Loading...
Minutes 09/28/10 PUBLIC HEARING September 28, 2010 Present: Sara Fisher Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Jon Stavney Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Kathy Scriver 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: 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 September 27, 2010 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of Payroll for October 7, 2010 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the Minutes for the Board of County Commissioner Meeting for August 17, 2010 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Approval of Core Services Program Three Year Plan and Core Services Plan II Holly Kasper - Blank, Health & Human Services E. Resolution 2010 -119 Approving the Special Use Permit for The State Bridge Lodge Special Use Permit for a Resort Recreation Facility (Eagle County File No. ZS -2629) Sean Hanagan, Planning Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -E. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Resolution 2010 -120 Concerning Taxpayer Generated Petitions for Abatements and Refunds of Taxes Assessor's Office Representative Petitioner Schedule No. Gary and Vivianne Daley R040265 Thomas Peed R044739 1 09/28/2010 Rees 346 LLC/William Elliott R053095 Mark C. & Billie Joe Burnett R051208 Sig II & Marsha R. Bjornson R050279 David L. & Lisa M. Pease R050284 Randolph P. Kossan R051264 Michael & Terry Lowe R028844 Shannon Hurst, County Assessor representative stated that the total loss to the county was $2,657.89. Mark Chapin explained that past abatements generated through his office for tax refund were not significant until now. The current economy has generated much more interest. Most of these cases were 2010 appeals, which were adjusted resulting in an abetment petition for 2009. Chairman Fisher wondered how the loss in revenue was budgeted. Mr. Chapin stated that individuals could request a refund immediately or they could use it as a credit. There was not any way to recapture these revenues. Karen Sheaffer, County Treasurer stated that per state statute, abatement must be paid including interest. However, her office could apply any abatement to current taxes billed. Commissioner Stavney wondered how it worked with the special districts and other jurisdictions. Ms. Sheaffer explained that the Treasurer was the custodian and collector of the taxes. Her office did everything on a monthly basis. The abatement was subtracted from any monies going to the special districts. Mr. Lewis stated that the money was budgeted. They reserved the amount out of the contingency fund. Mr. Chapin stated that what would likely happen in the future was notices would be sent out in May for the new value. He believed there would be a lot more activity and interest in the abatement process and more appeals in the future. Chairman Fisher asked about the types of notifications and details provided. Mr. Chapin stated that the notices were specific as to the criteria used. His office had been pro- education for property owners and the public and provided as much information as possible to the public. Chairman Fisher encouraged that he Assessor continue broadcasting the information often. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution concerning Taxpayer generated petitions for abatements and refunds of taxes. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2010 -121 Concerning Assessor Generated Petitions for Abatements and Refunds of Taxes Assessor's Office Representative Petitioner Schedule No. Alan & Ann Mintz R040704 David W. & Pamela W. Dove R011733 Richard W. Tinberg Revocable Trust R043741 Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution concerning Assessor generated petitions for abatements and refunds of taxes. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Overview of Property Valuation Mark Chapin, Assessor Mr. Chapin presented an overview of property valuation, the Assessor's position and legal limitations on property tax. He explained how the tabor amendment effected the valuation of various types of property. Commissioner Runyon wondered what the process would be if one owned a 350 -acre parcel and applied for an agricultural rating. 2 09/28/2010 Mr. Chapin stated that part of the process would be to consider the historical use of the property. They calculate the tons of hay produced, capacity of the land, income, etc. They look at each one of these properties individually to see what exactly was going on with the properly at the time of valuation. Since agricultural classification is considered preferential treatment, they were careful to look at all applications Commissioner Stavney expressed frustration that developers request this exemption. Mr. Chapin stated that if one met the criteria then one could obtain this classification easily. It was, dealt with on a case by case basis. Commissioner Runyon believed it was not rational to invest that kind of money for that primary purpose and wondered why the income stemming from this use was not considered. Mr. Treu stated that Colorado was a use state and they did not care how one intends on using the property in the future. Mr. Chapin continued his presentation, explaining assessment date vs. appraisal date. Notices of value were mailed May 1 of every year. All properties receive notice of valuation. The appraisal date and assessment date were different. The assessment date was January 1, at exactly noon of each year based on the June 30 appraisal date. Commissioner Stavney wondered what the Assessor did when there was a lack of comparableswithin the development and neighboring developments. Mr. Chapin explained that if there were no sales in the subject subdivision he would need to determine what other developments were similar. In some cases, they may need to go outside the county. Chairman Fisher wondered how forced sales at a lesser value played into this. Mr. Chapin stated that they had to consider the foreclosures and short sales. However, these may not truly reflect what the market was. He provided a history of Vail MLS and County sales. The data indicated a steady decline in transactions. Building permit and new construction activity from 2005 — 2010 had also declined.. Recent sales activity in Eagle and Roaring Fork Valleys began to drop in 2006. According to the most recent market analysis the overall local residential market change was determined to be anywhere from 30% - 50 %. Vacant land had experienced a similar decrease of 50% - 70 %. Commercial property had not been fully analyzed to date. Commissioner Runyon asked if Mr. Chapin believed things would turn around. Mr. Chapin was reluctant to say. He believed that if the market were to improve, the effect would riot been seen for a couple years. Projections indicated that the state of Colorado would not recover for number of years. Taxable value increased from $700 million to 3.6 billion from 1993 to 2010 in Eagle County. The projected assessments for 2011 were based on an estimated 30% reduction in property value. Commissioner Runyon wondered the total actual value. Mr. Chapin stated that they would provide that information at a later date. He spoke about the appeals history. Appeals by abatment had more than doubled in the past two years. The assessor's staff was analyzing sales after foreclosure and short sales data to determine if either situation had contributed to the declining real estate market in Eagle County. Chairman Fisher stated that the real reality was that there would not be a significant rise as in years past and everyone could be more realistic about what the future would be in our valley. Commissioner Stavney believed the economy would recover more quickly than the county's revenue stream. The county was in a more conservative position. Chairman Fisher thanked Mr. Chapin and his staff. She asked that Mr. Chapin keep the board posted on how the board could be of support when it came to changes in legislation. Planning Files PDS -2288 Edwards Village Mix -Use & Affordable Housing PUD Sean Hanagan, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 7/27/10. To be tabled to 11/9/10 ACTION: The purpose for this Sketch Plan is for a mixed use Planned Unit Development which includes 80 multi - family residential dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of commercial uses. 3 09/28/2010 LOCATION: Southwest of the U.S. Highway 6 / Edwards Village Boulevard intersection; south of the existing Edwards Corner development. Mr. Hanagan provided a status update. The Planning and Zoning Commission was still reviewing the application. Commissioner Stavney moved to table file PDS -2288 Edwards Village Mix -Use & Affordable Housing PUD until November 9, 2010. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP -2290 Remonov Center Sean Hanagan, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 7/27/10. To be tabled to 11/9/10 ACTION: The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to remove the restrictive Plat notes on the planning parcels of tract T, B and K of the Remonov Center Subdivision Plat in order to re -zone the property. Tract `T' is zoned `Commercial General' but is restricted by the Remonov Center subdivision plat to "Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access, drainage structures, landscaping, utilities, trails, recreation facilities and open space ". Tract `K' is currently zoned Commercial General but is restricted by the subdivision plat to use for "Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access, drainage structures, landscaping, utilities, trails and recreation structures ". This requested re -zone would place a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the respective tracts. The resulting PUD would propose 56 residential condominium units on tract `T' as well as 20 -24 units of workforce housing on tract `K' to be constructed by Habitat for Humanity. LOCATION: Southwest of the U.S. Highway 6 / Edwards Village Boulevard intersection; south of the existing Edwards Corner development. Commissioner Runyon moved to table AFP -2290 Remonov Center to November 9, 2010. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PR -2804 Foster ADU Adam Palmer, Planning ACTION: The purpose of this file is to request an extension on an existing special use permit ZS -0152 to construct an accessory dwelling unit on the subject property. The applicants are requesting an extension of the 3 -year time limit to improve the property pursuant to the previously approved plan. LOCATION: 795 Willits Lane, Basalt Area FILE NO./PROCESS: PR -2804 Planning Review Special Use Permit Extension PROJECT NAME: Foster ADU Extension LOCATION: 795 Willits Lane OWNER: Jeremy & Angela Foster APPLICANT: Owners REPRESENTATIVE: Land Studio; Doug and Julie Pratte 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: 4 09/28/2010 The purpose of this application is to request an extension of previously approved special use permit ZS- 00152 for the Foster Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Resource Zone District permits an Accessory Dwelling Unit of up to 1800 square feet as a `use by right' on conforming properties of 35 acres or greater. This particular property is comprised of 7.67 acres rendering it a (legal), nonconforming property. As such, the ADU use requires a Special Use Permit in lieu of a `use by right' via building permit: in order to assess the potential land use with a more detailed analysis. Currently the property contains a single family residence and a garage, two accessory buildings with habitable space, a workshop, carport, and storage shed. The applicants are proposing to construct a primary residence on the subject property and designate the existing 1750 square -foot residence as an ADU on their property at 795 Willits Lane, just west of the Town of Basalt boundary. Special Use Permits are valid for three (3) years before use implementation. Since a building permit for the primary residence has not yet been applied for, the current special use permit would expire on December 11, 2010 without an extension. Pursuant to Section 5- 250.E.3.b, the Board of County Commissioners may grant extensions 1 special use permits not to exceed 2 years in length, if the applicant demonstrates by competent substantial evidence that failure to proceed was beyond the applicant's control, the special use is not speculative in nature, still complies with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the Special Use will be developed in the next two years. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land U ning: North: Residential Resource South: Diemoz River Ranch PUD 4 Platted Residential Lots East: Residential Town of Basalt West: Residential Resource xistin fling Resource �edo I N/A o en 5, Single Family Residential e Condition :,f Property is nonconforming; To Land Area: , Acres: 7.67 e 334,105 sq ft Mid Valley Water: Public: Metro District Pete Mid Valley Seer: Public:- Metro District Access: Via Willits Lane C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: • Late 1800's- Current primary dwelling is constructed. • 1979- Jeremy & Angela Foster purchase the property. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: 5 09/28/2010 The necessary findings associated with the Special Use Permit Extension are articulated in Section 5- 250.E.3.b as follows: a. Extension. Upon written request, an extension of a Final or Consolidated Special Use Permit may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners, not to exceed two (2) years in length, if the applicant demonstrates by competent substantial evidence that failure to proceed with development of the Special Use was beyond the applicant's control, the Final or Consolidated Special Use Permit is not speculative in nature, the Final or Consolidated Special Use Permit still complies with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the Special Use will be developed in the next two (2) years. No request for an extension shall be considered unless a written application requesting the extension is submitted to the Community Development Director no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date that the Final or Consolidated Special Use Permit is to expire. (am 11/08/05) (am. 10/02/07) Failure to proceed with development of the Special Use was beyond the applicant's control: The applicant claims economic difficulties since the Special Use Permit issuance have prevented them from moving forward with the building permit for the primary residence on the property. Specific evidence of this was not forwarded to Staff. Special Use Permit is not speculative in nature: While this is a difficult finding to quantify, the original Special Use Permit was clearly defined and conditioned, the intent was to construct a larger single family home on the property while retaining the historic existing residence. Staff believes that the proposal is not speculative in nature. Compliance with Land Use Regulations and Comprehensive Plan: No significant changes to the Land Use Regulations nor Comprehensive Plan have taken place since the issuance of the Special Use Permit and is still in compliance. The applicant has been diligent in meeting the conditions of the special use permit which could be accomplished prior to applying for a building permit. The remaining conditions will be met at or prior to the issuance of a building permit for the primary residence. There is a reasonable likelihood that the Special Use will be developed in the next two years: The applicant claims that they will be able to begin construction on the new primary dwelling unit within the next two years. However, this has not been clearly demonstrated to Staff. Below are the findings and conditions included as part of ZS -00152 for the original Special Use Permit: 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. 6 09/28/2010 STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive 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 Comprehensive Plan and the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN U � � 2 on v i a: . ,, FLUM Ti O g . � � v u ,4' Designation ,g d t� c 4 ° g r� R C% 3 w o Exceeds "Plan Area" ;. Recommendations See Mid Valley Community Master Plan Incorporates Majority X X Xl X X X X X of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations NNApplicable X k. X1- ADUs are encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of this ADU is for private purposes (by definition, the ADU is, "...intended for occupancy by the caretaker of said property, persons who live and work in Eagle County, or relatives and guests of the occupants of the principal use of the property." There are no provisions or statements indicating that this is intended for employee housing. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN k x-s` e . x',,. ti . p rr a '� X X X „* da t i on . Taco a 4 - tes Major'ty! X of oinmendationns< Does Not Incorporates Recommendations Not Applicable - X X X EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN a, fu >" c a I i XCee Recommendation _ Incorporates Majority X X X X X X of Recommendations`,= Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X 7 09/28/2010 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 /Zoning Compatibility Issues Yes No North: Residential Resource - - X South: Diemoz River Ranch PUD - - X Town of East: Residential - X Basalt West: Residential Resource - - X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Review Standard: 3.310.A Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements: Size: Sq Ft: 1800 No. Bedrooms: 3 ADULocation: Independent/separate from main unit Parking: Two (2) parking spaces (required) Potable Water: Public- Mid Valley Metro District Waste Water: Public Mid Valley Metro District Solid Waste Disposal: Yes Electrical Supply: Yes Fire Protection: Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Access: Via direct access easement to Willits Lane EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5- 250.B.41 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. 8 09/28/2010 bA O U c2 g a • Y 'F F (11 P Z C"J P� �+ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X X X X NO Requirements Does Not Satisfy. ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable As conditioned meets minimum standards. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. „, 0 c5 ' 0 r 3 > h Exceeds ECLUR Requirements S atisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable See Conditions 2, 3, 5, 6 As conditioned meets minimum standards. 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.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 services. ri �, v� CI, O O as c a �� a n 9 09/28/2010 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X X See Conditions 4, 5, 8 As conditioned meets minimum standards. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Vil W 1 3 Article 4, Site Development Standards OnditiOns c/a u a Z X Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4 -1) 4,5 X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4 -2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4 2 X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420) 6 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) 2,3,6 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 Interference (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) 4,5 X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4 -630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4 -640) 8 X Drainage Standards (Section 4 -650) 3 X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4 -660) 3,5,6 10 09/28/2010 # -F'n.. ra Article 4, Site Development Development-Standarus. Conditions ift g td .; X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4 - 670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4 - 680) 8 X Sanitary Sewage. Disposal Standards (Section 4 - 690) 8 X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4 - 7) Applicable EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Colorado Geological Survey- Please refer to attachment dated March 22, 2007: • In response to your request I visited this property to review the development plans. • The Application for Special Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit (1/8/07) prepared by the Land Studio included a Flood Hazard Area Delineation (11/14/01) prepared by Matrix Design Group. The property consists of 7.67 acres on which an accessory dwelling is planned. • Flood plain. 1 Ri ver and its floodplain. The site plan by the lain. The site includes a section of the Eagle p y P g p Land Studio shows the 75 -ft setback from the high water mark of the river that is required by F.agle County for construction. The proposed ADU would not encroach on this setback, there is a distinct terrace break that separates the existing and proposed development from the floodplain limits. There should be no impact to the development from flooding. • The access to the ADU would cross an irrigation ditch. This crossing (which was snow- covered at the time of my visit) would probably require some improvement to meet Eagle County requirements. • Erosion methods should be in place before grading at the site begins. • The terrace alluvium at the site should provide a good substrate for a foundation, but the foundation excavation should be examined by a geotechnical engineer to confirm conditions. Below grade construction is not recommended because of the possibility of wetness when groundwater rises during high river stage. • There are no geological conditions that would preclude development. • See Condition 6 Town of Basalt — Please refer to attachment dated April 5, 2007: • Due to our Planning and Zoning Commission schedule we were not able to formally present this referral to the Commission; • Town Staff has spoken with the Land Studio and prepared the following staff comments for your consideration: 11 09/28/2010 • • The Town supports creating a building envelope that is outside of the 100 year flood plain, outside of significant areas of native vegetation and habitat, and does not impact the historic orchard on the site. • The Town of Basalt owns parkland near the site. The Town would support any expansion of public enjoyment of the Roaring Fork by way of fisherman easements and/or protection of native habitat through conservation easements. The Roaring Fork Conservancy should be contacted to provide additional insight and recommendations on wildlife and habitat protection strategies. • Connection to the Mid Valley Metro District for water and sewer service is supported by the Town and should be included as a condition of approval. • Protecting major stands of existing vegetation and trees is supported by the Town including specific tree protection measures and fenceing that should be required during construction. • Additional technical analysis of drainage issues and water quality protection should be considered. • The Town also supports the modest size of both the historic homestead and the proposed accessory dwelling unit provided that the ADU approvals include limitations on the allowable size of both of the units consistent with the current application/proposal. • The following comments were provided by the Basalt Town Engineer. • The applicant's property appears to overlay a portion of Willits Lane (formerly Eagle County Road No. 13) and it's unclear whether a formal right of way for this road has previously been dedicated. If sufficient right -of -way has not been previously dedicated to the Town, it should be done as part of this application. • A Town of Basalt Access Permit will be required. • The existing driveway may encroach into Parcel 10, the Town of Basalt Public Park (part of Sopris Meadows PUD). If it does, this should be cleared up as part of the Willits Lane access permit (see above). This should be determined by a boundary survey as recommended on the Existing Conditions survey in the application. • Willits Lane is owned and maintained by the Town. The Town requests that any road impact fees collected by Eagle County be transferred to the Town in accordance with the existing IGA between Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. • The Town is undertaking a comprehensive study of Willits Lane including the planning for potential street and pedestrian/trail improvements. The study should be completed in 2007 and may include recommendations for improvements adjacent to the Applicant's property • See Condition 7, 8 Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District — Please refer to attachment dated March 28, 2007: • To follow are comments relative to the Foster application for an ADU unit at 0795 Willits Lane, Basalt, Colorado. • Access. The applicant has proposed that a 14' foot wide driveway with a one foot shoulder on either side extending from the existing structures be installed. Based on the submitted site plan this width is acceptable. Additional comments are as follows: • Vertical clearance of 13'6" shall be maintained; • All grades shall be 10% or less; • The surface shall be an all weather surface H-20 load rated at 60,000 pounds • The driveway shall terminate at the ADU unit such that a fire truck can extend a 150 foot hoseline and reach all points of the perimeter of the building; • A turn around at the building that has been depicted does not appear to meet the following requirements: • The outside radius shall be a minimum of 50'; • Any inside radii shall be a minimum of 30'; • Water Supply. Water supply for fire suppression shall conform to the standards of NFPA 1142 and Appendix B of the International Fire Code, 2003. The requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute for a minimum of 2 hours for any dwelling up to 3600 square feet and of Type V -B construction. As this property is within the Mid - Valley Metro Water District, 3 of their hydrants are within the proximity of this property. Based on previous hydrant tests, a flow meeting the above requirements would be expected. These hydrants will be tested when the building and site plans are presented to the Basalt Fire Department as part of the building permit review process. 12 09/28/2010 Based on the application submitted and conditions outlined above, the Basalt Fire Department approves of the application for a Special Use ADU unit. • See Condition 4, 8 Eagle County Environmental Health Department — Please refer to attachment dated April 3, 2007: • Eagle County Environmental Health Department reviewed the Foster ADU Special Use Permit Application and respectfully submits the following comments to better mitigate anticipated environmental impacts: • We recommend a condition be included to require a separate grading permit be submitted along with the building permit application. The grading permit application must include dust suppression and storm water /erosion control plans approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department. Failure to adhere to the aforementioned plans will result in a stopping work until compliance with the approved plans is restored. • See Condition 3 Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to attachment dated April 5, 2007: • The Eagle County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced submittal dated March 5, 2007. • The proposed driveway extension which will provide access to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is 16 feet wide. Unfortunately, the driveway is constricted at a narrow opening between the existing car port and garage. My concern is that a parked vehicle(s) could easily block regular and emergency access to the ADU. The applicant will need to address this concern. • See Condition 5 Colorado Division of Wildlife — Please refer to attachment dated March 28, 2007: • The Foster property located on Willits Lane does not lie within any mapped mule deer or Elk winter range. Mapped elk winter range is adjacent tot the property located on the south side of the Roaring Fork River. The proposed ADU site plan and building envelope should have minimal impact to wildlife. In order to minimize the impacts that will be created the following recommendation should be considered: • Maintain 75' setback from high water mark of Roaring Fork River. • No removal of vegetation outside of the building envelope and maintain native vegetation to greatest extent possible within the building envelope. • Bear/human conflicts have the potential to be a reoccurring problem in this area and it is paramount that certain measures be taken to minimize these conflicts: • Homeowners have and use an approved bear-proof container for storing all Pp p trash/ g g compactors e. Trash com actors inside the house can hel p eliminate bulk and r reduce potential problems. • odors, which will forth e educ p p Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. • BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or cleaned with bleach solution when not in use due to the fact that leftover food and grease are an overwhelming bear attractant. • Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than the lever type can limit bear access into houses as well as installing a cooling system rather that leaving windows open, as this is the main way bears access homes in the summer.. • Bird feeders can be used but do not mount hummingbird feeders on windows or the sides of the house. Seed feeders should be strung up at least 10' from the ground with a seed catchment to discourage other wildlife foraging. • Fencing should be held to a minimum. Fencing that is required should meet or exceed CDOW Wildlife standards. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire 13 09/28/2010 with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. • See Condition 2 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: • Eagle County: Assessor's Office; Attorney's Office; Road and Bridge Department; Sheriff's Office; Weed and Pest; Wildfire Mitigation Specialist • USFS; Mid Valley Metropolitan District C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits /Disadvantages. The majority of the improvements needed to prepare the Foster site will be covered with a submittal for grading and building permits. The applicant appears to have made consideration for possible impacts of an additional dwelling unit on their property. Benefits: The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan encourages the approval of Accessory Dwelling Uses in unincorporated Eagle County. The Town of Basalt is also in support of this application. Disadvantages: The one concern that came up in a number of referral comments is in regard to the driveway and access. The access permit required by the Town of Basalt should clean up any right -of -way designation issues. Also the driveway will be examined via the grading permit by the Eagle County Engineering Department as well as Basalt & Rural Fire. AMENDED 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. There shall be no removal of vegetation outside of the platted building envelope. 3. Bear mitigation measures as suggested by the Division of Wildlife will be adhered to with the exception of an installed cooling system. 4. A separate grading permit is required along with a building permit to ensure erosion control is in place and dust suppression measures have been taken. 5. All requirements as indicated in the March 28, 2007 memo from the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District will be met. 6. The access for the new unit will be consistent with comments from the Eagle County Engineering Department including compliance with standards for crossing an irrigation ditch. 7. A fishing easements shall be granted to the public designated to five feet (5') from the river's high water mark on the island on the south side of the applicants property. 8. The final approval of admission into the Mid Valley Metropolitan District for public use of water and sewage treatment. 14 09/28/2010 9. An access permit from the Town of Basalt will be required to address an easement for Willits Lane as well as a possible driveway encroachment into a public park. 10. The original homestead will be designated as the Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) with an FAR restriction of 1,800 square feet; the new unit will abide by the underlying zoning dimensional limitations and be contained within the platted building envelope. DISCUSSION: Mr. Palmer presented the request. The subject property, a resource zoned property, was a legal non- conforming property as such, a special use permit was required. The existing historical residence on the property would become the ADU. The residence was about 1750 sq. ft. The maximum size was 1800 sq. ft. Commissioner Stavney asked about public notice and whether staff looked back to see if there were any objections during prior review of the file. Mr. Palmer stated that he did not find any recorded letters of objection from adjacent property owners. He spoke about the extension approval and the considerations. All the recommended staff conditions were included in the resolution with the addition of the square footage cap. Commissioner Stavney asked if there was anything in the land use code that had been change that would require an adjustment to the conditions. Mr. Palmer stated that there were no changes that would directly affect this approval. Chairman Fisher wondered if the public could only request an extension one time. Mr. Palmer stated that it would be at the board's discretion to grant another extension. Doug Pratte stated that there had been some progress made on some of the conditions of approval that were originally requested in 2007. The applicant worked with the town of Basalt and the town had granted an easement across a portion of land for the primary residence and accessory dwelling unit. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file number PR -2804 Foster ADU. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Sheriff's Budget Recorded Compensation Update Lisa Ponder, Human Resources Recorded There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourn 1 ct• : ? 10. off �. Attes A 7:1 Clerk to the Bo. rd * let Chairman 15 09/28/2010