HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 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