Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/25/15 PUBLIC HEARING
August 25, 2015
Present: Kathy Chandler-Henry Chairman
Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner
Jillian Ryan Commissioner
Brent McFall 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:
Commissioner Updates
Commissioner McQueeney thanked Senator Bennet for visiting last week. He presented an overview of the
proposed Wilderness Bill. She spoke about a joint meeting between the Eagle County Commissioners and the
Eagle County School Board. They would be discussing the kids count data and how kids were doing in school.
Commissioner Ryan spoke about a community project happening on Thursday nights at the Miller Ranch
Community Center. The Department of Transportation and Eagle County were working on the design of the Phase
II Edwards interchange project and were seeking community input.
Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that she attended the Colorado Water Congress Summer Conference last
week and there continued to be a lot of conversation about trying to connect land use planning with water planning.
1. Resolution 2015-074 Designating August 2015 as Child Support Services Month
Megan Burch, Human Services
Ms. Burch thanked the board for their support and joining Governor Hickenlooper and the State of
Colorado in declaring August as Child Support Services Month. The program insured that all children received
financial and medical support from each parent. The mission was accomplished by enforcing child support
obligations. The Colorado Family Support Council honored a member of the team for collecting the largest lump
sum payment for a medium size county in 2014. The Colorado of Human Services recognized the team for meeting
all four performance measures for 2014. Total collections for 2014 were over$2.3 million dollars.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.2015
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AUGUST 2015
AS CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES MONTH
WHEREAS, Eagle County's children need the emotional and financial support of both parents; and
• WHEREAS,the support of parents, extended families, and the community helps children grow into
healthy productive adults; and
1
08/25/2015
WHEREAS, Eagle County is committed to promoting the health and well-being of all of its children by
providing a variety of child support services to help ensure that parents pay child support on a regular and timely
basis; and
WHEREAS, the payment of child support contributes to improved parental-child relationships, improved
educational attainment of children, and a reduced reliance on public assistance programs; and
WHEREAS, Eagle County wishes to educate families about the availability of child support services and
to continually enhance the services that it provides; and
WHEREAS,this month we salute those parents who support their children and honor the child support
professionals who assisted our Eagle County families last year.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO:
THAT,the month of August 2015 be hereby proclaimed
Child Support Services Month in Eagle County
THAT,the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the public
health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the resolution designating August 2015 as Child Support
Services Month in Eagle County.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Chandler-Henry stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
2. Connect for Health Colorado Connect for Health Assistance Network Grant Agreement for Assistance with
Application and Enrollment for the Health Insurance Marketplace
Megan Burch,Human Services
3. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Vail Concerning a Grant of Trail
Maintenance Funds for Improvements to the Gore Valley Trail at Dowd Junction
Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails
Ms. Caryl spoke about the trail in Dowd Junction and the agreement between the county and the town of
Vail for trail screening to maintain the migration corridor and decrease interference with wildlife. The Town of
Vail Art Fund provided the funding.
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Consent Agenda for August 25,2015, as presented.
Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Citizen Input
Chairman Chandler-Henry opened and closed citizen input, as there was none.
2
08/25/2015
Commissioner McQueeney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re-
convene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Housing and Development Authority
4. Riverview Apartments Automatic Operating Cost Adjustment Factor Rent Increase
Dan Murray,Housing
Mr. Murray stated that Riverview Apartments were eligible for a 1%HUD assistance payment rent
increase per unit. The increase would begin on November 2, 2015. The increase only affects what they received
from HUD, andhe market rate of the properties and would not raise the rent for the tenants.
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Riverview Apartments automatic operating cost adjustment
factor rent increase.
Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority
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
Consent Agenda
Renewals
5. Rancho Del Rio,LLC d/b/a Rancho Del Rio
#26-18840-0000
Renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the
past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of
server training has been provided.
6. Let The French Begin,LLC d/b/a Gore Range Brewery
#42-94084-0000
Renewal of a Brew Pub Liquor License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in
the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of
server training has been provided.
7. 011ie's Café,Inc. d/b/a Route 6 Café
#47-00124-0000
Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Eagle-Vail. There have been no complaints or
disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on
file and proof of server training has been provided.
8. Wind Rose Properties,LLC d/b/a Timber Hearth Grill
#47-01862-0000
Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 4 Opt.Premises in Edwards(Cordillera). There have
been no complaints or disturbances in the past year.All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol
Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided.
3
08/25/2015
9. Wind Rose Properties,LLC d/b/a Summit
#47-01863-0000
Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 4 Opt.Premises in Edwards(Cordillera). There have
been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol
Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided.
10. Wind Rose Properties,LLC d/b/a Chaparral
#47-01861-0000
Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 4 Opt.Premises in Edwards(Cordillera). There have
been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.An Alcohol
Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided.
Other
11. Vail Valley Foundation d/b/a Vilar Performing Arts Center
#04-71265-0004
Manager Registration—The applicant wishes to register Kris Sabel as the new manager,replacing Gena
Buhler. Mr. Sabel was reported to be of good moral character and has no criminal history.
Commissioner Ryan moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Liquor Consent
Agenda for August 25, 2015, as presented.
Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re-
convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Work Session
12. Request for Resolution of Support for Crystal River's Federal Wild and Scenic River
Designation
Dorothea Farris,Pitkin County Healthy Rivers
Site Visit
Anglers PUD-Near the Eagle River Intersection of Highway 6 and Miller Ranch Road Edwards, Colorado
Planning Files
13. ZC-5322 Alberts' Parcel Zone Change
Kris Valdez,Planning
Taylor Ryan, Engineering
Anglers LLC,Applicant
Matt Larson,Esq., Representative
Action: The purpose of the Zone Change is to change the property from Resource to Planned Unit Development
4
08/25/2015
Location: NW of the intersection of HWY 6 and Miller Ranch Road
14. PDSP-5321 Anglers Planned Unit Development
Kris Valdez,Planning
Taylor Ryan, Engineering
Anglers LLC, Applicant
Matt Larson,Esq.,Representative
Action: The purpose of this Consolidated Sketch Preliminary Plan is for nine single family units.
Location:NW of the intersection of HWY 6 and Miller Ranch Road
FILE NO./PROCESS: ZC-5322/Zone Change Alberts' Parcel
PDSP-5321 /Consolidated Sketch and Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit
Development(PUD)
PROJECT NAME: Alberts' Parcel and Anglers PUD
LOCATION: Miller Ranch Road
OWNER: Estate of Jesse Alberts
APPLICANT: Matt Larson,Anglers LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Matt Larson,Anglers LLC
STAFF PLANNER: Kris Valdez, MURP,AICP
STAFF ENGINEER: Ty Ryan, PE
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Request and Process
The Applicant requests review of a Rezoning and a Consolidated Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Planned
Unit Development(PUD) for the Anglers PUD, a nine single family home development located on 4.05 acres in the
Edwards area known as "Jesse's Parcel." The parcel name is in reference to the owner, Jesse Alberts, who
purchased the property in 1970.The property is now owned by the Estate of Jesse Alberts.
The Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan proposes nine residential units on the parcel consisting of seven riverfront
home sites and two non-riverfront home sites.
Per the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines,the applicant has two options in which to satisfy the Housing
Guidelines.
The first is to have all nine lots subject to the resident occupied deed restrictions including a .67% transfer fee for
non-eligible households. These deed restrictions will be for a term of 50 years with an extension of an additional 50
year period subject to Board of County Commissioners approval.
The second is that the applicant can provide enough affordable housing credits to satisfy the affordable housing
requirements. These credits must be provided prior to receiving a building permit for any lot on the property.
Staff is recommending approval, with conditions, of the Zone Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan. The
Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project at their meeting on August
5,2015.
The remainder of this Executive Summary is organized as follows:
1. Process overview
2. Conformance to Zone Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD Standards
5
08/25/2015
3. Requested Variations to Standards
4. Overview of Findings
5. Discussion Topics and Outstanding Issues
6. Impact and Tradeoffs
7. Report Organization and Recommendation
8. Concurrent File Review
9. Planning Commissioner Comments
Process Overview
This is a review of a Zone Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD, the first step in a two-step review
and approval process for Planned Unit Developments.Final Plat for Subdivision is the final step in the process.
Section 5-230 (p. 5-26) of the ECLURs states:
•
"The purpose of[a Zone Change] 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. "
Section 5-240(p. 5-31)of the ECLURs states:
"The purpose of sketch plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and
discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether development
of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional
subdivision. It is the time when determinations should be made as to whether the proposed PUD
substantially complies with these Land Use Regulations and 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,
and is generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and
other lands that may be substantially impacted.
It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and
commercial space for development; the types of use, dimensional limitations and other variations that
may be considered; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain
undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be
provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review
should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately
to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County."
"The purpose of preliminary plan review is for the applicant to respond to the issues and concerns
identified during sketch plan review and to formulate detailed, properly engineered solutions to those
issues and concerns that conform to the approved sketch plan. The preliminary plan stage is when the
applicant is to provide detailed information and mitigation proposals to be evaluated by the County. The
preliminary plan shall include a guide to the development of the PUD (hereinafter, the "PUD Guide'),
specifying the limitations that will guide the future development of the property."
Since this is a Zone Change and a consolidated Sketch and Preliminary Plan PUD file, the application and staff
report address the standards of both type of applications.
Conformance to Zone Change Standards
Staff believes this parcel is appropriate for a zone change. The surrounding properties have been developed over the
years at a higher density than the Resource Zone District allows on the Alberts parcel. Specifically, the proposed
single-family land use of the Anglers PUD is compatible the single-family and duplex land uses of the surrounding
6
08/25/2015
Miller's Creek PUD,Riverstone(Logan Park)PUD and Arrowhead River Ranch PUD. A density of 2.22 units/acre
(9 units/4.05 acres) for the proposed Anglers PUD is less than the average density of 2.88 units/acre for the
surrounding three communities of Miller's Creek PUD, Riverstone (Logan Park) PUD, and Arrowhead River
Ranch PUD.
Additionally, staff believes the proposal meets, or can meet as conditioned, all applicable standards for a Zone
Change. Therefore, staff is recommending approval,with conditions.
Conformance to Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD Standards
The application as proposed will or can meet the standards for a consolidated Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for
PUD, as conditioned.
Requested Variations to Standards
During the course of review of this file, staff, working with the Applicant and certain referral agency partners, has
identified areas of non-conformance with certain improvement standards, as well as outstanding issues needing to
be addressed by the Applicant. In each case where design-related standards (improvement standards for roadway
widths and design as well as sidewalks and stream setbacks) have been found to be non-conforming, staff and the
Applicant have worked to identify and summarize a list of requested "variations" to standards, the Applicant's
justifications for such variations, and staff's response such requests. (See attached table summarizing requested
variations to standards). Any variations from the standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs)
must be granted by the Board of County Commissions.
As a reminder, the PUD process is established, in large part, to allow designers and developers flexibility in design
(through the granting of variations to standards and dimensional limitations) in order to achieve certain functional,
economic and/or environmental benefits. Likewise,the granting of variations must be predicated on the finding that
proposed design solutions equal or exceed the performance of prescribed County standards and, importantly, that
such variations achieve certain purposes such as obtaining "desired design qualities," incentivizing developers to
provide affordable housing, or avoiding"environmental resources and natural hazards"(ECLURs,pp. 5-43—44).
Overview of Findings
In short, staff believes the Applicant has been diligent in meeting the objectives and obligations of the Zone
Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan review stage in the PUD process, in working with the County and other
agencies and keeping staff and other agencies appraised to changes.
Staff believes that, overall, the Zone Change, Sketch and Preliminary Plan meets the purposes and intents of the
Zone Change process (Section 5-230, ECLURs) as well as the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD process
(Section 5-240, ECLURs) and that the PUD is in substantial conformance with applicable standards. The following
matrix summarizes applicable standards, a recommended finding, and a brief discussion regarding staff's findings.
More in-depth discussion of how or why staff believes the Zone Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan meets
or does not meet applicable standards is provided in Section III— Staff Findings and Recommendation starting on
page 12 of the report.
Zone Change
Standard Conformance Discussion
Conformance with Yes The proposed density is in keeping with the recommendations of the Edwards Community
the Comprehensive Area Plan.
Plan
Compatible with Yes As stated earlier,the surrounding properties have been developed over the years at a higher
Surrounding Uses density than the Resource Zone District allows on the Alberts parcel.
7
08/25/2015
Public Benefit Mixed The Applicant is providing a 75 foot access easement to allow access to the Eagle County
owned Miller Ranch Open Space,but since a parking plan has not been generated for the
open space parcel,staff is unsure if this easement will allow Eagle County to access the lot
in the future because the access easement may not be long enough.
Change of Yes As stated earlier,the surrounding properties have been developed over the years at a higher
Circumstances density than the Resource Zone District allows on the Alberts parcel.
Adequate Yes The Applicant has obtained letter from public service providers stating the water,
Infrastructure wastewater,emergency services and schools are adequate to serve the development.
Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan
Standard Conformance Discussion
Unified
Ownership of Yes The entire land holdings are owned by the Estate of Jesse Alberts.
Land
The uses proposed within the PUD are those designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a
special use or allowed as a limited review use in the ECLURs. This application proposes a nine
Uses Yes (9) home PUD that includes some of the uses listed within Tables 3-300, and 3-310 of the
ECLURs. Accessory Dwelling Units are not an allowed use in the PUD because that would have
required a 1041 Permit for the file.
Dimensional Mixed-requires Variations from dimensional limitations have been proposed in accordance with the ECLURs.
Limitations variation approval Staff is amenable to variations to building setbacks from the Eagle River. (See full discussion
under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation).
Variations Mixed-requires Variations from dimensional limitations as well as from improvement standards for roads,
Authorized variation approval dedicated right-of-way,and sidewalks. Staff supports most,but not all,variations proposed. (See
full discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation).
Off-street The Applicant is representing that off street parking and loading standards are being met.(See full
Parking and Yes discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation)
g )
The Sketch Plans and Preliminary Plans for landscaping indicate overall conformance with the
Landscaping Yes requirements and recommendations of Article 4,ECLURs.(See full discussion under Section III—
Staff Findings and Recommendation).
Signs Yes The PUD Guide contains signage restrictions and requirements that meet or exceed the standards
of the ECLURs.(See full discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation).
Standard Conformance Discussion
Adequate Facilities Mixed-requires Public facilities have been found to be adequate to serve the proposed development. (See
variation approval full discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation).
Public improvements are generally found to be in conformance with applicable standards.
Improvements Mixed-requires However, staff does not support a requested variation to waive the standard that requires
variation approval sidewalks in the development. (See full discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and
Recommendation).
Compatibility with The Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan have been found to be compatible with surrounding
Surrounding Uses Yes uses.(See full discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation).
Consistency with The Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan have been found to be consistent with the goals,
Comprehensive Plan Yes policies, objectives and implementation strategies of the Edwards Area Community Plan.
(See full discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation).
Phasing N/A There will be no phasing associated with this PUD.
Common Recreation The application states that a ingress/egress easement is being granted to the Eagle County
and Open Space Yes Open Space and approximately 1.11 acres of the property consists of the Eagle River which
is allowed to be counted as open space. Therefore, the application meets the standards of
8
08/25/2015
the ECLURs.
Natural Resource Yes The Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan conform to this standard.
Protection
Discussion Topics and Outstanding Issues
The outstanding items that still exist are a requested waiver to the sidewalk requirements, right-of-way dedication
and the size of the access easement to the adjacent Eagle County Open Space parcel.
Please refer to additional analysis regarding issues, required standards and conformance within Section III — Staff
Findings and Recommendation,and within attached referral agency comment letters.
PUD Guide and Land Use Schedule
The Anglers PUD Sketch and Preliminary Plan application proposes a PUD Guide setting forth zoning and land use
controls, signage, lighting, landscaping, fencing/berming, wildlife, snow removal, drainage, utilities, and solar for
each planning area within the PUD.
Overall, staff suggests that the PUD Guide is appropriate and adequate for the type, scale and intensity of proposed
uses on the subject property. The Guide provides the necessary regulatory controls to allow Eagle County to
administer zoning and land use control, while also providing flexibility to a homeowner's association (Design
Review Board and/or HOA board)to administer some level of local control.
Roadway Right-of-Way(ROW)Dedication
The application proposes a privately held, 30-foot ROW for the access road, Angler's Way. A 30-foot ROW
requires a variation from the standards for this road as discussed below. As proposed, Angler's Way would be
gated near the entrance, and access rights would be granted to the emergency service providers for access as
necessary.
Staff has defined Angler's Way as an Urban Residential Road. That classification requires a minimum ROW width
of 50-feet. We support the requested ROW variation to 30-feet with the addition of sidewalk easements along the
road that are adequate for the construction and maintenance of the required, detached sidewalks. With the latest
revisions, no layout for the sidewalks was provided so we cannot determine if the proposed sidewalk easements are
sufficient.
During the review, staff recommended that Angler's Way be dedicated as a public road to be maintained by the
developer. This would improve mobility in the neighborhood for residents, visitors, and emergency access
providers; however, the Applicant requests that the road be reserved as a private road with gated access.
Regardless of the final ROW dedication,the developer will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of
all improvements for this project.
Geologic Hazard Mitigation
The subject property has been evaluated by FJS Engineering with regard to feasibility of development given certain
pre-existing geologic and/or soils conditions. In a report by FJS Engineering dated January 18, 2015, the limited
geologic hazards and suitable geology of the property does not appear to preclude development of the proposed
Anglers PUD consisting of an eleven* lot single-family residential community. *When the geologic report was
done, the proposal was for eleven (11) lots, rather than the nine(9) being proposed now.
The report makes certain findings and recommendations including the need for site specific, design related
mitigation to be incorporated into final design and construction details. The State of Colorado Geologic Survey has
provided comments with regard to FJS Engineering's findings and recommendations, specifically CGS had
9
08/25/2015
concerns about the slope stability along the Eagle River. The Applicant has committed to site specific geologic
studies,mitigation and design for all building types. Final plats could include plat notes that require such studies.
Eagle River Fire Protection District Concerns
The dimensions of the proposed Angler's Way, do not accommodate the dimension of a ladder truck, therefore the
Eagle River Fire Protection District is recommending a connection to the Miller Creek platted Emergency Access
Easement. Eagle River Fire is amenable to the access to Angler's being gated with the condition that a Knox gate
opening mechanism is installed for use by the emergency service providers.
Wildlife
The developable portion of the projects consists primarily of a minimally vegetated gravel terrace above the Eagle
River. The wildlife habitat of the property has been degraded due to the historic use and development of the
property as an auto shop and storage lot. In addition, the property has been partially isolated by the surrounding US
HWY 6 to the south, the railroad tracks and I-70 to the north and adjacent developments. The transitional hill
between the gravel terrace above and the Eagle River below has been largely cleared, although mature trees and a
narrow riparian area are located immediately adjacent to the Eagle River. The stream setback of the proposed
Anglers PUD should limit development within this area.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife would recommend that the approved uses of the primary stream setback include
definitions of just what level of trimming/pruning and periodic maintenance include. The definition should clearly
state that the intent of the primary stream setback is to provide for a natural and fully functioning riparian system
not to enhance the scenic value.
In response,the Applicant made the following changes to the PUD Guide:
-Elimination of"periodic maintenance"as a permitted use;
-Elimination of"removal of natural debris"as a permitted use;
-Elimination of"tree and brush trimming/pruning"as a permitted use.
Impacts and Tradeoffs
Staff believes the potential for both positive and negative impacts from the proposal(from any new development)is
real and should be considered as part of the evaluation of standards, goals, policies and strategies. However, staff
suggests that potential impacts should be measured in context to 1) impacts from the existing industrial uses on the
property, and 2)potential benefits that could be derived from the project at full or even partial build-out.
1. Impacts to local traffic.
2. Impacts to local wildlife populations.
3. Impacts to local service providers.
4. Impacts to Eagle County open space.
Such impacts could be weighed against:
1. The potential benefits resulting from the provision of deed restricted, resident occupied housing within the
development.
2. The proposal's overall conformance with a preponderance of goals, policies and implementing strategies
identified in several policy documents such as the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Edwards
Area Community Plan, notably those goals and policies (inclusive of Future Land Use Map designations
and direction) related to location of compact, transit oriented, and mixed-use development within existing
community centers.
3. The proposal's overall conformance with a majority of technical standards, as well as the Applicant's
provision of on-site renewable energy with solar listed as allowable use in the PUD Guide.
10
08/25/2015
Report Organization and Recommendation
The following sections of this report provide a brief background and chronology of for land uses on the Alberts
property, an in-depth review and analysis of applicable standards inclusive of recommended findings and areas of
non-conformance needing mitigation, a summary of referral agency responses, and pertinent site data.
Concurrent File Review
As stated previously,the Zone Change File No.ZC-5322 and the Consolidated Sketch and Preliminary Plan File
No. PDSP-5321 are being heard concurrently. The decision for the Zone Change must occur first,then a motion can
be made for the Consolidated Sketch and Preliminary Plan.
Planning Commissioner Comments and Recommendations
• Commissioner Runyon commented that the Applicant is only selling the lots, not having a comprehensive
building design and he was concerned that each home could have a completely different design rather than
a uniform look.
o Applicant Response: The Estate of Jesse Alberts is selling the development as a whole if the PUD
is approved. The lots will not be sold individually.
• Commissioner Runyon does not see a need for sidewalks in a development this size.
• Commissioner Runyon has concerns about the secondary access because the berm on the west side of the
property was there before Millers Creek was approved, but why would a secondary access be approved
when it would go through a wall? Therefore, he did not believe a secondary access is necessary. In a worst
case scenario,in a subdivision this small,people can walk out of the subdivision.
o Staff Response: While staff originally thought that a secondary access was not required based on
the road classification, after further review, this road classification does require dual access. Staff
also believes that an access through Millers Creek is required due to previous agreements and
commitments made by the developers of Millers Creek. However, since this Application is for a
Rezoning and a Consolidated Sketch and Preliminary Plan, the Board can deviate from
Improvement Standards if they believe the sidewalks and dual access are not necessary.
• Commissioner Warner would like to see the emergency access. He realizes that it impacts the neighbors,
but in the long run he believes it would be beneficial.
• Commissioner Warner has doubts with the affordability of the proposed housing because of the asking
price of the property. He does not believe the finished product will be truly affordable for locals. The need
is not for more expensive housing,but for intermediate priced housing.
• Commissioner Brock believes the roads are an adequate width. It could be said that the emergency access is
not needed because dual access requirements precedes GPS and the fire trucks can back up out of the
subdivision and GPS will get them quicker to the right spot and communication is such that they can get
there without a dual access.
• Commissioner Brock would like to see sidewalks but if the developer buying the lots sees that need and if
he has enough right-of-way or easement to build it in,he may do so.
• Commissioner Brock is also concerned that there are no design standards for the project.
• Commissioner Sage wants to make sure the secondary access is truly necessary for safety reasons.
• Commissioner Sage does not believe sidewalks are necessary in this development.
• Commissioner Carpenter supports the emergency access through Millers Creek and he will always error on
the side of public safety and he believes the dual access is a public safety issue.
• Commissioner Carpenter also believes the sidewalks are necessary in the development.
• Commissioner Carpenter believes an additional public benefit is getting rid of the well and septic system on
the property.
• Commissioner Carpenter fully supports the affordable housing plan as proposed by the revised application.
• Commissioner Carpenter supports the proposed screening of the future open space parking lot on the east
side of the property.
• Commissioner Carpenter believes this proposal will improve the riparian corridor along the Eagle River.
• Commissioner Carpenter believes the Sustainable Community Index score could be improved for the
development since the proposal is only two points above meets standards.
11
08/25/2015
• Commissioner Carpenter stated that there should be some concern in regards to what has been dumped on
the property in the past.
o Staff Response: A Phase I Environmental Report was conducted and found that the site is not
contaminated. The Phase I Environmental Report was included as part of the Application.
• Commissioner Moffat does not support a sidewalk through the subdivision. He believes it is excessive and
more appropriate in an urban setting, at best this is a suburban setting and somewhat rural.
• Commissioner Moffat does not support a secondary emergency access because the fire department can
learn how to back their trucks up.
• Commissioner Moffat is normally not a fan of up-zoning in unincorporated Eagle County; however, this is
an infill development and is the opposite of sprawl. This is the exact spot where housing should be located.
• The Rezoning motion was passed unanimously.
• The Consolidate Sketch and Preliminary Plan motion passed unanimously with the motion that Condition 3
thru 5 be eliminated.Those conditions are as follows:
o The developer is responsible for construction and maintenance of all improvements for the
Angler's PUD including, but not limited to, roadway improvements, sidewalks, and traffic control
devices.
o The Eagle County Engineer will determine if the sidewalk easements are adequate when complete
designs for the roadway and sidewalks are submitted.
o Sidewalks for the Angler's PUD are to be constructed along with the roadway construction.
o Staff Response: Staff does not support the elimination of these conditions and would request that
the Board of County Commissioners include these conditions in the approval for the Consolidated
Sketch and Preliminary Plan.
IL BACKGROUND:
History of the Alberts Property-Use
The property is locally known as "Jesse's Parcel,"in reference to its longtime owner Jesse Alberts. Originally from
Gothenburg, Nebraska, Jesse moved to the valley in 1967 and owned a service station in Vail. Jesse purchased the
property in 1970 and lived there until shortly before his death on December 8, 2010. The property is currently
owned by the Estate of Jesse Alberts.
The property is currently leased to multiple tenants, including a landscaping company and auto mechanic. The
existing improvements of the property consist of a single-family residence (1,024 sq ft), garage (1,848 sq ft) and
other miscellaneous improvements (e.g., shed, fence, etc.). There is a well and septic system on site.The property is
accessible from Miller Ranch Road. There are no active zoning violations on the property.
The current zoning on the property is"Resource."
III. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of this application, with conditions, based on a finding that the proposed Zone
Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan application, as conditioned, meets or can meet all applicable standards
for a Zone Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD, as conditioned.
Along with a description of how and why staff believes certain standards required for Zone Change, Sketch Plan
and Preliminary Plan approval are or can be met as conditioned, the analysis provided below summarizes
outstanding issues and areas of non-conformance identified by staff while reviewing the proposal in cooperation
with referral partners in the region.
12
08/25/2015
Overall, staff finds that all standards are either met, or that a positive finding can be made based on further
mitigation or revision by the Applicant to increase conformance through the imposition of conditions of approval or
the granting of variations to improvement or dimensional standards prescribed or recommended in the ECLURs.
Rezoning
As stated in the ECLURs, "The purpose of[a Zone Change] 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."
STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Staff Response: Full Conformance
The project was reviewed against the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the 2003 Edwards Area
Community Plan. The project addresses a preponderance of master plan goals, policies, objectives and
implementing strategies, while adhering to Future Land Use Map designations and prescribed uses.
Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(2006)
The following is a brief overview of each goal section of the Comprehensive Plan which provides overarching
strategic policy direction for the following areas:
1. General Development
2. Economic Resources
3. Housing
4. Infrastructure and Services
5. Water Resources
6. Wildlife
7. Sensitive Lands
•
8. Environmental Quality
General Development Policies: The property in its current state is accurately described as "underdeveloped,
outdated, rundown, or otherwise dysfunctional" as provided for in Policy G of the General Development Policies,
which states, "Redevelopment and/or revitalization of currently underdeveloped, outdated, rundown, or otherwise
dysfunctional areas should be encouraged" and development should be encouraged. According to the Applicant,
development proposals for the property have ranged from one-to-three very low density single-family"estate-style"
compound(s) to a 90+ unit multifamily apartment or condominium development. There are pros and cons of both
scenarios, but in the Applicant's opinion, the proposed development represents a compatible compromise that
satisfies the maximum number of policy objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Economic Resources Policies: The property, in its current state, is already improved and is not natural habitat or
an existing agricultural use. The uses on the property, including an auto shop and storage lot, are no longer in
harmony with the single-family and duplex residential, school and open space uses that have grown around and
now surround the property. The existing uses of the property would be more suitable in a commercial or industrial
zoned area of the community and the relocation of these businesses will not have a material impact on the Eagle
County economy.
Housing: As stated earlier, per the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines, the applicant has two options in
which to satisfy the Housing Guidelines. The first is to have all nine lots subject to the resident occupied deed
restrictions including a .67% transfer fee for non-eligible households. These deed restrictions will be for a term of
50 years with an extension of an additional 50 year period subject to Board of County Commissioners approval.
The second is that the applicant can provide enough affordable housing credits to satisfy the affordable housing
requirements.These credits must be provided prior to receiving a building permit for any lot on the property.
13
08/25/2015
Infrastructure and Services: The ECO Trails system is located north of the property, separated by the railroad
right of way, and immediately adjacent to the east of the property. The Miller Ranch Road WB and Miller Ranch
Road EB ECO bus stops are located approximately 500 feet south of the property.
Based on review for preliminary planning purposes,the adjacent utilities are sufficient to accommodate the nine(9)
single-family residential units and are located at multiple connection points within close proximity of the property.
Water Resources: The property includes frontage along the Eagle River and the existing commercial uses and site
development standards of the property are outdated with nearly nonexistent environmental protections for this
sensitive area. The absence of any existing environmental protections is compounded by a gravel terrace that is
prone to dust and/or sediment runoff. In contrast, the proposed Anglers PUD includes a comprehensive
grading/drainage plan and landscape plan that are designed to mitigate the environmental impact of runoff and limit
erosion. Moreover, the proposed Anglers PUD would be served by district water and sewer and the existing septic
tanks and leach fields would be replaced. The proposed Anglers PUD also maintains a stream setback, and the PUD
Guide seeks to restore and perpetually protect the sensitive area adjacent to the Eagle River.
Wildlife: The developable portion of the project consists primarily of a minimally vegetated gravel terrace above
the Eagle River. The wildlife habitat of the property has been degraded due to the historic use and development of
the property as an auto shop and storage lot. In addition, the property has been partially isolated by the surrounding
US HWY 6 to the south, the railroad tracks and I-70 to the north and adjacent developments. The transitional hill
between the gravel terrace above and the Eagle River below has been largely cleared, although mature trees and a
narrow riparian area are located immediately adjacent to the Eagle River. The stream setback of the proposed
Anglers PUD should limit development within this area.
Sensitive Lands: The property is not located in any geologic hazard areas as delineated within the Eagle County
Geologic Hazard Maps and based on a preliminary analysis for planning purposes there are no geologic conditions
that would preclude development of the proposed Anglers PUD. The Geologic Reports makes certain findings and
recommendations including the need for site specific, design related mitigation to be incorporated into final design
and construction details. The State of Colorado Geologic Survey has provided comments with regard to FJS
Engineering's findings and recommendation, specifically CGS had concerns about the slope stability along the
Eagle River. The Applicant has committed to site specific geologic studies, mitigation and design for all building
types.Final plats could include plat notes that require such studies.
Environmental Quality: The proposed Anglers PUD will improve the air quality of the property and surrounding
area by eliminating the existing gravel terrace that is prone to dust and replacing it with a comprehensive grading,
drainage, and landscape plan. All lighting of the proposed Anglers PUD will be directed downward and/or shielded
in compliance with the regulations of Eagle County. Noise emanating from the property from the current auto
mechanic shop and storage lot is expected to be reduced as a result of the less-intensive single-family residential
uses of the proposed Anglers PUD.
Edwards Area Community Plan(2003)
The proposed Anglers PUD consists of nine (9) single-family residential units and satisfies the density policies of
the Edwards Area Community Plan. Specifically, on a gross density basis, the nine (9) single-family residential
units of the proposed Anglers PUD are sufficiently below the total of sixteen(16)units potentially identified for the
property based on the Edwards Area Community Plan's policy of gross density of four (4) or less units per acre
(4.05 gross acres x 4 units/acre = 16.20 total units). On a net density basis, the nine (9) single-family residential
units are still sufficiently below the total of seventeen (17) units for the property based on the Edwards Area
Community Plan's policy of net density of six (6) or less units per acre (2.94 acres developable land x 6 units/acre
= 17.64 total units)
STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses
Staff Response: Full Conformance
14
08/25/2015
The proposed single-family land use of the Anglers PUD is compatible with the single-family and duplex land uses
of the surrounding Miller's Creek PUD, Riverstone (Logan Park) PUD and Arrowhead River Ranch PUD, and
minimizes the impact of development on the nearby school and open space land uses. A density of 2.22 units/acre
(9 units/4.05 acres) for the proposed Anglers PUD is less than the average density of 2.88 units/acre for the
surrounding three communities of Miller's Creek PUD, Riverstone (Logan Park) PUD, and Arrowhead River
Ranch PUD.
STANDARD: Public Benefit
Staff Response: Mixed
The Applicant has proposed a 75-foot long access easement for access to a portion of the Miller Ranch Open Space,
owned by Eagle County. The plan for this area has been to provide parking for people accessing the Open Space
(6-8 spaces), but no parking layout has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed easement will be sufficient
for access. Staff's concern is that the open space access easement, as depicted,runs along the steepest section of the
driveway with steeper slopes adjacent to the driveway. Because of the existing grades, accessing and constructing
parking in this area may be difficult and expensive. It is staff's opinion that extending the open space access
easement would simplify the access and parking area construction.
STANDARD: Change of Circumstances
Staff Response: Full Conformance
As stated earlier, the surrounding properties have been developed over the years at a much higher density than the
Resource Zone District allows on the Alberts parcel.
STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure
Staff Response: Full Conformance
The Applicant has obtained letters from public service providers stating the water, wastewater, emergency services
and schools are adequate to serve the development.
Sketch Plan And Preliminary Plan
As stated in the ECLURs, "The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone district is to permit
variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow
flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more
desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of these
Land Use Regulations. This is done through the application of performance standards that:
1. Permit Integration of Uses.Permit the integration, rather than separation of uses, so that necessary
facilities are conveniently located in relation to each other;
2. Efficient Land Use Patterns. Establish land use patterns that promote and expand opportunities for public
transportation and for safe, efficient, compact street and utility networks that lower development and
maintenance costs and conserve energy;
3. Preserve Lands. Preserve valued environmental resource lands and avoid the development of natural
hazard areas;
4. Maintain Water Quality and Quantity.Maintain and enhance surface and groundwater quality and
quantity;
15
08/25/2015
5. Contribute to Trails System. Provide applicants the opportunity to contribute to the County's multi-use
trail system and maintain access to public lands and rivers,
6. Incentives for Affordable Housing.Establish incentives for applicants to encourage the provision of long
term affordable housing; and
7. Comprehensive Plan. The PUD shall be 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."
STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] — The title to all land that is part of a PUD
shall be owned or controlled by one(1)person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either
through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and
standards of the PUD.
•
Staff Response: Full Conformance
The subject property included within the PUD boundaries is owned by The Estate of Jesse Alberts.
STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] — The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses
that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300,
"Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial
Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3..f,
Variations Authorized.
Staff Response: Full Conformance
The uses proposed within the PUD are those designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or
allowed as a limited review use in the ECLURs. This application proposes a nine(9)home PUD that includes some
of the uses listed within Tables 3-300, and 3-310 of the ECLURs. Accessory Dwelling Units are not an allowed use
in the PUD because that would have required a 1041 Permit for the file.
STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] — The dimensional limitations that shall apply
to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations",for the zone district
designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional
limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations
shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper
ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings.
Staff Response: Mixed Conformance—Requires Variations to Standards
Variations from dimensional limitations have been proposed in accordance with the ECLURs. Staff supports
variations to building setbacks from the Eagle River.
STANDARD: Variations Authorized [Section 5-240.F.3.f.] provides for variations to be authorized for uses
within a PUD, as well as for dimensional limitations (building setback and height restrictions, lot coverage
maximums) and improvement standards (roads, sidewalks, parking and loading standards) to achieve one (I) or
more of the following purposes:
(a) Obtain Desired Design Qualities. A variation may be allowed that permits the integration of mixed uses or
allows for greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings.
16
08/25/2015
(b) Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. A variation may be allowed that provides
necessary site planning flexibility to enable the development to avoid valued environmental resource and
natural hazard lands, as these have been identified in Section 3-310.B.1., Purpose.
(c) Water Augmentation. A variation may be allowed that creates incentives for applicants to commit to a
water augmentation plan for their development that brings "wet"water into the Upper Eagle River Basin.
(d) Trails. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for applicants to make contributions to the
County's multi-use trail system, in accordance with the recommendations of the latest version of the Eagle
County Trails Plan, or to provide appropriate forms of access (including summer and winter parking
areas and trailheads) to public lands and to river and creek drainages in Eagle County.
(e) Affordable Housing. A variation may be allowed that extends an incentive to applicants to assure that
long term affordable housing is provided.
•
(f) Public Facilities. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for applicants to develop public
facilities, including but not limited to public transportation facilities, public recreation facilities and
similar facilities. The facilities may be located on or off of the PUD site, and shall be facilities that meet
the demands not only of project residents, but also of other residents of and visitors to Eagle County.
Staff Response: Mixed Conformance—Requires Variations to Standards
Variations are proposed from dimensional limitations as well as from improvement standards for roads and
sidewalks. Staff supports most,but not all,variations proposed.
Below is an explanation of the requested variations for the Improvement Standards.
N +15 n 3„� a. dg + E - !3 t! ,.�, Is. ER t a
' rns'arir,'” Art „Ilk,
,5 3 ' �4s6 ,
,�.. ti�.a.��� 1..ROW/Easements
Applicant requests a variation to permit a thirty
(30)foot wide road right-of-way for the private
drive that will serve the 9 single-family homes
of the proposed Anglers PUD.Please see Sec
2.E-Variations of the Anglers PUD.Absent a In discussions following our previous
variation to permit a thirty(30)foot wide road comments,the applicant suggested a sidewalk
right-of-way,the two(2)non-riverfront houses easement adjacent to the 30-foot ROW for the
Private of the proposed Anglers PUD would not be construction of the sidewalks instead of the
Road for feasible.As a consequence,the two(2)non- standard 50-foot ROW.We have agreed to the
30'ROW 50'ROW Angler's riverfront homesites designated as Resident proposed 30-foot ROW with the sidewalk
PUD Occupied For Sale Housing pursuant to the easement with the condition that the sidewalk
Applicant's Affordable Housing plan would be easement is adequate for the required
eliminated and the remaining seven(7) sidewalks.The developer is responsible for the
riverfront homesites would become larger and construction and maintenance of all roadway
more expensive.PLease also note,a thirty(30) improvements and traffic control devices.
foot wide road right-of-way also reflects the
design standards of the adjacent Riverstone PUD
(30 foot wide right-of-way)and Arrowhead
River Ranch(30 foot wide right-of-way).
Sidewalks
Applicant requests a variation to permit the We are not supportive of this variation request.
6'Detached Private development without sidewalks.Please see Sec The existence of the off-site bike path and
No Road for 2.E-Variations of the Anglers PUD.(1)The sidewalks does not negate the need for internal
Sidewalks Sidewalks Angler's proposed Anglers PUD does not connect any sidewalks for this project.Without
required PUD adjacent land uses,the traffic volume of the constructing sidewalks,there is no facility for
nine(9)units is low,vehicle speeds are low, pedestrians to access the external paths
17
08/25/2015
and the adjacent trail system and nearby bus without walking in the roadway.The developer
routes are sufficient for safe pedestrian ingress is responsible for the construction and
and egress.Please see Exhibit F—External Path maintenance of the sidewalks and pedestrian
System&Bus Routes of the Anglers PUD.(2) improvements.
Additional unnecessary impermeable area is
reduced and instead the vegetated area of the
proposed Anglers PUD is increased.(3)Snow
removal requirements are reduced and locations
for snow storage are increased.Please also note
that none of the adjacent PUDs of have
sidewalks(i.e.,Miller's Creek PUD,Riverstone
PUD,and Arrowhead River Ranch PUD).
STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] — Off-street parking and loading
provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that:
(a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not
require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents,
guests and employees of the project will be met; or
(b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than
those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may
commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized
bus passes, or similar services)as a means of complying with this standard.
Staff Response: Full Conformance
The Applicant is representing that off street parking and loading standards are being met. A minimum of two
individual parking spaces per unit will be provided in the driveway of each home, in addition to the two individual
parking spaces within each home's enclosed garage, for a total of four individual parking spaces per unit.
STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] —Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the
standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may
be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses
from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and
other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the
area.
Staff Response: Full Conformance
The Sketch Plans and Preliminary Plans for landscaping indicate overall conformance with the requirements and
recommendations of Article 4,ECLURs. Per the PUD Guide,
"Landscaping:
The common area landscaping of the Anglers PUD shall be maintained by the HOA. The minimum landscaping
requirements per developed homesite are:
A. Two (2) coniferous trees Minimum size—6'to 8'
B. Four(4)deciduous trees Minimum size—2"caliper
C. Six(6)shrubs Minimum size—5 gallon
Any irrigated areas within the Anglers PUD shall be initially landscaped with sufficiently deep topsoil to permit
deep root growth."
STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]—The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in
Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit
18
08/25/2015
Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be
suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
Staff Response: Full Conformance
All signage of the proposed Angles PUD shall comply with the standards of the PUD Guide. Per the PUD Guide,
"Signage:
A. Project Entry Monument and Sign: A project entry monument and sign shall be limited in quantity to one,
located at the entrance to the community on the east side of the Anglers PUD and shall not exceed thirty-two (32)
square feet in size and the maximum height shall not exceed eight(8)feet.
B. Residential Identification Signage: Residential identification signage shall be limited to one per dwelling
unit and individual letters/numbers shall not exceed six(6) inches in height.
C. Directional Signage: Signs shall be allowed throughout the property where necessary to provide direction
to residents and guests,provided such directional signs shall be limited in size to four(4)square feet and limited in
quantity to four(4)."
D. Other Allowed Miscellaneous Signs: Standard temporary or permanent signage erected by a public entity
or utility is permitted. In addition, limited temporary signage approved in advance by the HOA may also be
permitted."
STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] — The applicant shall demonstrate that the
development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable
water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be
conveniently located in relation to schools,police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
Staff Response: Mixed Conformance—Requires Variations to Standards
Based on review for preliminary planning purposes, the adjacent utilities are sufficient to accommodate the
proposed Anglers PUD and are located at multiple connection points within close proximity of the project. The
service providers are ERWSD for water and sewer, SourceGas for natural gas, Holy Cross Energy for electrical,
and CenturyTel/CenturyLink for telecom.
The property is located in relation to the following schools and emergency services:
Schools
June Creek Elementary 0.10 Miles
Berry Creek Middle 0.10 Miles
Red Canyon High 0.10 Miles
Eagle Valley Charter Academy 0.20 Miles
Battle Mountain High 0.75 Miles
Emergency Services
Edwards Fire Station 1.70 Miles
Edwards Ambulance Station 1.70 Miles
STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] — The improvement standards applicable to the
development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the
development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of
infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater
sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed:
(a) Safe,Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all
areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be
by a public right-of-way,private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No
19
08/25/2015
roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or
more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHTO)for that functional classification of roadway.
(b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient
system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-
site.
(c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all
lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as
applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency
services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
(d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth
traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a
major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual
lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly
connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are
necessary to maintain the County's road network.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street
network and from off-street parking areas.
Pursuant to Section 4-610.A.2 - Standards Are Not Inflexible,ECLURs,
"design criteria and standards provide a certain level of performance, however, they are not inflexible. If
an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental
sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards,
said alternative may be recommended for approval by the County Engineer. In evaluating the proposed
alternate the County Engineer shall follow the procedures in Section 5-260.G., Variance From
Improvement Standards. The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will
provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that
normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased."
Staff Response: Mixed Conformance—Requires Variations from Standards
The proposed Anglers PUD requests variations from the County's road standards of Article 4, Division 6 as
summarized in the Variations Summary table under the section"Variations Authorized"on pages 18 through 20.
Dual access has been an issue of significant discussion, especially with respect to creating the connection through
the platted Emergency Access Easement in the Mlller's Creek PUD. As mentioned in the summary of the Planning
Commission responses, staff incorrectly stated during the Planning Commission hearing that dual access was not a
requirement for this application. This application was reviewed in comparison to the County standard for Urban
Residential Roads, and in accordance with the improvement standards, dual access is required because there are
more than three lots accessed by Angler's Drive.
During sufficiency review, staff requested the applicant explore the option of making a roadway connection to the
adjacent Miller's Creek PUD; however, Miller's Creek was not interested in this idea. As a result, the applicant
included an Emergency Access Easement in-line with the platted Emergency Access to Miller's Creek. The
developer of Angler's will also be responsible for constructing the emergency access to the satisfaction of the
emergency service districts. Staff determined the dual access requirement is satisfied by the inclusion of an
emergency access easement and commitment to construct the emergency access on this property.
There are concerns raised by the Miller's Creek Homeowners Association about creating the emergency access at
this time because the platted easement has been filled with landscaping and a berm in the interim following the
subdivision approval in 1998. The emergency access was a negotiated solution to the dual access requirement
during the approval of this Miller's Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the actual emergency access to
be constructed when the adjacent property developed which is the request before the Board now. The Miller's
Creek Emergency Access is not an issue for this file and is an existing, platted easement. If the Miller's Creek
20
08/25/2015
Subdivision desires to change this access, it is within their rights to apply for a PUD Amendment to remove the
platted Emergency Access Easement and determine an alternative method for dual access.
STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] — The dimensional limitations that shall apply
to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations",for the zone district
designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional
limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations
shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper
ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings.
Staff Response: Mixed Conformance—Requires Variations to Standards
Pursuant to ECLUR §5-240(F)(3)(e)(3), the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
application for PUD is "Resource" and therefore the dimensional limitations of the Resource zone designation, as
specified in ECLUR Table§3-340, shall apply to the proposed Anglers PUD.
The proposed Anglers PUD complies with the dimensional limitations of ECLUR Table §3-340, with the exception
of the following and for which a variation is requested. Staff supports the all the variations being proposed in the
PUD Guide.
1. Minimum Lot Size: The proposed Anglers PUD requests a variation of the minimum lot area per use from
35 acres to a minimum of 0.15 acres to accommodate the following nine(9) single-family residential home sites:
Land Use Summary Table
Parcel Lot Size in Acres Proposed Use
Lot 1 .17 Single Family
Lot 2 .15 Single Family
Lot 3 .15 Single Family
Lot 4 .15 Single Family
Lot 5 .16 Single Family
Lot 6 .16 Single Family
Lot 7 .16 Single Family
Lot 8 .28 Single Family
Lot 9 .28 Single Family
2. Maximum Floor Area: 4,250 square feet. The calculation of maximum floor area shall exclude any
enclosed garage and below-grade basement(including the exclusion of any walkout basements).
3. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 15 feet.
4. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 7.5 feet(note—the minimum rear yard setback does not apply to Lots 1 thru
7 due to the application of the minimum stream setback).
21
08/25/2015
5. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 7.5 feet; provided the east side yard setback of Lot 1 and the west side yard
setbacks of lot 7 and lot 8 shall be 10 feet.
6. Minimum Stream Setback: Please see the stream setback as provided for in Planning Area C.
7. Maximum Building Height: 35 feet.
8. Measurement for Maximum Building Height: Maximum Building Height(excluding chimneys and flues)
shall be measured vertically at any given point along the sides of the building to the midpoint between the eave line
and the peak of the main roof form. The average of the combined heights of all sides of the building shall not
exceed the maximum specified height. Setbacks shall be measured to the face of building, excluding roof overhangs
that do not exceed twenty-four(24)inches deep.
9. Parking: Each developed homesite must include a minimum of two(2) enclosed garage parking spaces and
an additional minimum of two(2)uncovered spaces(which may be located in front or alongside of the garage, and
within a front/rear yard setback).
Dimensional Limitations Variation Requests
Standard ECLUR's Requirement for the Resource Request for the Anglers PUD Staff Response
Zone District
Minimum Lot Area Per One(1)dwelling unit per 35 acres Approximately one(1)dwelling unit per 2.22 Staff supports
Use acres variation
Maximum Floor Area Unlimited 4,250 square feet No variation
Ratio required
Minimum Front Yard 25 feet 15 feet Staff supports
Setback variation
Minimum Rear Yard 12.5 feet or half the height of the tallest 7.5 feet,with the exception of the lots along Staff supports
Setback building on the lot the Eagle River variation
Minimum Side Yard 12.5 feet or half the height of the tallest 7.5 feet,except for Lots 7 and 8 which shall Staff supports
Setback building on the lot be 10 feet variation
Minimum Stream 75 feet Between 70 feet and 62.5 feet Staff supports
Setback variation
Maximum Building 35 feet 35 feet No variation
Height required
Applicant's response for granting of variations:
Obtain Desired Design Qualities
The compact development of the proposed Anglers PUD is intended to blend harmoniously with the surrounding
land uses. The proposed single-family land use of the Anglers PUD resembles the single-family and duplex land
uses of the surrounding Miller's Creek PUD,Riverstone(Logan Park)PUD and Arrowhead River Ranch PUD, and
minimizes the impact of development on the nearby school and open space land uses. A density of 2.22 units/acre
(9 units/4.05 acres) for the proposed Anglers PUD is less than the average density of 2.88 units/acre for the
surrounding three communities of Miller's Creek PUD, Riverstone (Logan Park) PUD, and Arrowhead River
Ranch PUD.7
22
08/25/2015
The compact development of the proposed Anglers PUD satisfies the density policies of the Edwards Area
Community Plan. Specifically: On a gross basis,the nine(9) single-family residential units of the proposed Anglers
PUD are sufficiently below the total of sixteen (16) units for the property based on the Edwards Area Community
Plan's policy of gross density of four (4) or less units per acre (4.05 gross acres x 4 units/acre= 16.20 total units).
On a net basis, the nine (9) single-family residential units are still sufficiently below the total of seventeen (17)
units for the property based on the Edwards Area Community Plan's policy of net density of six(6)or less units per
acre(2.94 acres developable land x 6 units/acre= 17.64 total units).
Without the approval of the aforementioned requested variations, the feasibility of the currently proposed Anglers
PUD fails. The design qualities of any substitute proposal (e.g., townhomes, medium or high density multifamily,
estate-style single family, or continuation of existing commercial uses) would not blend as harmoniously with the
surrounding land uses.
Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards
The property includes frontage along the Eagle River and the existing commercial uses and site development
standards of the property are outdated with nearly nonexistent environmental protections for this sensitive area. The
absence of any existing environmental protections is compounded by an un-vegetated gravel terrace that is prone to
dust and/or sediment runoff. In contrast, the proposed Anglers PUD includes a comprehensive grading/drainage
plan and landscaping plan that are designed to mitigate the environmental impact of runoff and limit erosion.
Moreover, the proposed Anglers PUD would be served by district water and sewer and the existing septic tanks
and leach fields would be eliminated. Also, the existing commercial uses of the property would be replaced with
less intensive single-family residential uses. Lastly, the proposed Anglers PUD maintains a stream setback and the
PUD Guide seeks to rejuvenate and perpetually protect the sensitive area adjacent to the Eagle River.
Without the approval of the aforementioned requested variations, the feasibility of the currently proposed.Anglers
PUD fails. The environmental qualities of any substitute proposal (e.g., townhomes, medium or high density
multifamily, estate-style single family, or continuation of existing commercial uses) are unlikely to achieve the
same environmental protections as the proposed Anglers PUD. In particular, continuation of the existing
commercial uses would leave the property without any current environmental protections and higher density would
result in an even more intensive use of the property relative to the proposed single-family residential use.
Trails
The proposed Anglers PUD contains an open space access easement.
Affordable Housing
The compact development of the proposed Anglers PUD allows smaller and more moderately priced homes. In
particular, the two (2) non-riverfront units are expected to be uniquely affordable relative to other central Edwards
locations and are designated as Resident Occupied For Sale Housing pursuant to the Applicant's Affordable
Housing plan outlined in Exhibit O—Affordable Housing.
Without the approval of the aforementioned requested variations, the feasibility of the currently proposed Anglers
PUD fails. The affordable housing qualities of any substitute proposal (e.g., townhomes, medium or high density
multifamily, estate-style single family, or continuation of existing commercial uses) are unlikely to offer the same
intermediate affordable housing benefits as the proposed Anglers PUD. For example, the most likely substitute
proposal is an estate-style development that would eliminate the two (2) non-riverfront homesites, the effect of
which would be the loss of the two (2) most affordable homesites and an increase in price of the remaining seven
(7)riverfront homesites.
Public Facilities
The proposed Anglers PUD attempts to contribute to Eagle County's open space objectives through the grant of an
open space access easement; however adequacy of that access easement has not been demonstrated. Thus, the the
proposed easement may not be of any use for access.
23
08/25/2015
STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(9)] — The development proposed
for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
Staff Response: Full Conformance
The compact development of the proposed Anglers PUD would blend with the surrounding land uses. The proposed
single-family land use of the Anglers PUD resembles the single-family and duplex land uses of the surrounding
Miller's Creek PUD, Riverstone (Logan Park) PUD and Arrowhead River Ranch PUD, and minimizes the impact
of development on the nearby school and open space land uses. A density of 2.22 units/acre (9 units/4.05 acres) for
the proposed Anglers PUD is less than the average density of 2.88 units/acre for the surrounding three communities
of Miller's Creek PUD,Riverstone(Logan Park)PUD, and Arrowhead River Ranch PUD.
The compact development of the proposed Anglers PUD satisfies the density policies of the Edwards Area
Community Plan. Specifically: On a gross density basis, the nine(9) single-family residential units of the proposed
Anglers PUD are sufficiently below the total of sixteen (16) units for the property based on the Edwards Area
Community Plan's policy of gross density of four(4) or less units per acre (4.05 gross acres x 4 units/acre= 16.20
total units). On a net desnity basis, the nine(9) single-family residential units are still sufficiently below the total of
seventeen(17)units for the property based on the Edwards Area Community Plan's policy of net density of six (6)
or less units per acre(2.94 acres developable land x 6 units/acre= 17.64 total units).
The design qualities of any substitute proposal (e.g., townhomes, medium or high density multifamily, estate-style
single family, or continuation of existing commercial uses) would not blend as harmoniously with the surrounding
land uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] — The PUD shall be consistent
with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the
relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to
basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its
conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static.
Staff Response: Full Conformance
Please see the response under the Rezoning Section.
STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(12)]—The PUD shall comply with the
following common recreation and open space standards.
(a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to
open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi public. In addition, the PUD shall
provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one
thousand(1,000)persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of
the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths
(2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as
determined in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan.
(b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas
with slopes greater than thirty(30)percent shall not count toward usable open space.
(c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian
areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are
preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or
accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from
all occupied structures within the PUD.
24
08/25/2015
1. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the
Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development
schedule established for each development phase of the PUD.
(e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform
to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open
space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be
placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space.
(9 Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit
corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural
facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and
operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate
liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the
sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be
mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
•
Staff Response: Full Conformance
STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] — The PUD shall consider the
recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies
as specified in Article 4,Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards.
As part of the different Planning Areas within the PUD, the Applicant has proposed greater resource protection the
closer the development gets to the Eagle River.
OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARD(S)FOR PUD SKETCH/PRELIMINARY PLAN:
Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15):
15. (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so
zoned(e.g.market study). This is not applicable to this project.No commercial or industrial elements
are being proposed in the PUD Guide.
b) Proposed schedule of development phasing. This is not applicable to this project. No phasing is
being proposed in the PUD Guide.
(c) Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system.According to the
referral letter from the Eagle County School District,
"The District concurs with the applicant's proposal to provide cash-in-lieu of land school dedication.
The District also agrees the nine proposed homes equate to a land dedication of.1359 acres (as per
based Section 4-700 A. 1. of the County's Land Use Regulations).
The applicant has proposed a cash-in-lieu dedication of $25,855.23. This figure is based on a
proposed land valuation of$190,251.85/acre that was derived from the property's assessed valuation
of$770,520 (from Eagle County Assessor's Office). According to the County's Land Use Regulations,
land valuation is to be determined based on an appraisal of the land to be platted. The appraisal is to
be of the "current full market value of the land area to be platted"and that the `full market value shall
be based on anticipated market value after completion of platting". The appraisal is to be completed
no more than six months prior to the date of application for the final plat.
The District would ask that if this Sketch/Preliminary Plan application is approved, that a condition of
approval be that the determination of land value is to be done in accordance with the provisions of the
County's Land Use Regulations and that the land valuation and amount of the school land dedication
be determined prior to or as a part of the final plat process."
(d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; This is not applicable to the project.
25
08/25/2015
(e) Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a
schedule of projected receipts of that revenue; This is not applicable to the project.
(f) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans. A detailed site plan, landscape plans, and
circulation plans have been provided.The Applicant has stated that the vertical developer is responsible
for the architectural plans.
(g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water
supply for firefighting purposes. See previous comments regarding Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District"Commitment to Serve"the project, as well as comments from the Eagle River Fire Protection
District.
(h) Employee housing plan. The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied and the Housing
Plan meets the Guidelines.
•
Recommendation: Approval,with Conditions
Based upon a thorough analysis of the Rezoning, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan by County staff and key
external agencies, and taking into consideration the project's overall conformance with applicable standards, staff is
recommending approval of the request,with conditions.
Specifically, staff believes that the proposal addresses a preponderance of applicable master plan goals,policies and
strategies. Additionally, staff believes the proposal meets, or can meet (if properly conditioned) all required
standards and findings necessary for the approval of the Rezoning, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan as well as
associated variation requests.
As such, staff recommends the following conditions crafted specifically to address outstanding issues, variations to
improvement standards, and suggested modifications to the plans in order to achieve a higher level of conformance
with regard to certain standards.
IV. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
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. For purposes of calculation of the fee-in-lieu of school land dedication, the determination of land
value is to be done in accordance with the provisions of the County's Land Use Regulations and
that the land valuation and amount of the school land dedication be determined prior to or as a part
of the final plat process.
3. The developer is responsible for construction and maintenance of all improvements for the
Angler's PUD including, but not limited to, roadway improvements, sidewalks, and traffic control
devices.
4. The Eagle County Engineer will determine if the sidewalk easements are adequate when complete
designs for the roadway and sidewalks are submitted.
5. Sidewalks for the Angler's PUD are to be constructed along with the roadway construction.
V. SITE DATA:
26
08/25/2015
Future Land Use Map Designation
The property is not located within any of the 13 specifically identified sites with high probability for development
pressure over time. However, the property is identified on the Future Land Use Map as "Residential Medium
Density,"with net density per acre of 6 units or less and gross density per acre of 4 units or less.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
,w;:�*° .?o- F%� + d�"!�a °� i�(`Y r"` c\ Gb++¢ r. St "7a E -+C w *5a!7
! '°Fl� h , + � `' ,ru #r �'�' `' � ,..hix#5'�''{ C i° ;+u� ey i $H+ a ti. .�st : a o-; a" ,,
�
North: Roadroad Resource
South: Residential PUD Residential RSL
f East:' Open Space PUD
West: Residential PUD Residential Resource
�r?m4Qa
Resource
Planned Unit Development(PUD)
:40"0,44:4'4,'.
n 4 The existing improvements of the property consist of a single-family residence(1,024 sqft),garage(1,848 sqft)and other
=at , 3,41 miscellaneous improvements(e.g.,shed,fence,etc.).There is a well and septic system.
The proposed developable portion of the property consists primarily of a flat terrace located approximately 20 feet above
� 1 ea e " the Ea le River. The proposed developable portion of the property consists of existing im rovements located primarily
P P P p p Prh' g P P Y
�'` on a gravel terrace with minimal vegetation. The transitional hillside between the terrace above and the Eagle River
r st!s 'P
below has been mostly cleared,with the exception of the mature trees and narrow riparian area immediately abutting the
Eagle River.
4.05 sore 176,418
2.08
1.11 iN 27%
e � Y
Eagle River Water and Sanitation N/A�y # "' + ` +"
: 11 Eagle River Water and Sanitation 4‘ N/A
.; Miller Ranch Road
VI. REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Eagle County Engineering Department:
From the referral memo dated July 13,2015:
1. As previously stated, the road is designated as an Urban Residential Road, and two (2) variations are
requested. Stemming from discussions following the first round of comments, we have agreed to the
requested ROW variance with the addition of a sidewalk easement. This change is identified in the
attached Variance Table.
2. The applicant's response to item 17 from our referral letter states that the sidewalks will be in an easement
"so that at the discretion of a future vertical developer, they can be installed". The sidewalks are required
for this category of road and are to be constructed along with the road, not at a later time. The sidewalks
should be included on the design plans at this time. Without showing the sidewalks, we cannot verify that
the proposed sidewalk easements are adequate.
27
08/25/2015
3. The applicant has requested that the road for this development be reserved as a gated, private road. For
emergency access, an easement encompassing the entire ROW is proposed for use by emergency
responders.
4. The developer is responsible for all construction and maintenance of the improvements for this
development including but not limited to roadway improvements, sidewalks, and traffic control devices.
5. In accordance with County policy, complete driveway designs for each lot will be required with the
application for Final Plat.
6. The application includes a 75-foot long access easement for the open space parcel planned for parking to
access the Miller Ranch Open Space. However, no design has been provided to demonstrate this easement
is adequate to offer access to the open space parcel. Due to the topography and access geometry, we are
not able to determine if the proposed access easement will suffice, and the proposed easement may be of no
public value.
Eagle County Environmental Health Department: Correspondence between Adam Palmer in Environmental
Health and the applicant are attached: While Environmental Health is comfortable with additional evidence
supporting the FONSI criteria for the reduced stream setback, and much of this area has already been impacted, the
need for the setback reduction has not yet been demonstrated. Also per the attached memo outlining Sustainable
Community Index compliance, recommended improvements to the project include inclusion of solar orientation of
building envelopes, solar photovoltaic systems or rough-in as conditions of approval, as well as consideration of a
variety of housing types.
Please see additional referral comments and the Applicant's Response in the Attachments. Referral comments were
provided by the following agencies:
1. Colorado Parks and Wildlife
2. Colorado Geological Survey
3. Colorado Division of Water Resources
4. Eagle County School District
5. Eagle River Watershed Council
6. Edwards Community Authority
7. Edwards Metro Board
8. Miller's Creek Homeowners Association
9. Riverstone Homeowners Association
10. Eagle County Housing Department
11. Eagle River Fire Protection District
VII. EAGLE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS:
1. Approve [File No. ZC-5322 and PDSP-5321] 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),
2. Deny [File No. ZC-5322 and PDSP-5321] 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-5322 and PDSP-5321] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the
petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff.
28
08/25/2015
Suggestion Motions:
PROPOSED MOTION: TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE:
I hereby move to approve File No. ZC-5322, incorporating staffs findings and staffs conditions, because the
application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of a zone district amendment. The proposed
zone change will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; the proposed zone change is attuned
with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; the proposed zone change addresses or
responds to a beneficial material change that has occurred in the immediate neighborhood or to the greater
Eagle County community, and the proposed zone change is in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSED MOTION: TO DENY ZONE CHANGE:
I hereby move to deny File No. ZC-5322, because the application does not meet the standards for approval of a
zone district amendment. The proposed zone change will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare;
the proposed zone change is not attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; the
proposed zone change does not address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred in the
immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community, and the proposed zone change is not in
compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSED MOTION: TO APPROVE PUD:
I hereby move to approve File No. PDSP-5321, incorporating staffs findings and staffs conditions, because
the application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of a planned unit development. The
approval of the PUD will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; the proposed PUD is
attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed PUD is in
compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSED MOTION: TO DENY REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL:
I hereby move to deny File No. PDS-5321, because the proposal does not meet the standards for approval of a
planned unit development. [During deliberations, you will have already discussed which standards have not
been met]. The proposed PUD will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the proposed PUD is
not attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed PUD is not in
compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and/or the Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Ms.Valdez stated that the applicant was requesting a rezoning from Resource to Planned Unit
Development and to create a PUD guild for the property. The property was currently leased to a landscaping
company and auto mechanic. The site was serviced by well and septic and accessed by Miller Ranch Road. The
proposal consisted of nine homes with seven being located near the Eagle River. The applicant had two options in
which to satisfy the housing guidelines; one,to have all lots subject to the residence occupied deed restrictions or
two,that the applicant would provide enough affordable housing credits to satisfy the affordable housing
requirements. This was the first step of a two-step process. The final step, should this application be approved,was
the final plat.During the preliminary plan stage the applicant would provide detailed information and mitigation
proposals to be evaluated by staff and shall include a guide to the development of the PUD. She indicated that
overall,the zone changed, sketch and preliminary plan met the purpose and intent of the zone change process. The
proposal was compatible with the surrounding developments. The phasing standard was not relevant as there
would be no phasing.
Commissioner Ryan disclosed that engineer on the project was her husband,Ty Ryan. She felt that she
could be impartial in making a judgement on the file.
Ty Ryan discussed the variation request to improvement standards. He provided a history of the
neighboring Miller Creek subdivision which was approved in 1998.The approval required an emergency access
easement that would be connected through if development occurred to the east,which was now the case now with
the Albert parcel. Miller's Creek was opposed to any vehicular access. Dual access was a requirement for the
Angler's development because there were nine units proposed. The development would be a gated road and have a
knox-box for emergency services to access the neighborhood. The variation requests included a reduction in the
29
08/25/2015
right-of-way and a waiver of the sidewalk requirement. Staff supported the right-of-way variance but not the
sidewalk variance, as the sidewalks provided a connection to the trail network and schools. He spoke about the
open space access easement and believed it may be expensive for the county to construct a parking area because of
the steep slopes. It had not been determined that the 75 ft. easement proposed by the applicant was adequate.
Ms.Valdez stated that based on an analysis of the rezoning sketch plan and preliminary plan by staff and
key external agencies, staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. The conditions would be crafted
to address outstanding issues, variations to improvement standards, and suggested modifications to the plan. Staff
did have a concern with the non-conforming and/or grandfathered residential and commercial uses of the property.
The applicant had committed to removing the existing uses within six months if the PUD were to be approved. She
reviewed the proposed conditions.
Matt Larson stated that he had a horizontal development agreement with the estate. The agreement gave
the estate a lot of flexibility and had elected to have him only do the entitlements. The development opportunity
would be sold. He presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing the property and proposal. The property would
continue to be accessed by Miller Ranch Road. The development would consist of nine single homes, seven
riverfront lots and two interior lots. The ownership structure of the property was colorful. The owner of the
property owned the property since 1970 and died in 2010. The property went to the estate and he'd been working
with the many beneficiaries on what he believed to be a reasonable proposal. The applicant was requesting a
reduction in the stream setback,a five(5)ft. reduction on the west side and 12.5 ft. reductions on the east side. The
setback reduction would not degrade water quality of the stream or ground water. The drainage plan consisted of
eight low velocity vegetated drainage swales. The water quality, shoreline, fish,wildlife habitat, scenic and
recreational values would not be negatively impacted by the reduced stream setback. Of all the feasible
alternatives,the currently proposed alternative was the best. The current design could not adhere to the 75 ft.
setback without the loss of the two interior lots. The sidewalks were not a deal breaker, if required there was an
easement that would allow for them. They proposed giving the county a 75 ft. access easement to the open space
but were requesting a landscaped buffer easement of 20 ft. be granted to the development. The applicant was
flexible if the 75 ft. access was not sufficient.
Ms.Valdez stated that the 20 ft.buffer on the county open space parcel was not permitted. The property
could not be subjected to easements without a vote.
Mr. Larson stated they would not be asking for the landscaping buffer if that was the case. The applicant
selected the option of affordable housing credits to satisfy the affordable housing guidelines. He hoped that the
board would agree that the proposed Angler's PUD was a reasonable plan and concluded that it deserved the
board's support.
Commissioner McQueeney asked about the open space area.
Ms.Valdez stated that the Miller Ranch open space went under Miller Ranch Road and followed the river.
It extended between the river and the railroad.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the proposed landscaping.
Ms.Valdez stated that it was important to Perry Will,Area Wildlife Manager that the native landscaping
vegetation be maintained in the primary set back area.
Commissioner Ryan understood that the applicant was not asking for a variance.
Mr. Larson stated that he wanted to be a good neighbor and was sympathetic to Miller's Creek concerns.
They put in a 30 ft. emergency access easement that was contiguous in their plan. It was really between the county
and Miller's Creek as to whether they required the berm to be removed.
Commissioner Ryan wondered if the condition allowing six months to clear the existing uses was enough
time.
Mr. Larson stated that more time would be helpful. He requested nine months.
Commissioner Ryan stated that she would like to see the roads remain public.
Mr. Larson stated that they did grant an emergency access easement for the length of the road. The
developers they'd spoken to prefer a gated community. If the open space parking area were to be limited to three
spots,the developer would pay for that as well.
Chairman Chandler-Henry wondered if the Open Space Advisory Committee had weighed in on this
subject.
Mr. Larson stated that they had not.
Commissioner Ryan asked if there would be any fisherman access.
Mr. Larson stated that it was considered but was removed because the Riverstone HOA raised concerns.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked if there would be a trail to the river from the interior parcels.
30
08/25/2015
Mr.Larson suggested that that they had a private easement and interior lots would have access.
Commissioner Ryan stated that she liked the idea of sidewalks.
Mr. Larson suggested it be a condition of Final Plat.
Mr. Ryan stated that there was a condition included that the sidewalks be considered at a later time.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Larson stated that they were half the density of the current plan and suspected that there was plenty of
wiggle room.
Ms. Valdez stated that Cliff Simonton believed that this type of development would meet the new
community plan.
Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that higher density was preferable to her rather than lower density for this
type of infill development. She asked Adam Palmer to address the sustainable community index and if the
development received a low score.
Mr. Palmer indicated that the development lacked solar. Staff recommended solar paneling,higher density
on the infill lots, and an energy efficient design.
Mr. Larson indicated that the proposed development passed the sustainable community index test, but by a
low margin. The developer will have to make the final decisions as to what makes economic sense.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked Ray Merry to comment on the stream set back and if the arguments were
reasonable to vary the standards.
Mr.Merry believed the applicant did a good job of mitigation.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked if he had concerns with the property cleanup.
Mr. Merry stated that any issues could be addressed during cleanup but he wasn't concerned that there was
anything toxic on the property.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked Jill Klosterman about the housing options.
Ms.Klosterman stated that the first option would require all the homes to have a resident occupied deed
restriction. The other would require a transfer fee at closing anytime the home was sold that would go to the
Housing Authority to be spent to subsidize housing elsewhere. The developer could also have the option of buying
housing credits to satisfy the mitigation requirements.
Gail McFarland with the Fire Department commented on the dual access. She believed that emergency
access was necessary to connect the two developments.
Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that the board was considering the approval of the Anglers PUD. There was not
variance request currently by the applicant. The emergency access for Miller's Creek was already approved during
that process. She stated that the access would not be used as a public thoroughfare.
Mr. Ryan stated that the gate would not need to be a large,just something that could be moved to allow
emerging vehicles through.
Chairman Chandler-Henry opened public comment.
Peter Kusha,Vice President of the Miller's Creek HOA spoke. He believed they were a private community
and was opposed to any public access. The access was platted prior to Miller Ranch Road being constructed. If the
access were to be necessary they would like to keep the two developments separate and keep the access the most
minimal width as possible. The 30 ft. easement was only 11 ft. from the house on the north and on the south; it was
adjacent to the current driveway.
Greg Perkins,Attorney representing the Miller's Creek HOA spoke. The Miller's Creek community
supported the project overall. He appreciated Mr. Larson's community involvement. He made a formal request for
a variance on behalf of the Miller's Creek.
Ms. Ayres -Oliver stated that this was not something the board typically saw but based on the how the
Land Use Regulations were worded, could make the request but they would have to make the argument that it
would fit within the standards for Angler's PUD. As part of the PUD approval the board could grant variances.
Mr. Perkins asked the board to consider the request. He believed the proposed cul-de-sac in the Angler's
development would accommodate any emergency vehicles except a ladder truck. He believed it was asking a lot
from the Miller Creek homeowners to remove landscaping and create a big open area between two homes for what
he considered a limited benefit.
Chairman Chandler-Henry closed public comment.
31
08/25/2015
Commissioner McQueeney asked about the variance standards and how they related to Miller's Creek
request.
Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that the Land Use Regulations contained a section within the PUD standards
section where variance standards would apply. The standards considered were on page 18 of the staff report. The
variance relating to hardship would not apply. There was some flexibility in the approval process.
Mr. Perkins stated that the dual access provision of the code provides for the ability to grant a variance.
This was different that the PUD provisions.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked that everyone focus on the applicant's proposal.
Break
Commissioner Ryan asked if there would be pedestrian access for children within the development.
Mr. Larson stated that children would walk out the gate and along Miller Ranch Road to get to the schools.
Commissioner Ryan wondered if it would be possible for children to walk through Miller's Creek to get to
school. •
•
Mr. Larson stated that there was a desire to keep the two developments separate.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked Mr. Larson's view on sidewalks.
Mr. Larson pictured sidewalks in urban areas. Sidewalks created problems from developers prospective.
Ms. Ayres -Oliver made a couple of summary comments. The board needed to consider the variances,the
right of way variance, the sidewalk variance,and the request from Miller's Creek for a variance to the dual access
requirement. There was also a question as to whether the road should be public or private. The standards for the
approval of the zone change and PUD were set out in the staff report. She asked that the board to focus on those
standards. In terms of variation standards,the board could consider the dual access standards.
Commissioner Ryan believed the request as conditioned met the zone change standards. She preferred
more density but understood the balancing of the stream setbacks. It was compatible with the surrounding uses.
She appreciated the applicant granting a sportsman easement. The development was an improvement on the land
use. She could go either way on the sidewalks.
Commissioner McQueeney agreed. It was a well presented proposal. It was in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Cleaning up the area and making it beautiful with nine homes was a public benefit.
Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that she was in favor of the zone change. She thanked the applicant for
their willingness to work with the county. The PUD approach was a much higher benefit to the county. The 75 ft.
set back hurt but she believed the applicant had done a good job of respecting the river. She asked about the
conditions of the zone change.
Ms. Valdez stated that the conditions tied to public benefit.
Chairman Chandler-Henry noted that the request was a combined sketch plan and preliminary plan. The
next step would be the final plat process.
Commissioner Ryan believed the sketch plan and preliminary plan as conditioned met the standards and
was willing to approve both.
Commissioner McQueeney spoke about the condition around the sidewalks. She was comfortable with
leaving it up to the developer. She was disinclined to approve a variance by Miller's Creek because of the
testimony by the Fire Marshall.
Chairman Chandler-Henry agreed with the comments made by her fellow commissioners. She believed the
right of way met the standards. She was okay with no sidewalks but encouraged the developer to create a walkable
community. She was opposed to granting a variance for emergency access.
Commissioner Ryan believed an emergency access would benefit both communities and would deny the
variance.
Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that the one remaining issue was whether the roads should be public or private.
A public road would not be gated.
Chairman Chandler-Henry was comfortable with the road being private.
Mr. Larson stated that the developer would pay to have the open space parking area developed but would
like the gate to make sure there is no confusion as to where the public benefit ends.
Commissioner McQueeney stated that she was comfortable with the road being private.
Commissioner Ryan preferred a public road but could live with private.
32
08/25/2015
Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve File No. ZC-5322, incorporating staffs findings and staff's
conditions,because the application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of a zone district
amendment. The proposed zone change will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; the proposed
zone change is attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties;the proposed zone change
addresses or responds to a beneficial material change that has occurred in the immediate neighborhood or to the
greater Eagle County community, and the proposed zone change is in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and the resolution.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the variance in sidewalk construction to include just
providing sidewalk easement.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the right of way variance, from 50 ft.to 30 ft.
• Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion.. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to deny the variance the to dual access standards with the emergency
access based on the request of the Miller's Creek HOA.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the variance for dimensional limitations.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve File No. PDSP-5321,incorporating staffs findings and staffs
conditions,because the application, as conditioned,meets all of the standards for approval of a planned unit
development. The approval of the PUD will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; the
proposed PUD is attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed PUD
is in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and sign the
resolution.
Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
staLe
There being no further business bef. :. e e meeting .s adjourned until September , 2015.
41 !4;
Attest: 0 1/��,_.////J.. II/ I'
Clerk to the oard oo�aaPo Chairma• o0
33
08/25/2015