HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/28/13 PUBLIC HEARING
May 28, 2013
Present: Jon Stavney Chairman
Sara Fisher Commissioner
Jill Ryan Commissioner
Keith Montag County Manager
Bryan Treu County Attorney
Beth Ayres-Oliver Assistant 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 Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
1. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of May 27 and June 3, 2013 (Subject to review by the Finance
Director)
Finance Department Representative
2. Approval of Payroll for June 13, 2013 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director)
Finance Department Representative
3. Special Warranty Deed between Eagle County and Town of Gypsum for the Jules Drive Right-of-Way
Attorney's Office Representative
4. Resolution Dissolving the Existing Eagle County Fair Board; Creating an Eagle County Fair and Rodeo
Advisory Council; Approving Redrafted Operating Agreements of the Council; Appointing New Members
to the Council
Rachel Oys,Administration
5. Resolution 2013-048 Concerning Appointment to the Eagle County Building Board of Appeals
Dan Stanek, Building
6. Resolution 2013-049 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Zoning Board of Adjustment
Bob Narracci,Planning
7. Colorado Department of Public Health&Environment,Office of Emergency Preparedness Task Order
Contract for State,Regional and Local Partnerships to Achieve Public Health Emergency Preparedness
Activities
Rebecca Larson,Health&Human Services
8. Agreement for Professional Services between Eagle County and The Youth Foundation for Early Head
Start Scope of Work
Maggie Swonger
9. ECO Transit Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Status
Kelley Collier, ECO Transit
10. Amended Final Plat to vacate common lot line between Lots 42 and 43; combine both lots, and vacate the
platted building envelope for vacant Lot 43. (Eagle County File No. AFP-4101)
1
05/28/2013
Scot Hunn,Planning
Chairman Stavney stated that item 4 would be pulled and placed on the agenda at a later date.
Kelley Collier spoke about Item 9. Since ECO transit did not meet a threshold for grant funding,they
would support CDOT's threshold for disadvantaged business enterprise.
Maggie Swonger spoke about Item 8. The scope of work was for intern coverage while there were
vacancies in the department.
Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda for May 28,2013,Items 1 - 10, excluding
Item 4.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Citizen Input
Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none.
11. Resolution 2013-050 Adopting Environmental Policy
John Gitchell, Environmental Health
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.2013-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners considers preservation and enhancement of the natural
environment a top priority to ensure the health, safety,welfare,and economic well-being of its citizens.
WHEREAS,Eagle County is actively working toward continuous improvement of our environmental
performance.
WHEREAS,our environmental management system provides a structure for setting priorities,taking
actions, and sharing results.
WHEREAS,the Environmental Policy outlines goals to reduce our internal use and cost of natural gas,
electricity, fuel,water, and paper.
WHEREAS,through team initiatives and individual actions,we are working together to improve the health
and quality of our community and local environment.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO:
THAT, the Eagle County Environmental Policy which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
A is hereby approved and adopted for the benefit of all Eagle County staff and community partners, effective May
28, 2013.
Mr. Gitchell presented the resolution. This was a first for Eagle County. The resolution laid out
environmental commitments and priorities to protect wildlife habitat,reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas,
eliminate waste, increase recycling,reduce the use of paper, and generate onsite renewable power. The goal was to
2
05/28/2013
reduce the internal use of natural gas, electricity, fuels,water, and paper 15%by 2015. This would effectively cut
operating costs by$300,000 per year. He recognized the various departments for their efforts.
Adam Palmer believed the program had a lot of support and the resolution merely validated the
achievements and goals.
Commissioner Fisher applauded Mr. Gitchell efforts and believed it was important to work collaboratively
to be actively green.
Commissioner Fisher moved to adopt the Resolution Adopting Environmental Policy.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
12. First Quarter 2013 Interest Report
First Quarter 2013 Public Trustee Report
Karen Sheaffer,Treasurer&Public Trustee
Mr. Sheaffer assured the board that the county only bought the highest quality of investments. The
county's money was secure but interest revenues were still down. It was too soon to make adjustments to
the overall budget.
Chairman Stavney asked what the projections were.
Ms. Sheaffer stated that they budged$800,000 for the year. The county was investing more in
long-term investments.
Karla Bagley stated that the foreclosures and foreclosure sales were down. There were currently
189 active foreclosures. New filings were down by 50%.
Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re-
convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office
Other Liquor Business
13. APPLICANT: Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc.
TRADE NAME: Osprey at Beaver Creek
LICENSE TYPE: Hotel and Restaurant
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Darrohn
LOCATION: 10 Elk Track Road,Avon(Beaver Creek)
REQUEST: Addition of Optional Premises
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting the addition of an Optional Premises to be known as"Optional Premise A",also
known as the"Strawberry Park lawn". The boundary will be identified by signage and the area will be used for
weddings, concerts and other special events throughout the year.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The application is in order, all requirements have been met, and all fees are paid.
3
05/28/2013
2. Public notice was given by posting a notice in a conspicuous place on the premises,May 17,2013,at least
10 prior to the hearing.
3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk's Office.
CONCERNS/ISSUES: None
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Scriver presented the request. Chris Darrohn was present on behalf of the applicant.
Chairman Stavney asked if the area would be used occasionally and would notice be required when in use.
Mr. Darrohn stated that the area would be used primarily in the summer season and advance notice was
required.
Commissioner Ryan moved that the Local Licensing Authority approve the addition of an Optional
Premise"A"to the Osprey at Beaver Creek Hotel and Restaurant liquor license.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous
14. APPLICANT: Beaver Creek Food Services,Inc.
TRADE NAME: Allie's Cabin
LICENSE TYPE: Hotel and Restaurant with 3 Opt. Premises
1. Beaver Creek Club
2. The Tennis Courts
3. The Ranch
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Darrohn
LOCATION: Section 19 Township 5S Range 81 W(Beaver Creek Mountain)
REQUEST: Modification
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant wishes to modify the boundaries of the Optional Premises#3,known as"The Ranch"adding
the outdoor areas adjacent to the building. Currently the license only encompasses the building.
STAFF FINDINGS:
4. The application is in order, all requirements have been met, and all fees are paid.
5. Public notice was given by posting a notice in a conspicuous place on the premises,May 17,2013, at least
10 prior to the hearing.
6. No protests have been filed in the Clerk's Office.
CONCERNS/ISSUES: None
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Scriver presented the request. She stated that she received a call from Tim Maher who expressed some
concerns with the request.
4
05/28/2013
Chris Darrohn stated that the impetus for the change was the"Tough Mudder"event. They believed that
expanding the liquor license would allow for better control. The area would only be used for special events.
Tim Maher,President of the Beaver Creek Properties Owners spoke. He just found out about the request.
He believed the proposal represented an enormous expansion of the area. This facility was only 765 feet from the
nearest platted property line which was a violation of the Beaver Creek PUD. He requested that the file be tabled
so they could file a formal protest.
Commissioner Fisher encouraged that Mr. Maher have a discussion with Beaver Creek Food Services and
come to some sort of solution.
Mr. Maher spoke about the notice being posted on a building with no traffic.
Commissioner Fisher stated that historically Beaver Creek Food Services had been amenable.
Mr. Darrohn stated that he was not aware that there would be any opposition. By law,he understood that
the posting needed to go on the building.
Mr.Maher requested that in the future,the neighborhood be notified.
Commissioner Fisher stated that staff did exactly what the statute requires as far as the posting was
concerned.
Chairman Stavney believed that tabling the file was the right thing to do.
Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Licensing Authority table the request by Beaver Creek Food
Services, Inc. d/b/a Allie's Cabin to modify the Optional Premises known as"The Ranch"until June 11, 2013.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as
the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Planning Files
15. VIS-4065 Cattleman's Club Request for Improvements from Variance Standards
Ben Gerdes,Planning
Carmen Weiland: Cattleman's Club Homeowner's Association,Applicant
Tracy Kinsella: Garfield&Hecht,P.C.,Representative
Note: Tabled from 04/30/13 and 05/21/13
Action: On February 19, 2013 the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve with conditions
a request from the Cattleman's Club HOA for Variances to Improvement Standards for Dual Access,Emergency
Vehicle Turnaround Areas and Road Improvement Standards. One of the conditions of approval required the
applicant to improve a secondary emergency egress. It has become evident that this condition cannot be met. The
applicant is requesting that the BoCC consider their request for a Variance to Improvement Standards without the
condition of approval that would require a secondary emergency egress.
Location: West Lake Creek
Reference: Staff Report in 04/30/13
DISCUSSION:
Ms.Ayres-Oliver stated that the applicant was requesting an amendment to the prior decision to amend the
approval,removing the condition requiring them to have dual access.
Eric Lovgren, Eagle County Wild Fire Mitigation Specialist stated that staff was asked to approach some of
the adjacent landowners to see if they could help facilitate some sort of access agreement easement. The
landowners said no. He believed they explored every option and were at an impasse.
Ms.Kinsella believed they made every effort they could to get the secondary access.
5
05/28/2013
Commissioner Ryan asked about the hardship on the applicant and what had been done to address public
safety.
Mr. Lovgren stated that the applicant was in agreement to create a new turnaround on Saddlehorn Way and
agreed to do fuel reduction work along that road.
Commissioner Fisher asked how the landowners were contacted.
Mr. Lovgren stated that both the property owners were contacted through their attorneys. The fire
department seemed comfortable with the turnaround and fuel reduction work.
Ms.Kinsella stated that the trip count on the original report was incorrect because one of the homes did not
have an ADU and three of the others were by permitted use only. Therefore,there was only a potential for 4
ADU's.
Chairman Stavney believed it was difficult decision to waive a variance,he was torn.
Commissioner Fisher wondered when the regulations took effect.
Mr.Narracci stated that the regulations had been in effect since 1999. The dual access resolution was
passed in 2009.
Ms.Kinsella stated that 6 of the lots were purchased prior to 2009. The two other lots were purchased in
2012.
Commissioner Ryan stated that this was an existing development and she was leaning towards there being
an undue hardship to not grant the variance.
Commissioner Fisher hoped that the greatest foot forward would be to not put the board in a situation
where they would have to turn their backs on the requirements. She thought a certified letter to the property owners
from the board of county commissioners would have been sent. She was challenged but recognized that there was a
property owner waiting for a building permit. She agreed to move forward but was not convinced that all was done
that could have been done to support the approval of the resolution in 2009.
Chairman Stavney concurred with Commissioner Fisher's comments. He wondered how often the board
would be back in this situation and whether there was a better solution. He understood that the applicant had
worked with staff and met 2 of the 3 conditions.
Commissioner Ryan moved to amend the decision of approval for file no.VIS-4065,Variance to
improvement standards for dual access, emergency vehicle turnaround and road improvement standards made on
February 19, 2013 by removing the previous condition requiring secondary emergency access. The following
conditions were previously approved and remain in effect for this file.
Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion and underscored condition 1. The vote was declared
unanimous.
Planning Files
16. ZS-4162 Brand Residence Accessory Dwelling Unit
Scot Hunn,Planning
Keith and Carrie Brand,Applicant
Robert Schultz,Representative
Action: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within a single-family
residence.
FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-4162/Special Use Permit
PROJECT NAME: Brand Residence Accessory Dwelling Unit
LOCATION: 135 Fawn Drive(Red Table Acres Subdivision),El Jebel Area
OWNER: Keith and Carrie Brand
APPLICANT: Same
REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Schultz
STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn,AICP
STAFF ENGINEER: Greg Schroeder
6
05/28/2013
I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Applicant requests review of a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located in an
existing residence located at 135 Fawn Drive.
II. BACKGROUND:
The existing residence was originally permitted for construction on this 1.03 acre lot in the Red Table Acres
Subdivision in 2005. However, construction activity stalled after a series of code violations, stop work orders, and
expiration of permits due to inactivity. In 2008, a building permit was reissued, yet the project failed to proceed.
The subject property subsequently fell into foreclosure and,ultimately bank receivership.
The Applicants purchased the property in November, 2012 and have since worked to complete construction
according to original permitting(and current code requirements) and to complete all required inspections.
In February, 2013, the Applicants made application for a Special Use Permit for an 840 square foot Accessory
Dwelling Unit to be located in the basement level of this two story structure. The Eagle County Planning and
Engineering Departments have conducted an inspection of the property to verify the proposed ADU location,
parking and other site conditions.
Zoning for the property is Rural Residential (RR) which allows for 850 square foot ADUs via "Limited Review
Use"; however, because Red Table Acres Subdivision pre-dates County zoning, and therefore includes lots which
are smaller than those normally required in RR zone district (2 acre minimum lot size), this request requires a
Special Use Permit.As stated in the application,
"Red Table Acres was built before the existing land use code was adopted and the lots in the
subdivision do not meet the 2 acre minimum size of the RR zoning that was applied to the area. If
the lot had been over 2 acres, this proposal would have been reviewed as a Limited Review
application. At least two previous special use applications for ADUs have been approved in the
neighborhood and there are numerous homes that are currently rentals, include room rentals, or
other similar configurations."
Potable water is provided by an existing community well, and the site is served by an existing on-site wastewater
treatment system(OWTS)that has been previously permitted and sized according to the number of bedrooms in the
structure. The number of bedrooms will not change with this application and the Eagle County Environmental
Health Department has indicated that additional information regarding the existing OWTS is required prior to any
Certificates of Occupancy(CO's) are issued for the property.
The site is accessed via Fawn Drive and a 30' Right-of-Way across adjacent properties for a private driveway. With
the requirement that the Applicant make certain improvements to the driveway surface (per the Basalt and Rural
Fire Protection District referral response comments), staff believes the site complies with adequate access and
parking requirements.
III.SITE DATA:
Existing Zoning:
7
05/28/2013
135 Fawn Drive
prr�aa.+q
firs- ,_m
Agricultural Residential Zoning
4L�
✓:h
yh
i5
Land Use Zoning
North: Residential RR
South: Residential RR
East: Residential RR
West: Residential AR
Existing Zoning: Rural Residential(RR)
Proposed Zoning: N/A(no change requested)
Current Development: Residential structure
Site Conditions: Residential building site
Total Land_Area: Acres: 1 1.03 I Square feet: 1 44,867 sq.ft.
Total Open Space: N/A
Water: Public: N/A Private: Red Table Acres Well
Sewer: Public:` N/A Private: Septic
Access: Fawn Drive
IV. REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Referral copies of this application were sent to eleven(11) agencies for review on March, 27, 2013. The following
section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to
the date of this report:
Eagle County Engineering:
- The Eagle County Engineering Department had no comment during the referral period but did work with the
Applicant to address a concern related to access to the property and ensuring guests to the residence do not use
public right-of-way along Fender Lane for parking.
8
05/28/2013
See condition(s):2
Earle County Environmental Health Department:
- "In review of the...application, it appears the existing On-site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) was
designed to accommodate up to a 4-bedroom home. The application for the ADU as proposed is within compliance
of this design standard."
- "The applicant needs to provide an alternate site on the property should the existing OWTS fail, and provide
certification by a licensed engineer of the existing OWTS functionality prior to TCO/CO."
See condition(s):3
Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District:
-"There is a nearby hydrant that will provide the compliant flow and pressure for manual fire suppression needs."
- "The driveway will need to be upgraded to having an all-weather dirt surface at a minimum that is able,to drain
well toward the side. The minimum width of the driveway will be 12 feet."
See condition(s):3
Source Gas:
-"SourceGas has no issue with the plans in their current state."
Red Table Acres Homeowners Association (Architectural Review Committee):
- "The Red Table Acres Board, acting as the Architectural Review Committee, has reviewed the proposed.ADU at
135 Fawn Drive and has no objections to it as proposed."
V. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION:
At its regularly scheduled public hearing of May 16, 2013,the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend conditional approval of the Special Use request.
During their review of the request, the Commission members focused their discussion on issues related to access to
the subject property (driveway conditions, the private access easement, and restricting access along Fender Lane),
as well as referral comments directed at on-site wastewater treatment. The Commission took testimony from an
adjacent property owner who expressed concern regarding the existing construction activity occurring on the
subject property, as well as a concern for the number of residents that might inhabit the ADU, if approved.
Commission members discussed the potential impacts of allowing additional ADUs in the Missouri Heights area,
with one Commission member stating that such uses are compatible with existing residential uses, reiterating that
the Red Table Acres HOA has approved the ADU request as a matter of local control.
Lastly, the Commission members discussed capping the number of inhabitants of the ADU, ultimately
recommending a condition to limit occupancy of the unit to four persons.
VI. SUMMARY ANALYSIS:
The proposed special use to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within an existing residential structure is in
general conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
The Applicant has provided adequate evidence that the ADU can be served with adequate water and, with
additional information from the Applicant regarding the existing OWTS (as requested by the Eagle County
Environmental Health Department), staff believes the site can be adequately served by wastewater services. In
response to Planning Commission recommendation to limit the number of occupants within the AI)U, staff
suggests a condition of approval that will limit the number of vehicles on the site as a more practical restriction
(from a code enforcement standpoint) on total occupancy and impacts on neighboring properties. And, with the
exception of comments by the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District with regard to adequacy of driveway access,
9
05/28/2013
staff has identified no further issues or areas of non-conformance requiring additional analysis or dictating
conditions of approval.
From the standpoint of compatibility, staff believes the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding residential
structures and uses in the area. Specifically, staff believes the ADU use will be provided adequate access, parking
and facilities (similar to other residential uses in the area) and Accessory Dwelling Units have been approved in
similar residential structures in the surrounding area.
Public notice was provided and staff has received no comments from adjacent property owners, Home Owners
Associations (other than a letter from Red Table Acres HOA stating approval) or other residents of the area
concerning the request.
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS:
Staff suggests the application meets the following findings necessary for the approval of any Special Use:
(1) Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use IS in substantial conformance
with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans and any applicable ancillary
County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, or
infrastructure management. (am 11/08/05) (am.05/08/12)
(2) Compatibility. The Special Use IS generally compatible with the existing and currently
permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or
infrastructure improvements. (am.05/08/12)
(3) Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES 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.
(4) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES reasonably
avoid adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands including
trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, or otherwise
create a nuisance. (am.05/08/12)
(5) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use DOES minimize
environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources,
wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.
(6) Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use WILL 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.
(7) Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES or can be made to comply with
the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards.
(8) Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by
all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general
development characteristics.
VIII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OPTIONS:
10
05/28/2013
1. Approve [File No. ZS-41621 without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and
nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land
Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable
master plans).
2. Deny [File No. ZS-41621 if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety,
and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood
properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations
and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans).
3. Table [File No. ZS-4162] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give
specific direction to the petitioner and staff.
4. Approve [File No. ZS-41621 with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that
certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare
and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties
and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the
guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans).
IX. 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. The Applicant shall complete landscaping improvements, inclusive of the placement of large diameter
boulders, along the property boundary shared with Fender Lane right-of-way, for the purpose of preventing the
right-of-way from being used as guest parking.
3. The Applicant shall provide Eagle County Environmental Health Department with a site plan showing an
alternate site on the property should the existing OWTS fail, while providing certification by a licensed
engineer of the existing OWTS functionality prior to final Certificate of Occupancy for the residence.
4. The Applicant shall complete improvements, as necessary, to comply with the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection
District's driveway and access requirements (as outlined in a letter from the District, to Scot Hunn, dated
04/05/13). Such driveway improvements shall be completed prior to a final Certificate of Occupancy for the
residence.
5. The total number of vehicles for residents of the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be limited to two (2).
APPENDIX A
NECESSARY FINDINGS:
PROCESS INTENT
ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits
Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses
allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other
uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location,
design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of
appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location
11
05/28/2013
with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in
this Section.
Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon
findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned,
fully complies with all the standards of this Section,this Division, this Article, and
these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the
Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to
ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific
site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special
Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or
duration of the Special Use Permit
STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.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.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
I
FLUM U& .2
g " Designation
ation c q t4 o oo .0
wa 3 c0 A ° a
wd
Exceeds
Recommendations
Incorporates Majority of X X X X X X X X
Recommendations
Does Not Incorporate
Recommendations
Not Applicable X X
Future Land Use Map
The subject property is located in Red Table Acres Subdivision in the Missouri Heights area of unincorporated
Eagle County. The Future Land Use Map (2005) shows the property as located within the "Existing Approved
Development"land use designation:
"Included in this designation are those lands that are outside approved area community plans that have been
previously approved for more intensive use through the County subdivision or PUD process. That process,
and the subsequent approval for the development by the Board of County Commissioners, has determined a
density and/or land use that is appropriate to the site, and it is expected by this Plan that those uses and
densities will continue in a similar fashion and character for the foreseeable future."
12
05/28/2013
fir. 104,04;„ i)
rell40.410 iv S
- 11411111,04:4 it Ay ,1010r44001/ 4
rtT"I=1AP14*4r4LT4r'IrYo4LVPT144.4400f11OPN"- 4 41
0,ere WO ilk.94110
*40 000..04 �t »fir .; '. )
'Oe A air drifeet.4100a0roli ore
.4 A wiepopf.044.0. ,,,,,,,*4 ., „If
0
. . 4.. .,,,,,,z.....10,4„.0.A..,e; . 4
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.
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.
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.4] The design of the proposed
Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands;
furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands
regarding trash, traffic, service delivery,parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall
not create a nuisance.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
r.
y pp trD 2 'a'
• g
'`� '
ii ii _ y m c
r.
13
05/28/2013
Exceeds ECLUR
Satisfies ECLUR X X X X
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR
Requirements
Not Applicable X X X X X
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.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
Exceeds ECLUR Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X X
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement
Not Applicable
STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use Permit shall
be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads,pedestrian paths,potable water and
wastewater facilities,parks, schools,police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
tU
o o 3 3A a' 'oi w`
Exceeds ECLUR
Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR X X' X X2
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR
Requirement
Not Applicable X X X
14
05/28/2013
(1) The Applicant will be required to provide additional information to the Eagle County Environmental
Health Department relative to the existing ISDS, alternate sites for leach fields and adequacy of the
existing system(to confirm that it is functioning properly).
(2) To the extent the Applicant complies with condition number three, the proposal meets required
emergency services requirements.
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.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
U .. §
g! c Article 4,Site Development Standards, Conditions
z
4.4 ,4wc4 Aw z
X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards(Division 4-1)
X Landscaping and Illumination Standards(Division 4-2) 2
X Sign Regulations(Division 4-3)
X Wildlife Protection(Section 4-410)
X Geologic Hazards(Section 4-420)
X Hillside Development(Section 4-425)
X Wildfire Protection(Section 4-430)
X Wood Burning Controls(Section 4-440)
X Ridgeline Protection(Section 4-450)
X Environmental Impact Report(Section 4-460)
X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards(Division 4-5)
X Noise and Vibration(Section 4-520)
X Smoke and Particulates(Section 4-530)
X Heat,Glare,Radiation and Electrical 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) 3
X Sidewalk and Trail Standards(Section 4-630)
X Irrigation System Standards(Section 4-640)
X Drainage Standards(Section 4-650)
X Grading and Erosion Control Standards(Section 4-660)
X Utility and Lighting Standards(Section 4-670)
X Water Supply Standards(Section 4-680)*
X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards(Section 4-690) 4
15
05/28/2013
X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards(Division 4-7)
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
DISCUSSION:
Mr.Narracci stated that the existing residence began construction in 2005 and was never finished. The
property fronted on Fender Lane but was accessed off of Fawn Drive. The property was 1.03 acres was served by a
community water system. The applicant was requesting an 800 square foot ADU. He presented the standards. The
issues included the driveway, septic and access. The proposed use was in keeping with the character and use of the
neighboring properties. Red Table Acres Subdivision HOA had approved the request. All the findings had been
satisfied. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission discussed compatibility and impact of ADU's
in Missouri Heights. He believed the request was fairly straightforward.
Robert Schultz spoke about the history of the subdivision. The property had residual issues that the owner
was trying to address. He believed the ADU made sense for the property. He enjoyed working with staff. The fire
department had written off on the file and Mr. Merry just needed to do a final review and sign off as well.
Ray Merry stated that any issues with the septic system had been addressed.
Chairman Stavney stated that the zoning allowed for an 800 ft. ADU.
Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none.
Mr.Merry stated that the board would see any changes in the language when it was time to sign the
resolution.
Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the file no. ZS-4162 with the conditions presented by staff.
Chairman Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
17. ZC-4096 Diemoz River Ranch
Scot Hunn,Planning
Greg Schroeder, Engineering
Michael and Natalie Carricart,Applicant
Gavin Brooke: Land+Shelter,Representative
Action: The purpose of this Zone District Amendment is to re-zone(down-zone)the 46.7 acre Diemoz River
Ranch Planned Unit Development(PUD) from PUD to Resource(R)Zone District.
The Vacation of public Right-of Way is being processed concurrently to officially vacate the Final Plat for the
Diemoz River Ranch Subdivision. This will effectively leave one(1)46.7 acre parcel of land zoned Resource(R).
FILE NO./PROCESS: ZC-4096/Zone District Amendment(Companion File No. G-4097)
PROJECT NAME: Diemoz River Ranch(Carricarte Property)Zone District Amendment
LOCATION: Hooks Spur Road,El Jebel
OWNER: Michael&Natalie Carricarte
APPLICANT: Same
REPRESENTATIVE: Gavin Brooke,Land+ Shelter
STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn
16
05/28/2013
STAFF ENGINEER: Greg Schroeder
I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Applicant requests review of a Zone District Amendment (down-zoning) for the Carricarte Propoerty, formerly
known as the Diemoz River Ranch property, from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the Resource (R) Zone
District. This request is being reviewed concurrently with a request to vacate, in its entirety, the Diemoz River
Ranch Planned Unit Development Guide, as well as the Final Plat for Subdivision and associated easements (File
No. G-4097).
II. BACKGROUND:
The Diemoz River Ranch Planned Unit Development (File Nos. PDP-00007 & ZC-00022) was approved in 1998
by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners via Resolution No. 98-65 (attached). The PUD allowed for
the creation of four residential lots, with associated building envelopes for residential and agricultural structures,
public and private easements, as well as common area on this 46.7 acre property. A Final Plat (File No. PDF-
00049) for the PUD was subsequently approved in April, 2001. A "Subdivision and Off-Site Improvements
Agreement" as well as a "Development Agreement" for the subdivision was approved concurrent with the final
plat. Vesting for this project expires in 2015.
Each lot was permitted one(1)primary residence of up to 8,000 square feet, along with one(1) accessory dwelling
unit of up to 1,000 square feet, for a total of eight (8) dwelling units approved for the PUD. The 38-acre common
area was intended for livestock grazing and the continuance of agricultural uses on the property by the future
residents. Both the PUD and Final Plat for the subdivision stipulated the creation of a five (5') foot "Fishing
Easement"running along the banks of the Roaring Fork River and the western-most property line, primarily for the
purpose of permitting fishermen on the Roaring Fork River to wade along the banks of the property, but also
providing public access from Hooks Spur Road to the river. Upon conducting a site visit, staff has determined the
existing easement to be almost entirely non-usable; the easement is located in areas of steep river banks, riparian
areas and wetlands.
Since approval of the Final Plat for subdivision in April, 2001, no development has occurred within the PUD. The
property sold recently and the current Owner does not wish to develop according to the PUD Guide nor the
approved Subdivision plat; rather, the Owner desires to return the property to the Resource (R) Zone District (the
original, underlying zoning prior to PUD approval in 1998) and to vacate the final plat and certain easements. The
purpose of the Resource Zone District is as follows:
"The purpose of the Resource (R) zone district is to maintain the open rural character of Eagle
County and to protect and enhance the appropriate use of natural resources and agricultural
uses in the County including water, minerals, fiber and open land. This is accomplished by
limiting residential development to very low density single-family uses on lots of thirty-five (35)
acres or larger, or by encouraging clustered development on smaller lots within those portions of
a property that do not contain environmental resources or natural hazard areas and by
maintaining the remainder of the property as common open space or ranch land, and by limiting
new commercial development to uses that have a resource orientation and to small recreation
areas that comply with Master Plan policies for such uses."
Importantly, the Applicant proposes to retain certain public utility and ditch easements; to deed (Quit Claim) a
portion of Hooks Spur Road right-of-way to Eagle County (in accordance with right-of-way previously dedicated
on the Diemoz River Ranch Final Plat), and; to amend the existing fishing easement to permit "floating by boats
and rafts, anchoring by boats on the River bottom to allow fishing from the boat, and, in cases where a boat
becomes immobile or capsized, the right to portage around impediments in the River." Such fishing related uses
would be proposed from the southern and western high water marks on the property, to the property boundary
(approximate mid-point of the Roaring Fork River).
17
05/28/2013
III. SITE DATA:
Existing Zoning:
tJ
Lcmt
V �3
Air •
6
f!
Carricarte Property I.PIN*Un1111 illosams
i
Cabal aoto■darY 111111m1
0. a"' -
Land Use Zoning
North: Residential/Agricultural Resource(R)
South: Residential PUD Red Rock Ranch PUD
East: Residential Resource(R)/Town of
Basalt
West: Residential/Agricultural Resource(R)
Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development(PUD)
Proposed Zoning: Resource(R)
Current Development: None
IV. Site Conditions: Agricultural;Storage.
Total Land Area: Acres: 1 46.7 I Square feet: 1 2,034,252 sq.ft.
Total Open Space: N/A
Water: Public: N/A Private: Well
Sewer: Public: N/A Private: ISDS
Access: Hooks Spur Road
REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Referral copies of this application were sent to twenty-eight (28) agencies/entities for review on December 13,
2012. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to
18
05/28/2013
Eagle County prior to the date of this report, as well as a list of all agencies which did not provide any referral
response:
Eagle County Engineering Department:
- Per site visit conducted on January 16, 2013,the existing fishing easement is "not physically accessible due to
steep slopes,vegetation, and impractical access on the site."
- Ensure existing utility easements (as shown on the previously approved Final Plat) are shown on a boundary
survey created for the 46.7 acre parcel.
Town of Basalt:
-Town staff suggests maintaining a majority of the property as agricultural land or open space.
-Town staff believes property could be candidate for conservation easement.
-Town staff supports amending the fishing easement to make access to the river"more usable".
Roaring Fork Trout Unlimited:
- Ken Neubecker, outgoing president of RFTU, provided an email verifying that Trout Unlimited would not be
providing any formal response; but that, in his opinion, the existing 5' fishing easement is of limited use to the
public whereas an easement projecting out into the River(from the bank)would be of higher value.
Holy Cross Energy:
- While not a response to the official referral that was sent on December, 13, 2012, Holy Cross Energy provided a
letter to the Applicant's representative prior to submittal of the application with regard to existing easements and
utilities in place on the property:
- Per Jeffrey Franke, "Holy Cross Engergy has existing facilities located on the above mentioned property. These
facilities were in place prior to the development. The existing facilities are covered under existing easements in
place. Holy Cross Energy has no objection to abandoning the PUD."
V. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION:
At its regularly scheduled public hearing of May 2, 2013, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the re-zoning request as well as the vacation request.
During their review of the requests, the Commission members isolated their discussion to issues concerning
vacation and re-dedication of the fishing easement, as well as the road right-of-way vacation and re-dedication of a
small portion of Hooks Spur Road. Following a brief discussion regarding the fishing easement, specifically what
exists today vs. what the Applicant proposes to provide in the future by way of public access within the Roaring
Fork River— for floating, anchoring and portaging—the Commission members expressed general support for the
amended easement.
Likewise, the Commission discussed the previously approved PUD and allowable densities approved in 1998 vs.
what will be permitted if the property is re-zoned to Resource Zone District. Staff clarified that the number of units
•
allowable in the future would be considerably less than the density allowed by the current PUD zoning.
Lastly, the Commission members asked general questions about whether future development on the property would
be restricted via typical setbacks; whether building would be permitted within floodplain areas, or; whether there
would be building envelopes established in the future. Staff explained that once the Final Plat for the Diemoz River
Ranch is vacated and the property re-zoned,no building envelopes would be"platted"and that future owners would
be required to construct within typical setbacks (as with any Resource-zoned property in Eagle County).
Specifically, staff explained that no building would be permitted within the floodplain, riparian areas or wetlands
on the property.
VI. SUMMARY ANALYSIS:
The proposed down-zoning request and associated requests to vacate the PUD Guide, Final Plat and certain
easements of record on the subject property represent a step — staff believes in the correct direction from a policy
19
05/28/2013
standpoint — away from further densification of this area of Eagle County. In summary, the existing entitlements
(vested property rights) for the Diemoz River Ranch which do not expire until 2015 would allow for eight (8)
dwelling units on four lots.Under Resource zoning,the property owner will be permitted one primary residence(no
size limitation), one care-taker unit ("Accessory Dwelling Unit" up to 1,800 square feet), and — with bona fide
ranching or agricultural uses occurring on the property—a ranch hand quarters.
Although previous master plan documents (the 1991 Mid-Valley Master Plan) may have encouraged the
preservation of agricultural uses and open space in the Hooks Spur Road area, it also allowed for certain low
density development along the Hooks Spur and Emma Road corridors(while suggesting that any such development
be located away from the road corridor and, in this case, toward the Roaring Fork River to maintain visual
"setbacks"from the road).
The newly updated Plan (adopted April 4, 2013) reflects a slightly different community attitude toward further
restricting residential development and subdivision in these areas. Specifically, the Plan—via numerous policy and
goal statements for the `Emma Character Area' —does not seem to support the previously approved vision for the
property. On the other hand, the newly adopted vision statement for the Emma Character Area does generally
support the Applicant's intentions to down-zone the property, to strip the property of certain vested development
rights,and to otherwise develop the property more in keeping with attributes desired by the community:
"The Emma area is characterized by expansive views, irrigated fields and pastures,
widely scattered ranch structures and relatively few estate-sized residential lots.
Grazing and hay production are predominate land uses. Residential lots are generally
clustered near the intersection of Hooks Lane and Hooks Spur Road, and development is of a
nature that does not require municipal water or wastewater treatment systems.
The Rio Grande Trail passes through the area, and hikers and bikers are able to
experience the rural ranch scenery and densely vegetated riparian corridor of the
Roaring Fork River that parallels Hooks Spur Road. Residents enjoy beautiful views,
adequate public services and quiet living in close proximity to the urban amenities of El
Jebel and the Town of Basalt. Recreational access is provided at appropriate locations
along the Roaring Fork River and several trails lead to BLM lands on The Crown. Traffic
volumes on local roads are low."
-2013 Mid-Valley Area Community Plan, (p. 41)
•
Staff believes the requested Zone District Amendment, as well as associated requests to vacate the Diemoz River
Ranch Final Plat and certain easements, is very much in conformance with both the 1991 and 2013 Mid-Valley
Area Community Master Plan policies pertaining to preservation of rural, agricultural lands, uses and vistas.
Likewise,the requests are largely in conformance with applicable policy goals of the Eagle County Comprehensive
Plan(See Appendix A'for detailed reporting on conformance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the
Eagle County Comprehensive Plan starting on page 8 of 18 of this report).
Lastly, the Applicant's proposals to amend the fishing easement — to be more usable to the fishing public while
reducing impacts to sensitive habitats on the subject property—and to deed a portion of Hooks Spur Road to Eagle
County could be considered a significant public benefits.
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-230.D. Standards for a Zone Change, staff suggests the
following findings can be made:
STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] The proposed amendment
DOES consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan,all ancillary County adopted Specialty
and Community Plan documents, and IS consistent with all relevant goals,policies, implementation
strategies and Future Land Use Map designation.
20
05/28/2013
STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The proposal DOES provide
compatibility with the type,intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding
the subject property; dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district,when applied, SHOULD result
in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)
surrounding the subject property.
STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3] The proposal DOES address a demonstrated
community need or otherwise results in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the
proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare
facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements;
preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands.
STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] The proposal DOES address or respond to
a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle
County community.
STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] The property subject to the proposal IS
served by adequate roads,water, sewer and other public use facilities.
VIII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OPTIONS:
1.Approve [File No. ZC-40961 without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect
the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby
neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County and Use
Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master
plans).
2.Deny [File No. ZC-4096] if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety,
and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood
properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations
and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans).
3.Table [File No. ZC-4096] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific
direction to the petitioner and staff.
4.Approve [File No. ZC-4096] with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain
conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or
enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses
and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of
the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans).
IX. 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. The Applicant shall complete all necessary public right-of-way dedications, easement vacations and/or
dedications per companion File No. G-4097, and as directed by County staff or the Eagle County Board of
County Commissioners, prior to completion of a resolution or resolutions to approve the re-zoning request,
Final Plat vacation and vacation of public easements.
APPENDIX A
21
05/28/2013
A. NECESSARY FINDINGS:
PROCESS INTENT
ECL UR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official
Zone District Map
Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of
the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations
by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not
intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights
on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed
conditions.
Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole
discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that
the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to
the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the
application submittal requirements and standards.
STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] Does the proposed amendment
consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and
Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and
Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following:
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
Section 3.2 General Development Policies a,c,e,1, g,h,i and k
Policy `a': "Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be
preserved for future generations"
This proposal to down-zone the subject property from PUD to the Resource Zone District (with 35-acre minimum
lot size and `rural' development standards) can be construed to support Policy `a' by ensuring the subject property
will retain those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County.
Policy `c': "Growth should be managed toward future sustainability — a healthy balance between economic
success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment".
The proposed zone district amendment helps to protect a healthy balance between economic success for the land
owner and protecting the quality of life and the preservation of the environment by reducing the potential for future
development upon the subject property while allowing those uses that are allowed in the Resource Zone District as
uses `by-right', or as customary agricultural and residential uses.
Policy `e': "Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located within or
immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers':
Not applicable.
22
05/28/2013
Policy 'f': "New communities proposed for unincorporated areas of the County should be subject to a thorough
and rigorous set of development criteria".
Not applicable.
Policy `g': "Redevelopment and/or revitalization of currently underdeveloped, outdated, rundown, or otherwise
dysfunctional areas should be encourages".
Not applicable.
Policy`h': "Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved".
Down-zoning of the subject property may serve to better protect the property as part of a larger transitional, or
buffer area between the more developed portions of the `Highway 82 Character Area' and the `Emma Character
Area' identified in the recently adopted 2013 Mid-Valley Master Plan.
Policy `I': "A cluster style of development should be encouraged, especially in areas where cultural,
environmental or scenic resources at risk".
The purpose of this zone district amendment is specifically to down-zone the property and to vacate the Final Plat
for the Diemoz River Ranch subdivision; no further subdivision is proposed. The goal then is to return the property
to Resource zoning and to pursue uses such as residential structures, accessory buildings and agricultural buildings
(uses `by-right' or other customary residential and/or agricultural uses permitted in the Resource Zone District).
Policy `k': "Local communities should establish unique venues, attractions and design standards directed
toward enhancing individual community character and developing a sense of place"
Not applicable.
Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c, d, e,f, h,j,m and o
Policy `b': "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources,
should be fostered".
Not applicable.
Policy `c': "Those qualities that make Eagle County a world class tourist destination and a great place to live,
work and play should be identified,promoted and protected".
The proposed zone district amendment may serve to protect the quality of life and the preservation of the
surrounding area as a world class tourist destination by reducing the potential for future development upon the
subject property, thereby maintaining the rural character of the area. Likewise, the proposed (amended) fishing
easement allowing public access along and within the Roaring Fork River serves this policy goal.
Policy `d': "The potential impacts of second-home ownership and an aging resident population in Eagle County
should be identified and incorporated into the decision making process".
Not applicable.
Policy`e': "Commercial development should occur at a pace commensurate to growth in Eagle County".
Not applicable.
23
05/28/2013
Policy 'f': "Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community
centers".
Not applicable.
Policy `h': "Commercial development should fit a regional economic structure that promotes a coherent
regional `community'while respecting sub-area character and identity"
Not applicable.
Policy `j': "Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic
quality for the benefit of future generations".
One purpose of down-zoning the subject property and of vacating the Diemoz River Ranch Final Plat for
subdivision is to reduce the development density on the subject property and, therefore, to provide better
opportunities to preserve agricultural uses and scenic qualities of the area.
Policy `k': "Timber harvesting and mining should be recognized as viable economic activities, so long as
negative social, cultural and environmental impacts are appropriately mitigated".
Not applicable.
Policy `m': "Economic infrastructure should be planned for in advance, and should be adequate to support
existing and future business needs".
Not applicable.
Policy `o': "Future economic development in Eagle County should center on the area's existing amenities while
encouraging new knowledge and technology based enterprises"
Not applicable.
Section 3.4 Housing Policies a,d,e,g and n
Policy `a': "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers".
Not applicable.
Policy`d': "Efforts to increase the stock of affordable rental units for local workers should be supported".
Not applicable.
Policy`e': "Adequate housing options for Senior Citizens should be available':
Not applicable.
Policy `g': "Well designed mobile home subdivisions, modular home subdivisions and mobile home parks
should be encouraged where appropriate"
Not applicable.
Policy`n': "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs"
Not applicable.
24
05/28/2013
Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g,i,j, k,m and o
Policy`a': "Developed areas in Eagle County should be served by multiple modes of transportation"
Not applicable.
Policy `c': "Residential neighborhoods should include an appropriate mix of community services and
community centered retail spaces that can be accessed by alternative modes of transportation"
Not applicable.
Policy `g': "Eagle County should be adequately and efficiently served by mass transportation systems and
facilities'
Not applicable.
Policy 'i': "Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and
second home owners".
The existing property is currently served by emergency service providers.
Policy `j': "The management and distribution of recreation areas and facilities in Eagle County should be
implemented in an environmentally conscientious manner".
Not applicable.
Policy `k': "Adequate and efficient infrastructure should exist within community centers and suburban
neighborhoods for the delivery of domestic drinking water and for the treatment of domestic sewage".
Not applicable.
Policy `m': "Communication infrastructure should be sufficient to support all anticipated needs in Eagle
County"
Not applicable.
Policy `o': "The service and infrastructure needs of all socio-economic, age and cultural groups present in
Eagle County should be fully addressed".
Not applicable.
Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a,b,c,d,e,f, g,h and i
Policy`a': "The long term viability of both ground and surface water sources should be protected".
The proposed down-zoning effectively reduces the potential amount of water resources (well permits) necessary to
serve the formerly approved Diemoz River Ranch subdivision. Likewise, the Applicant's intent to vacate the
Diemoz River Ranch Final Plat for subdivision will result in a substantial reduction in the amount of impervious
surfaces (roads, driveways, walkways and patios) that could have been constructed, thus reducing (overall) the
amount of stormwater runoff potential on the property. As such,the request serves to protect the long-term viability
of both ground and surface water sources in the Roaring Fork River watershed.
25
05/28/2013
Policy `b': "Minimum in-stream flows should be maintained and efforts to establish optimum in-stream flow
standards in Eagle County should be supported".
Not applicable.
Policy `c': "Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented".
The application does not address water conservation for future potential uses by-right; future uses by right (ie.
residential and/or agricultural buildings) will be subject to ECO Build and, therefore, subject to review for water,
energy and other natural resource conservation.
Policy `d': "New water diversions and water storage projects should result in positive impacts to Eagle County's
economy and environmental quality':
Not applicable.
Policy `e': "Collaborative efforts on regional land and water use planning efforts to address future growth,
water supply, and stream flow protection should be encouraged".
Not applicable.
Policy T: "Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable standards".
The proposal should serve to improve overall water quality within the Roaring Fork River watershed.
Policy `g': "Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial and
development related impacts"
The continuance of agricultural uses (as uses `by-right' in Resource zoned areas of unincorporated Eagle County)is
encouraged by the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. However, the Applicant could be encouraged to employ
"Best Management Practices"as part of any ongoing agricultural uses on the subject property.
Policy `h': "Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development
related impacts"
Significant portions of the subject property are encumbered by floodplain; therefore, no or limited building
activities (agricultural or otherwise) will be permitted within close proximity to the Roaring Fork River and any
associated riparian or wetland areas without proper review,permitting and mitigation.
Policy `i': "Water-related recreation should be encouraged where appropriate at a level that will not damage
related resources, ecosystems and environments':
Not applicable.
Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a,b,c,d, e,f and i
Policy `a': "The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should
be preserved".
As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not responded to Eagle County's referral of the
application. However, by down-zoning the property from PUD to the Resource Zone District, potential for
development on the property will be reduced significantly. Additionally, by amending the fishing easement,
sections of which traversed through wetland and riparian areas on the subject property, the Applicant intends to
protect such areas from human impact.
26
05/28/2013
Policy `b': "The well-being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and
protected".
Not applicable.
Policy `c': "The well-being of wildlife species of less economic importance and those on the rare and
endangered species list should be actively monitored and protected."
Not applicable.
Policy `d': "Development in areas critical to the continued well-being of Eagle County's wildlife populations
should not be allowed".
Not applicable.
Policy `e': "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully
mitigate potential negative impacts"
The subject property has been used historically for agricultural purposes. Any future development will be limited to
a primary residential structure, an accessory dwelling unit (as a use `by-right') and customary accessory structures
and uses, including agricultural buildings, and ranch hand quarters. Further, the down-zoning and vacation of the
Final Plat and certain easements (the 5' fishing easement that, as platted, arguably impacts sensitive wet lands and
riparian areas)will serve to further this goal.
Policy `f;: "Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife
habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process"
Not applicable.
Policy `i': "Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need
to preserve quality wildlife habitat".
Not applicable.
Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g
Policy`a': "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard".
Development of the subject property for residential and agricultural purposes (as uses by right)will be restricted to
those areas of the property outside the floodplain; staff is not aware of any other natural hazards occurring on the
property.
Policy `b': "The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the integrity of the
natural environment and the visual quality of the area"
See above comment.
Policy `c': "Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic and
archeological value"
The proposed zone change will help protect the visual and historic value of the subject property by reducing the
potential for future development upon the subject property.
27
05/28/2013
Policy`e': "A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space"
The purpose of this application is to reduce development potential on the subject property and, therefore to afford
better opportunities to preserve larger areas of the property in an agricultural, open setting via continued
agricultural operations.
Policy`a': "Appropriate access should be provided to public lands and rivers"
The Applicant proposes to amend an existing fishing easement to make that easement more usable for public access
along and within the Roaring Fork River(see Easement Vacation File No. G-4097).
Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a, c and d
Policy `a': "Air quality should meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations
of local residents':
Not applicable.
Policy `c': "Noise should be minimized to meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic
expectations of local residents".
Not applicable.
Policy `d': "Energy efficiency and the reduction of overall energy consumption should be a primary goal for
future operations and developments in Eagle County".
Not applicable.
Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a
Policy `a': "Zone changes and site-specific land use proposals should reflect the written policies of this
Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and the goals and objectives set
forth within Area Community Plans, as applicable".
The future land use map for the 1991 Mid Valley Master Plan identifies the subject property as being within
"Existing Residential Development".
Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals,policies and FLUM designations
1991 MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
Communit open Space/ El Lower Ruedi Missouri
Housing Transportation y Environment Jebel/ Frying Reservoir Heights
Facilities Basalt Pan
Conformance Xi X2 X3
•
28
05/28/2013
Non
Conformance
Mixed
Conformance
Not X X X X X
Applicable
(1) The proposed zone district amendment will generally encourage the preservation of open space, wildlife
habitat, natural environment and the rural character of the valley by reducing the overall potential for
additional residential development on the subject property.
(2) The proposed zone district amendment will support the goal of preserving existing wildlife habitat,
agriculture and the rural character of the mid-valley.
(3) The proposed zone district amendment will generally comport with the 1991 policy goals for the "El
Jebel/Basalt" area; wherein the Plan states (p. 8): "Undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring
Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels but with the provision that density bonuses will
be allowed, such as a limited number of one or two acre lots."
Note: the request for Zone District Amendment and vacation of Final Plat,PUD Guide and easements are subject to
the 1991 Mid-Valley Master Plan document; the application was filed prior to the effective date of the 2013 Plan
update,however,where appropriate, staff has indicated how the requests may also conform with the new Plan.
STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2]Does the proposal provide compatibility
with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property?
Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be
harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)surrounding the subject property.
The proposed zone change from PUD to Resource zoning provides better compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Specifically, when re-zoned to Resource, the property will be more in conformance with the type, intensity,
character and scale of existing and permissible land uses of surrounding properties.
X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
NOT APPLICABLE
STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3]Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or
otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested,
including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation,
public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements;preservation of agriculture/sensitive lamb�.
The proposal addresses several demonstrated community needs, as delineated in master plan policy statements and
goals. Specifically,the public benefit(s) generated by this proposal include:
• Preservation of agricultural uses and/or scenic qualities of area.
• Restoring low density, rural zoning on transitional property located between higher intensity uses and
densities located in the Town of Basalt (Willits PUD)to the east, and rural, Resource-zoned lands to the south,
and west.
X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
29
05/28/2013
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
NOT APPLICABLE
STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a
beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County
community?
The proposal responds to a change in circumstances. Specifically, the subject property has sold and the new owner
does not wish to develop the property according to previously approved zoning and/or subdivision layout.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
NOT APPLICABLE
STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5J Is the property subject to the proposal served by
adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities?
This amendment reduces, significantly, the need for new infrastructure and the property will be served by private
water and wastewater facilities (ie.well and septic).
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
NOT APPLICABLE
DISCUSSION:
Mr.Narracci stated that there were 4 parts to the request, down zone,vacation request,resolution to
dissolve and vacate the existing PUD subdivision plat, and a fishing easement. The property was located on the
Roaring Fork River.
Mr. Schroeder presented some property photos. The applicant had proposed a reasonable request.
Mr.Narracci stated that the property was 46.7 acres. The PUD was granted in 1998 but never developed.
The final plat for the PUD was finished in 2001 and was used for agricultural purposes ever since. The proposal
conformed to the Eagle County comprehensive plan as well as the Mid-Valley Area community plan and satisfied
all of the Eagle County land use regulations. He reviewed the referral responses. The only condition was that the
applicant completed all necessary public right-of-way dedications, easement vacations and/or dedications per
companion file no. G-4097.
Gavin Brooke believed the re-zone was appropriate and approval would allow for a family ranch.
Mr. Schroeder stated that the existing fishing easement would be abandoned. He believed the access
easement was appropriate and a great benefit to the public. He presented the conditions.
Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none.
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve file nos. ZC-4096,with the conditions as presented.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
18. AFP-4159 Red Sky Ranch,Lot 65
30
05/28/2013
Kris Valdez,Planning
James Malernee, Applicant
Bill Nutkins: Nutkins Design Group, Representative
Action: The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to revise the building envelope on Lot 65 in preparation for
construction of a second, accessory structure.
TITLE: Amended Final Plat—Red Sky Ranch, Lot 65
FILE NO./PROCESS: AFP-4159/Amended Final Plat
LOCATION: 232 Stag Horn Trail,Wolcott Area
OWNERS: James Malernee
APPLICANT: Owners
REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Nutkins,Nutkins Design Group
ENGINEER: Peak Land Consultants
STAFF PLANNER: Kris Valdez
1.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. SUMMARY:
The subject property is a platted, zoned PUD lot platted in August 2001 under reception number 763566.
This lot is located within the Red Sky Ranch PUD. The lot is presently improved with a single family
residence. The purpose of this amended final plat is to revise the building envelope on Lot 65 in
preparation for construction of a second, accessory structure. The building envelope is changing shape by
adding 6371.94 square feet to the southeast while vacating 6371.94 square feet to the southwest.
View of the Property
B. SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
East: Residential/Resource(R)
West: Residential/Red Sky Ranch Planned Unit Development(PUD)
North: Residential/Red Sky Ranch Planned Unit Development(PUD)
South: Residential/Agricultural Residential(AR)
Existing Zoning: Residential/Red Sky Ranch Planned Unit Development(PUD)
Total Area: 10.043 Acres/437,473.08 sq. ft.
Water: Public—Holland Creek Metro
Sewer: Private—Septic field
Access: Stag Horn Trail
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. This Amended Final
Plat is needed to formalize the location of different easements and boundaries which have no
physical impact to the property, only the plat. To date, the County has not received any comments
from adjacent property owners.
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.
31
05/28/2013
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. ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Copy of Encroachment Easement Agreement
3. Proposed Amended Final Plat
E. Suggested Motion: I move to approve this Amended Final Plat/Eagle County File No. 4159 and authorize
the Chairman to sign the Amended Plat.
DISCUSSION:
Ms.Valdez stated that the request was to shift the building envelope. There was no change in the square
footage. Staff did not receive any comments from the HOA or the neighbors. The file was straightforward. She
showed pictures of the property.
Commissioner Fisher believed the amendment made sense.
Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none.
Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Amended Final Plat/Eagle County File No. 4159 and
authorize the Chairman to sign the Amended Plat.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion.The vote was declared unanimous.
19. ZS-3521 Schmidt Special Use Permit 2011
Kris Valdez,Planning
Fritz Schmidt,Applicant
Terrill Knight: Knight Planning Services,Representative
Action: The purpose of this Special Use Permit application is to request approval for certain uses, some of which
have historically occurred on Fritz Schmidt's property in the Commercial General Zone District.
FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-3521 Special Use Permit
PROJECT NAME: Schmidt Property Special Use Permit 2011
LOCATION: 71 Edwards Access Road,Edwards
OWNER: Fritz Schmidt Trust and Cecilia Schmidt Trust
APPLICANT: Owner
REPRESENTATIVE: Knight Planning Services,Inc./Terrill Knight
STAFF PLANNER: Kris Valdez
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. SUMMARY: The purpose of this Special Use Permit application is to request approval for certain uses,
some of which have historically occurred on Fritz Schmidt's property in the Commercial General Zone
District.
32
05/28/2013
In 2010-2011,Fritz Schmidt applied for a Special Use Permit and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI)to recognize a pre-existing single-family residence, constructed in 1973,to remain as a legal use
in the Commercial General Zone District. The home was constructed prior to zoning being applied to the
subject property in 1974;the residence had been non-conforming in terms of zoning ever since.
During the 2010—2011 Special Use and FONSI process, some extraneous uses of the property were
identified by adjacent property owners and a Staff site visit. As a condition of the Applicant's requests
during the 2010-2011 Special Use Permit and FONSI,the uses of the property were required to be brought
into conformance with the provisions of the Commercial General Zone District and other regulatory
requirements.The Applicant is requesting the following uses be allowed:
• Seasonal plant sales,
• Christmas tree sales,
• Taxi storage,
• One plumbing truck,
• One towing truck, and
• Year-round used car sales.
Per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, each of these uses in the Commercial General Zone District,
require a Special Use Permit approval. Also, since a majority of these uses occur within 75 foot streamside
setback,the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to amend streamside setbacks through the
Special Use Permit process.Below is the list of the proposed uses and impacts:
Business Dates of Operation Hours of Parking Spaces Type of Structure Signage
Operation
The Plant 20 ft.x 20 ft.plastic
Lady May 1—August 1 7 am to 7 pm 4 covered Quonset 4 ft.x 4 ft.
type building
Christmas November 23— 7 am to 7 pm 4 60 ft.x 60 ft.fenced 4 ft.x 4 ft.
Tree Stand January 1 area _
18 vehicles/2 rows
Taxi November 15—July Whenever needed back to back Not applicable None proposed
Vehicles 15 direct access not
necessary
Plumbing Operation year-round Whenever needed 1 truck Not applicable None proposed
Truck —as needed by clients _
Towing Operation year-round Whenever needed 1 truck Not applicable None proposed
Truck —as needed by clients
As required by
Summer Hours: 12- the state and
6 M-F,Saturdays allowed within
Used car 10-4,Winter Hours: the existing
sales Operation year-round 1-5 M-F,Saturdays 13 spaces Not applicable sign code,no
10-3,Closed banners,
Sundays in Summer balloons,or
and Winter flags are being
proposed
B. SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
Land Use Zoning Land Use Zoning
North: Old Edwards Estates Residential Suburban
Medium Density
South: Mixed-Use Commercial General
Development _
Riverwalk Mixed-Use Planned Unit CDOT Interstate
East: Resource
Development Development Traveller Rest Area
33
05/28/2013
West: Eagle River Preserve Resource
Existing Zoning: Commercial General
Proposed Zoning: NA
Current Development: Single-Family Residence
Site Conditions: Developed
Total Land Area:` Acres: 2.426-acres Square feet: 105,684 square feet
Total Open Space: N/A
Water: Public: ERW&SD Private:
Sewer: Public: ERW&SD Private:
Access: Via Edwards Access Road
C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND:
1973: Existing residence constructed
1974: Eagle County adopted and implemented zoning for all unincorporated lands.
1987: Subject property platted for first time.
1998: Subject property part of an amended final plat.
2000: Subject property defined in its current configuration via amended final plat.
2010: Property owner discovers that the existing single-family residence has been considered legal non-
conforming by Eagle County since 1974;thereby making it impossible to refinance the residence
and property.
2011: Special Use Permit approved to allow residences in a commercial zone district and a FONSI
request for a stream setback variance.
2. STAFF REPORT
B. NECESSARY FINDINGS:
PROCESS INTENT
ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits
Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses
allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other
uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location,
design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of
appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location
with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in
this Section.
Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon
findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned,
fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division,this Article, and
these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the
Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to
ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific
site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special
Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or
duration of the Special Use Permit
34
05/28/2013
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 FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building
and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use.
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
x. .� ,', FLUM
° a & 2 2 .Y t. Designation
o ti 0 8
0 A u` cG x S g wb'
Exceeds
Recommendations
Incorporates Majority of X1 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
Recommendations
Does Not Incorporate
Recommendations
Not Applicable X X2 X3
Xl-The Plan indicates that growth should be managed toward future sustainability—a healthy balance bet ween
economic success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment and that growth should be appropriately
designed and should be located within or immediately contiguous to existing town and community centers. This
proposal will not result in any additional development potential on the subject property. The uses proposed with
the Special Use Permit request are not increasing the developed area on the property,rather utilizing existing
impacted areas in the commercial center of Edwards.
X2—The Plan speaks to commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should occur in towns and community
centers. The proposed uses are being located in the existing commercial center and are scaled appropriately for the
site.
X3—Due to the fact that this proposal does not entail additional commercial or new residential development,the
Housing Guidelines are not applicable.
X4—The subject property is served by public water, sewer and roads. The property is immediately adjacent to
existing commercial services. In the previous Special Use Permit and FONSI process,ECO Trails requested that
the Applicant provide a fifteen(15)foot wide trail easement across the subject property to accommodate the future
route of the Eagle Valley Core Trail through Edwards, connecting to the Eagle River Preserve. The final trail
design will accommodate and not block the driveway access to the subject property.
X5—The subject property is served with public water. The Plan speaks to protecting against source water
contamination;the Applicant has built a berm adjacent to the Eagle River to reduce the possibility of contamination
from snowplowing and other activities.The berm has been built with erosion control mat and seeded. Should the
seeding not become established,the Applicant will be required to reseed the berm. Staff is concerned about the
disposal of fertilized dirt and vegetation from the plant business due to observations by Staff of this practice in the
summer of 2012. Staff suggests that should any materials be disposed of near or in the Eagle River,the Special Use
Permit, if it is approved,may be revoked.
X6—Colorado Parks and Wildlife was sent a referral and no comment was received in regards to impacts of the
proposed uses.
X7—The proposed uses avoid areas of significant natural hazard. There are no known historical or archeological
resources on the property.
X8-The proposed uses do not generate any undue ocular, olfactory or auditory impacts which will compromise the
environmental quality of the property or surrounding areas.These uses are already taking place on the property and
this process is memorializing the uses.
X9—The FLUM identifies the property as appropriate for mixed use development.
EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
35
05/28/2013
g g y .� c g FLUM
x a° w W wAE° A
Exceeds
Recommendation
Incorporates Majority X1 X2 X3 X4
of Recommendations
Does Not Incorporate
Recommendations
Not Applicable X X X X X X X X
Xl - The Plan speaks to protection of natural resources and systems,balanced growth,protection of social, cultural
and historic resources, community character and mining activities. This Special Use Permit proposal will not
adversely impact natural resources,change growth patterns,alter social, cultural and historic resources or change
the community character.A berm has been constructed to minimize contamination to the Eagle River.
X2—The existing commercial uses are served by public water and sanitation facilities.
X3—The Plan speaks to ecosystem management, storm water drainage systems,clean mountain air, scenic vistas,
protecting unique natural resources,protection of riparian,wetland and aquatic habitat, and protection of rare and
endangered flora and fauna. With the installation of the berm,the Eagle River is protected from contaminates.
X4-The FLUM identifies the property as appropriate for mixed use development.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2J 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
Old Edwards Residential
North: Estates Suburban X
Medium Density
South: Mixed Use Commercial X
Commercial General
Mixed Use Planned Unit
East: Commercial Development X
Riverwalk
West: Eagle River Resource X
Preserve
Focusing only on the Special Use Permit request to memorialize the uses already occurring on site,no new
compatibility issues should arise.
In 1981 when Old Edwards Estates received county approval,presumably consideration was given to
potential conflicts between the single family residential development on the north side of the Eagle River
and the existing commercially zoned property on the south side of the river. The Commercial General
designation was assigned to the subject property in 1974.
36
05/28/2013
As of the writing of this report, Staff has received one opposition letter with concerns about noise in
regards to the commercial operation and the other three letters received from the owners of property in Old
Edwards Estates indicate that there is not a compatibility problem with the extraneous uses existing on the
property.
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.3J The proposed Special Use shall comply with
the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use,
as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and
Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial
Uses.
The uses being proposed for this property are listed as special uses in the Land Use Regulations since they
deserve a higher level of scrutiny to ensure the impacts from the uses do not diminish enjoyment of the
land.
As stated previously, these uses are existing on the property and as a requirement of the 2010-2011 Special
Use Permit and FONSI, the Applicant was required to legitimize the uses. As of the writing of this staff
report, no negative comments have been received about the uses by the adjacent property owners, except
the Edwards Metro District has concerns about the impact of parked cars adjacent to the Eagle River. The
property owner has addressed this concern by working with the Engineering Department after constructing
a berm along the Eagle River then adding erosion control mat and seeding it.
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.4] The design of the proposed
Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands;
furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands
regarding trash, traffic, service delivery,parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall
not create a nuisance.
s 4 g
E. CN a a° O c7 a
Exceeds ECLUR
Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X X X
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X1
Requirements
Not Applicable X
Xl -The existing uses are provided with adequate services, and parking. Based on one letter of opposition,
an adjacent property believes the generator from the Christmas tree lot,taxis leaving the lot and the beeping
of commercial vehicles backing up create noise pollution for the neighbors.
37
05/28/2013
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special
Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air
resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.
., m 0
6 .o �' °r�
o - o p y
Exceeds ECLUR Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement X
Not Applicable
Recognition of the existing uses on the subject property, if the conditions of approval are adhered to, is not
anticipated to cause significant deterioration of water and air resources,wildlife habitat, scenic resources,
and other natural resources.
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] The proposed Special Use Permit shall be
adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads,pedestrian paths,potable water and
wastewater facilities,parks, schools,police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
a as c3 � 3 a uav�
Exceeds ECLUR
Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X X
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR
Requirement
Not Applicable �{
The subject property is 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. In the previous Special Use Permit and FONSI process,ECO Trails requested that the Applicant
provide a fifteen(15) foot wide trail easement across the subject property to accommodate the future route
38
05/28/2013
of the Eagle Valley Core Trail through Edwards, connecting to the Eagle River Preserve; this is a suggested
condition of approval.
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.
j - - " Article 4,Site Development Standards
;'!I o
X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards(Division 4-1)
X Landscaping and Illumination Standards(Division 4-2)
X Sign Regulations(Division 4-3)
X Wildlife Protection(Section 4-410)
X Geologic Hazards(Section 4-420)
X Wildfire Protection(Section 4-430)
X Wood Burning Controls(Section 4-440)
X Ridgeline Protection(Section 4-450)
X 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)
X Sidewalk and Trail Standards(Section 4-630)
X Irrigation System Standards(Section 4-640)
X Drainage Standards(Section 4-650)
X Grading and Erosion Control Standards(Section 4-660)
X Utility and Lighting Standards(Section 4-670)
X Water Supply Standards(Section 4-680)
X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards(Section 4-690)
X *Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards(Division 4-7)
*to be applied to new structures only.
39
05/28/2013
The existing parking on the site is adequate for the proposed uses. Landscaping and illumination are
installed on site. The proposed signage will require a sign permit in conformance with the Land Use
Regulations. Staff received no comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife in regards to wildlife impacts
from the uses. All water and sewer are served by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and in an email
correspondence stated the District had no comment on the project. The Applicant has worked with the
Engineering Department on grading and erosion control on the property for the berm.
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.
The existing uses satisfy all applicable provisions of the land use regulations with the exception of the non-
conforming stream setback. As stated previously, the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to
amend the stream setback through the Special Use process.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
C. REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Eagle County Engineering Department: In the attached response dated,January 28,2013, Eagle County
Engineering reviewed the information presented during the re-referral and has no comments on the
additional information provided. The November 26, 2012 comments still apply and are provided below:
Eagle County Engineering has reviewed the information provided by the Applicant on February 21,2012
with the understanding that the Eagle County Land Use Regulations now allow the BoCC to approve a
variance to the 75-foot stream setback that is not limited to a 50-foot stream setback.
The Applicant is requesting a variable stream setback as defined by Exhibit A of the submitted information
with a minimum setback of 10-feet. This setback would not impact the defined floodplain(see attached).
During the summer of 2012 the Applicant constructed a berm adjacent to the river. This berm should
provide some protection in preventing plowing of the parking lot into the river. In addition,the berm
provides some visual relief from the property owners across the river.
The berm was seeded and protected with erosion mat. However,the Applicant will need to continue to
work to minimize weed growth until the native vegetation is established.
ECO Trails: As part of the 2010-2011 Special Use Permit and FONSI process ,ECO Trails requested a
15 foot wide trail easement to accommodate the future route of the Eagle Valley Core Trail through
Edwards,connecting to the Eagle River Preserve. The final trail design will accommodate and not block
the access driveway to the residential property. This easement has not been provided yet,therefore it is a
condition of approval on this file as well.
Eagle County Department of Environmental Health: Adam Palmer reviewed the special use application
for plant sales/storage,taxi storage,used vehicle sales and Christmas tree sales on the subject property. As
40
05/28/2013
part of Eagle County's commitment to preserving the health of the natural environment and protecting air
and water quality,there is particular sensitivity to uses near live rivers and streams, including surrounding
riparian areas. While some of these areas have already been altered or impacted from past uses,there exists
an opportunity to not only reduce impacts from future uses,but mitigate previous impacts as well t hrough.
implementation of best management practices along the Eagle River. To this end, Adam had the following
comments:
• "A detailed plan showing the retention and treatment from vehicles being washed/maintained on
the property is recommended in order to protect the adjacent riparian area and water quality of the
Eagle River. In addition,the Sustainable Community Index recommends best management
practices such as bioswales and other natural retention features to reduce suspended solids and
other pollutants for projects within 200 feet of a live stream.
• Please provide a comprehensive list of soils, amendments, fertilizers,pesticides,herbicides and
storage plan for such materials which will be used on the property, as well as spill prevention
control and countermeasures plan. Storage and use of such materials is discouraged in or near
riparian areas.
• While a FONSI was granted in 2011 to recognize the existing residence on the property,
Environmental Health advocates for the protection of Eagle County's riparian areas through strict
application of the stream setback provision which requires that a 75-ft. strip of land on either side
of the high water mark remain in its natural state. Where previous impacts have altered the natural
state in these areas,it is recommended that they be reclaimed and revegetated with native plant
species accordingly.
• A landscape design which provides effective visual screening for the taxi and boat storage is
recommended.
• Please provide proposed comprehensive signage and lighting plan for all of the proposed uses,
either seasonal or ongoing."
The Applicant has provided a written response to these comments. Please see the attached correspondence
dated,February 20, 2013.
Edwards Metropolitan District: "The Edwards Metropolitan District reviewed the Fritz Schmidt Special
Use Permit to allow temporary use on the existing parking lot within the 75 foot streamside setback and the
Special Use Permit to allow temporary uses on a seasonal basis. While the District respects Mr. Schmidt's
historical use of his property and recognizes that his site has severe constraints due to the shape and size of
the property,the District would like to express its concern about the manner in which some of Mr.
Schmidt's property is being used particularly where its use is located in close proximity to the Eagle River.
The Edwards Metropolitan District would like to express concern about parked vehicles which are located
in close proximity to the Eagle River.The Board is concerned about how those vehicles may be impacting
the environment of the Eagle River. The Edwards Metropolitan District Board of Directors looks to Mr.
Ray Merry to continue to oversee and enforce County regulations concerning present and future
environmental impacts to the Eagle River."
Colorado Parks and Wildlife: No comments were received back from this referral agency.
Adjacent Property Owners:
1) Debbie K. Marquez
128 Old County Lane
In the attached e-mail dated February 1, 2012,Ms.Marquez states she doesn't hear any commotion of
the Schmidt property and thinks a Special Use permit is going overboard.
41
05/28/2013
2) Andrea Burrows
172 Old County Lane
In the attached letter dated January 25, 2012,Ms.Burrows believes the Schmidt's commercial property
is grandfathered in, due diligence before buying is the responsibility of the buyers,any changes made by
residents in the Old Edwards Estates are the responsibility of that resident, living in the center of
Edwards comes with positives and negatives in regard to the activities of the commercial properties.
3) Tim O'Donnell
180 Old County Lane
In the attached letter dated February 2, 2012,Mr. O'Donnell states he has no complaints with the current
level of use. As long as he(Mr. Schmidt)reasonably respects the interests of adjacent property owners
before making any changes to the use of this property.
4) Chris Cooper
202 Old County Lane
In the attached email dated March 26, 2013,Mr. Cooper is concerned about the hodgepodge nature of
the uses,noise and light pollution,and the aesthetics of locating vehicles along the Eagle River corridor.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION:
On May 1, 2013,the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to deny the project.
At the April 3,2013,hearing,the Planning Commission and Eagle County agencies made the following comments:
• Environmental Health would prefer to see further restoration of the Eagle River Corridor and have the
opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of restoring the 10 foot setback area.
• A Planning Commissioner asked if the dry well and swale were already in place?
o Applicant response: Yes,the dry well and swale are in place.
• A Planning Commissioner asked is the gravel area going to be used for taxi storage or will the
miscellaneous items be brought back, such as boats and trailers?
o Applicant response: No, the boat and trailers will not be brought back. The gravel area will be for
the taxis, The Plant Lady and Christmas tree sales.
• A Planning Commissioner questioned if the lighting for Christmas tree sales is operating. There are
complaints from neighbors concerning the noise of the generator. Can an electrical hookup be installed
outside?There should be a condition that an electrical hookup be installed.
o Applicant response: The lighting will still be there and we can arrange for an electrical hookup.
• A Planning Commissioner made the statement that the dry well is point source pollution and wants a
condition that the dry well be tested on a regular basis.
• Martha Miller from Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) made the comment that she is
concerned about water quality and that the parking lot wasn't there 15 years ago. She questioned if there is
an access permit for the site?
o Engineering Department response: The access permit is very general and it could be updated, but
they do have an access permit.
• Martha Miller also stated that the pavement on the east side of the applicant's property and the property has
been changed without permission from CDOT. Ms. Miller was concerned that the total parking count
included the pavement on CDOT's property.
o Applicant response: The parking on CDOT's property has not been counted in the parking totals.
CDOT has every right to take back use of the property.
o A Planning Commissioner asked if CDOT could take the property back?
o CDOT Response: We will wait until the Edwards Access Road expansion.
42
05/28/2013
• A Planning Commissioner stated that the applicant has done some things on the property that has improved
the property. The Eco Trail could be better located. There is better placement for all these uses. This could
have been a great application but by approving this, we are eliminating our ability to make this a better
project.
• A Planning Commissioner stated that the impaired status of the Eagle River cannot be overstated. A dry
well is a direct connection to the Eagle River and is not a protection mechanism from runoff on the site. If
the commercial use of the land was better we wouldn't need to be farming the property out to these
different uses in the parking lot and adjacent to the river which further impacts the river corridor. We can
no longer say that a special use permit can be withdrawn within a couple of years because the impact from
the special use, especially in an area adjacent to the river corridor,has already taken place.
• A Planning Commissioner stated that in the Eagle-Vail Commercial Area Plan, we are trying to clean up
impacts to the Eagle River corridor through mitigation measures during redevelopment. The point being
that 61/4 miles downstream we are looking at a special use permit to allow just what we are trying to clean
up in Eagle-Vail. We should be consistent in what we're trying to accomplish. This project is an example
of poor planning.
• A Planning Commissioner stated that the whole plan needs a major redo and the Planning Commission
needs a site visit.
• The applicant would not agree to redo the project and would not reschedule the project until June to
accommodate a site visit.
• The applicant requested a vote on the project,but there was no longer a quorum.
• The project therefore was tabled to April 17th for a vote.
At the May 1, 2013,hearing,the Planning Commission and Eagle County agencies made the following comments:
• A Planning Commissioner stated that there are too many proposed uses and issues associated with those
uses on the property. He went on to say the existing design has maximized the commercial opportunities at
the expense of the environmental impacts. All the uses would adversely affect the public's health, safety,
and welfare and the proposed uses do not comply with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan or the Eagle
River Watershed Plan. The final comment was that the trail alignment should be determined prior to the
project being approved.
• A Planning Commissioner stated that the highest and best use of this property is commercial. While the
parcel was developed with challenges, the environmental concerns are overwhelming. The dry well is a
direct link to possible contaminants in the Eagle River and he would prefer that the dry well be reanalyzed
for water quality and runoff. This project would cause further detriment to the endangered Eagle River. A
condition should be added that would eliminate the ability of the applicant to pave any closer to the river.
D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OPTIONS:
5. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT FILE NO.ZS-3521] request without conditions if it is
determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed
use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal
is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle
County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans).
6. Deny the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT FILE NO.ZS-3521] request if it is determined that the petition will
adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the
immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance
with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County
Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans).
7. Table the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT FILE NO. ZS-3521] request if additional information is
required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff.
8. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT FILE NO.ZS-3521] request with conditions and/or
performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are
43
05/28/2013
necessary to ensure public,health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the
immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with
both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive
Plan(and/or other applicable master plans).
E. 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. Per the comment letter from Eagle County Engineering, should the seeding on the berm not
establish,the berm shall be reseeded until such time as vegetation is established.
3. The Applicant shall work with ECO Trails to define and convey to Eagle County a fifteen(15)
foot wide trail easement across the subject property for future connection of the Eagle Valley
Core Trail to the Eagle River Preserve. The final trail alignment and design must accommodate
and not block the driveway access to the subject property. The Property Owner shall submit a
legal description for the easement and a survey accurate map to Eagle County for review and
approval by September 30,2013.
4. Per the recommendation of the Environmental Health Department,the applicant shall submit a stormwater
management plan to Eagle County for review and approval which incorporates Best Management Practices
(BMPs) designed to intercept site drainage for the purpose of keeping pollutants from entering the
groundwater regime.
5. Per the recommendation of the Environmental Health Department,the applicant shall provide Eagle
County with a report generated by a qualified professional experienced in stream bank restoration that
evaluates the feasibility and cost of improving the existing deteriorated stream bank and riparian area.
Implementation of a restoration plan will enable the proposed uses to occur within the 75'stream setback.
6. Per staff's observations during a site visit, should any materials be disposed of in the Eagle River
corridor,the responsible party may have the Special Use approval revoked.
7. The applicant shall not pave within the environmental treatment area up to and around the dry
well.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Valdez stated that the applicant was out of town and could not attend the meeting. A representative for
the applicant requested the file be table until July 2, 2013.
Commissioner Fisher suggested that the file be tabled to a later date due to the holiday weekend.
Ms.Valdez indicated that the applicant wanted to continue the uses during the process.The file had been
ongoing for 2.5 years.
Chairman Stavney wanted to discuss the location for some of these uses.
Ms.Valdez believed that the reason the uses may have moved was due to the CDOT right-of-way.
Commissioner Fisher encouraged the applicant not to begin any new uses before the next hearing. It would
not serve the applicant well if they continued to be in violation.
Chairman Stavney moved to table the file ZS-3521 Schmidt Special Use Permit 2011 until July 16, 2013.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
44
05/28/2013
There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned until June 11, 2013.
3rd .L�^
Attest: �,,,,'* ^ i al )�l o_
Clerk to the Board . hl
45
05/28/2013