviewing an application. Mr. Morris stated that it might make sense for the Planning Department to have a checklist available when it receives applications for this kind of use. Chairman Fisher called for the question. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00251 Vail Intermountain Sean Hanagan, Planning Department The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to reconfigure the building envelope and open space. ACTION: LOCATION: 3118 Bellflower Drive, Vail TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNERS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Amended Final Plat Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision lot 7 Block 10 AFP-00251/ Amended Final Plat 3118 Bellflower Brent Arnold Owners Owners 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The intent of this application is to amend the Building Envelope for Lot 7, Block 10, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision by reconfiguring the plated envelope into a different shape and location on the lot while maintaining the current square footage. The amended plat will also redistribute the common area evenly between the two lots. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: RSM West: Resource North: RSM>Town South: Resource Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water: Sewer: Access: RSM .1.106 +/- Acres Public Public Via Bellflower Drive 12 01/27/09 C. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. Eagle County Land Use Regulations, all adjacent property owners have NOT provided written consent of this request; thereby requiring this amended final plat to be heard in front of the Board of County Commissioners. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All applicable Eagle County Land Use Regulations have been satisfied. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the applicants request. He stated that the intent of the application was to amend the building envelope by reconfiguring the plated envelope into a different shape and location while maintaining the current square footage. He presented a vicinity map and several photos of the site. Brent Arnold, owner, stated that he not intended to take any open space and make it buildable. They would just like to reconfigure the envelope because most of the building envelope was in un-buildable area. Commissioner Runyon asked the advantage of separating the open space. Mr. Arnold stated that he believed it would give clear title to the area. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the file no. AFP-00251/ Amended Final Plat Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Economic Stimulus Package Projects Tom Johnson, Community Development Recorded Attest There being no further business b d, the meeting was adjourned until February 3,2009. \fL : -C) ~ Chairman Clerk to the B IL."--..o. ~I rJ.. . ... ~~- 13 01/27/09