No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/13/16 PUBLIC HEARING December 13, 2016 Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman Jillian Ryan Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Brent McFall County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Ayres-Oliver Deputy 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 There was none. Consent Agenda 1. Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for Immunization Services Rebecca Larson,Public Health&Environment 2. Final Settlement of Contract between Eagle County and Oldcastle SW Group,Inc. for the 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project John Harris and Nicole Trujillo,Road&Bridge 3. First Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and ISC, Inc. d/b/a Venture Technologies, for Scheduled On-Site and Emergency Outsourced Technical Support for Network and VOIP Configuration and Troubleshooting Jake Klearman, Innovation and Technology 4. Agreement between Eagle County and Johnson Excavation and Telecommunications, Inc. for On-Call Excavation Services Ron Siebert, Facilities Management 5. Approval of the Minutes of the Board of County Commissioner Meeting for September 27, October 4, October 11,and October 18 Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for December 13,2016, as presented. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Jeanne McQueeney opened and closed citizen input, as there was none. 1 12/13/2016 Business Items 6. Agreement between Eagle County and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.to Perform a Comprehensive Multi-Year Transit Development Plan Chris Lubbers, ECO Transit and Trails Mr. Lubbers stated that these types of plans are common among transit agencies. This was a first for Eagle County. Nelson/Nygaard was selected from five other firms to provide a compressive look at the transit system. The development plan would include community collaboration and public involvement. Overall it would provide a road map for the next 5 to 10 years. It would take about 12 months and would begin in January of 2017.The scope of the study would not include RAFTA operations. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the agreement between Eagle County and Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.to perform a comprehensive multi-year transit development plan. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 7. Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Land Trust Related to the Walking Mountains Science Center Conservation Project Toby Sprunk,Open Space Mr. Sprunk introduced Jim Daus, Executive Director with the Eagle Valley Land Trust,Markian Feduschak,President of Walking Mountain Science Center and Kim Langmaid Ph.D.,Vice President,Walking Mountain Science Center(WMSC). The request was for$1 million dollars,plus up to $100,000 dollars,for the acquisition and protection of 5.8 acres proximate to the WMSC campus in Avon. The donation of a conservation easement on the adjacent Town of Avon properties would bring the total acreage to 100.The land was under contract to WMSC for$3.8 million with anticipated closing in late December 2016. He presented pictures of the property. The landowner contribution was $1 million towards the purchase. The WSMC would broker their tax credits and complete additional fundraising to cover its loan. He reviewed the criteria and indicated that the Open Space Advisory Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the proposal. Mr. Feduschak stated that they appreciated the County's support and hoped to close on the property in 2016 to be eligible for tax credits. Opening the space and having the ability to build housing was important in terms of expanding WMSC's staff and programs. Mr. Spunk clarified that Open Space dollars would not go towards the housing portion of the transaction. Ms. Langmaid stated that the contribution was important to WSMC's future impact in the community. She was grateful for the hard work and time by the Open Space Committee and Mr. Strunk. Mr. Daus thanked everyone at the table who contributed to the project. The unique thing happing in this case was that non-profits were eligible for the state tax credits when donating conservation easements. Commissioner Ryan believed that WSMC was a community amenity and the county was lucky to have the organization. She believed this was the best use of the land. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the riparian area that was not included in the conservation easement. Mr. Daus stated that it was the policy of the land trust to evaluate every property. Their policy did not include areas such as these that were less likely to be developed. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the possibility of displaying an educational board that explained the workings of the Eagle County's Open Space program. Mr.Feduschak spoke about the site development plan and had confidence in the riparian corridor would be protected given their mission. He had full confidence in their future educators and naturalist and the long term stewardship. They would abide by all the codes and would not be asking for variances. Ms. Langmaid stated that they would be developing an Environmental Stewardship plan for the entire site. Increasing resiliency would be a part of the plan. Mr. Feduschak stated that they proposed educational displays would address the value of open space. Chairman McQueeney highlighted the good work done by the Open Space Committee and their creativity. 2 12/13/2016 Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Land Trust related to the Walking Mountains Science Center Conservation Project. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 8. Resolution 2016-100 Approving the Use of Open Space Funds toward Eagle Valley Land Trust's Walking Mountains Science Center Land Acquisition and Preservation Project Toby Sprunk, Open Space Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution approving the use of Open Space Funds towards Eagle Valley Land Trust's Walking Mountains Science Center land acquisition and preservation project. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 9. Resolution 2016-101 Adopting the Climate Action Plan for the Eagle County Community John Gitchell, Environmental Health Mr. Gitchell stated that Eagle County adopted an environmental policy in 2013 that prioritized preservation and enhancement of the natural environment as top priority to ensure the health, safety,welfare,and economic well-being of its citizens. There was a clear scientific consensus that indicated that manmade greenhouse gas emissions have caused the planet to warm in recent decades. Eagle County's tourism, economy and Colorado's industry was depended on consistent winter snowfall and spring run-off which are threatened by a changing climate. Eagle County contracted with"CLEER"in Garfield County to conduct an energy inventory in 2015. The results indicated that the county generated 1.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 60%of those emissions came from commercial and residential buildings,27%from vehicles, 10%from land fill emissions,and 3%from the airport.The results of Climate Action Plans had a big potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and improve the health and quality of lives. Mr. Palmer stated that saving 20%of the energy per year results in about a$50 million energy savings to the community on an annual basis. Kim Langmaid stated that this was a yearlong process. There were over 30 stakeholders and three community open houses. By adopting this high level plan and agreeing with the greenhouse gas reduction targets, any community or neighborhood could find specific actions that work well for its scenario. She spoke about the negative effects of greenhouse gases. Eighty percent by 2050 was in alignment with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended in order to keep the global heating within a two degree threshold. Walking Mountain Science Center had a working relationship with the waste and landfill sector and would continue to work on goals and strategies. The key recommendations for community leaders and decision-makers were to adopt the plan,identify people to guide the implementation,allocate funds, collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries, measure and monitor,and begin to address climate change adaptation. She believed it was important to talk to others about climate action so everyone could get involved. Mr. Gitchell thanked Ms. Langmaid for her work on the plan and hoped to begin implementation. Mr.Palmer stated that being a model for other communities was challenging but exciting. He thanked all the stakeholders. Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked everyone for their work. She believed it was important to do what could be done locally. Climate change was a war on snow, and water and snow werethe county's life blood. Commissioner Ryan believed that local efforts added up and the community depended so much on snow. She wondered which other counties had plans. Mr. Gitchell stated that communities throughout the state had climate action plans. Ms. Langmaid provided information on how people could get a home energy assessment and save money on their energy bills. Commissioner Ryan stated that the county reduced its carbon footprint and saved dollars through the purchase of solar. Mr. Gitchell stated that Eagle County made an investment in 1,600 kilowatts. It was currently saving the county about$330,000 annually in electricity cost. 3 12/13/2016 Mr. Palmers stated that county had done a number of energy improvements in the buildings, so the county is not only offsetting energy cost with renewables but looking how to tighten up the buildings. With the boiler replacement,lighting replacements, and controls,there was an additional savings of$144.000. Chairman McQueeney added her thanks for the plan and leading the county in this direction. Community engagement was key. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Climate Action Plan for the Eagle County Community. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 10. Holy Cross Energy Underground Right-of-Way Easement Alex Everman,Airport Mr. Everman stated that the easement would allow Holy Cross Energy to supply power to Hanger D on the north side of the airport. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Holy Cross Energy underground right-of-way easement. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 11. Resolution 2016-102 In Re: the Matter of the Adoption of the Budget and the Making of Appropriations for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for Fiscal Year 2017 John Lewis,Finance Brent McFall stated that the budget was flat and the goal was to remain in a positive position. He presented a PowerPoint that outlined the budget realities, approach and process. Health care costs based on actual claims had risen over 50%and services to provide care continue to increase. The county's General Fund balance far exceeded the$13 million minimum target. The county was very focused on establishing a sustainable balances approach to the budget. The goal was to provide the best level of service to county residents within the budget constraints. The changes in FTE's in the General Fund had dropped 21%. The total FTE's in all funds decreased by 1.63 FTE's in 2017. The all funds fmancial summary indicated the county was on a stable path. Staff recommended approval of the proposed budget. Mr. Hyatt added his thanks to Robbie Arndt for her work on the budget. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the revenue spike in 2015. Mr. Hyatt stated that it was grant funding,most of which was for the airport. Mr.McFall stated that there were FAA grants for capital improvements projects. Chairman McQueeney opened public comment. Joanne Rock stated that she had reviewed the 2016 and 2017 budget and expressed a concern for the School District's budget and its pension liability. She wondered how the county would care for the people that ended up without benefits under PERA. Mr.McFall noted that the county was not a member of PERA and employees were covered by a defined contribution pension system. Chairman McQueeney wondered if there had been any comments made over the proposed budget since the last public hearing. Mr. McFall stated that there had been no comments received. Chairman McQueeney closed public comment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution adopting the budget and the making of appropriations for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for fiscal year 2017. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4 12/13/2016 12. Resolution 2016-103 Concerning Adoption of the 2017 Budget Mill Levy John Lewis,Finance Tom Hyatt stated that the mill levy had not changed in 10 or 15 years. He explained the breakdown of property tax revenue.The proposed mill levy was 8.499. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the resolutions concerning the adoption of the 2017 Budget Mill Levy. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 13. Resolution 2016-104 Appointing Regina O'Brien to Fill the Vacancy in the Office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder Christina Hooper,Attorney Commissioner Chandler-Henry explained the selection process. Ms. O'Brien thanked the board for their support and trust. She also thanked Teak Simonton for preparing her for the role. She was honored by the support of the Clerk's office staff and happy to continue to work beside them. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolutions appointing Regina O'Brien to fill the vacancy in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. 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 Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation 14. Preconstruction and Construction Agreement between Eagle County Air Terminal(ECAT)Corporation and Hensel Phelps for Preconstruction Services to Facilitate and Assist with the Design and Final Construction Services for the Airport Terminal Project Greg Phillips and Rick Ullom,Airport Mr. Ullom stated that the agreement was for preconstruction services to bring Hansel Phelps onto the project team. The agreement was for design assistance for the first phase of the terminal project. Mr. McFall stated that the service agreement was part of the planning phase and did not commit to any construction project;this simply allowed ECAT to get a handle on what the costs would be if they were to proceed with the project. Chairman McQueeney clarified that the board was acting as the Air Terminal Corporation and the funds for the agreement were coming out of the ECAT fund not the General Fund. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Preconstruction and Construction Agreement between Eagle County Air Terminal(ECAT)Corporation and Hensel Phelps for Preconstruction Services to facilitate and Assist with the Design and Final Construction Services for the Airport Terminal Project. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re- convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. 5 12/13/2016 Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Work Session 15. Board of Health Jennifer Ludwig, Public Health&Environment Planning Files 16. 1041-5943 Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development 1041 Permit Bob Narracci, Planning BCP-ARR, LLC,Applicant Dominic Mauriello,Representative Note: Tabled from July 26,August 2,August 23 and October 16,2016 Action: This 1041 Permit, in support of the companion PUD Amendment application, proposes to amend the water service agreements with the town to shift more water taps from the Upper and Lower Ranch properties to the Frost Creek property. If the town approves this shift of water taps,then the total EQR remaining on the Upper and Lower Ranch property will be 64 EQR. Location: Brush Creek Road, Eagle area FILE NO.: 1041-5943 TITLE: Frost Creek Planned Unit Development 1041 Permit LOCATION: Seven(7)miles southeast of the Town of Eagle on Brush Creek Road APPLICANT: BCP-ARR,LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group STAFF CONTACT: Bob Narracci,Community Development Director Ray Merry,Director of Environmental Health REQUEST: 1041 Permit to allow RECOMMENDATION: Denial 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing Adam's Rib Frost Creek& Salt Creek Planned Unit Development and 1041 approvals allow 98 single- family residences, 26 accessory dwelling units, 5 guest cabins including a golf course,clubhouse and ancillary support facilities. On the Salt Creek portion of the property, equestrian facilities and one single family residence are presently approved. Through the companion Planned Unit Development Amendment application(PDA-5941)the applicant is seeking approval to add 45 additional single-family residential lots to the 98 already allowed. The proposal also includes increasing the number of allowable guest cabins by 15 cabins,thereby bringing the total from five that are presently allowed and existing,to a total of 20. The applicant is proposing restrictions on maximum residence size throughout the PUD; and most restrictive on the 45 newly proposed lots. The proposed 15 new guest cabins are to be 2,500 square feet each. The existing, approved guest cabins are limited to 1,000 square feet each per the existing PUD. 6 12/13/2016 Wastewater is provided through on-site wastewater treatment systems(OWTS)designed to accomplish nitrogen removal with the responsibility of installation,monitoring repair or replacement bestowed upon the HOA,as specified in the PUD Guide for residential uses with a state-approved central wastewater treatment system serving the clubhouse and existing guest cabins. No changes are proposed to the current program involving wastewater treatment systems except for the technology being used to accomplish nitrogen removal. Water service to the Frost Creek and Salt Creek property is provided by the Town of Eagle. The Town is to also provide water service to additional property in the Brush Creek Valley owned by the applicant, and commonly known as the Adam's Rib Upper and Lower Ranch properties. There are two separate agreements with the Town, one for the Upper and Lower Ranch property and another for the Frost Creek/Salt Creek properties. In 2004, when the PUD was amended to shift residential density from Salt Creek to Frost Creek to accommodate increases to the overall allowable density on the Frost Creek property,the owner of the subject property at the time(Kummer Development)and the Town amended the current agreements. The result of the water service agreements in 2004 was that the Frost Creek property, excluding Salt Creek,was entitled to 121 EQR(Equivalent Residential Units)to be utilized on 97 single family residential lots(97 EQR), 5 guest cabins(4 EQR), and 25 accessory dwelling units(20 EQR). The Upper and Lower Ranch properties, including Salt Creek,will consist of a total of 114 EQR served by the Town. The agreement contains a provision that the Upper and Lower Ranch properties can be annexed into the Town and developed at that density. Through this proposed 1041 Permit, in support of the companion PUD Amendment application,the Applicant proposes to amend the water service agreements with the Town to shift more water taps from the Upper and Lower Ranch properties to the Frost Creek property. If the Town approves this shift of water taps,then the total EQR remaining on the Upper and Lower Ranch property will be 64 EQR. Since the water service agreement is solely between the Town and the Applicant, the agreement could be modified at any time in the future to award additional water service taps to the Upper and Lower Ranch Properties, including Salt Creek and as such, voiding an argument that no new density is being created via the companion PUD Amendment application by shifting water taps from one area in the Brush Creek Valley to another. It is important to note that when this report was originally prepared, the water service agreement between the Town and the Applicant had not been been agreed upon by either the Town or the Developer, thereby making it inappropriate and unusual to satisfy the associated 1041 Permit approval criteria. As such, this was one of the reasons Staff could not support approval of this application. A copy of the agreed upon, but not yet ratified by the Town, amended water service agreement was received by County Staff on Friday, December 2nd at approximately 12:00p.m. Receipt of this information necessitated immediate update of the staff reports, in order to achieve the deadline for the paperless, BoCC Agenda system; which was the same day. We did not have time available to re- refer the Water Service Agreement back to the State Engineer for determination of injury to property(water)rights. The Eagle County Permit Authority may use whatever evidence it has received during the public hearing process to render approval criterion satisfied or not. As stated in Chapter 6, Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest, Section 6.04.01 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, "If a project does not comply with any one or more of the approval criteria, the permit shall be denied or approved with conditions." It is inappropriate to condition an approval criterion without sufficient supporting evidence having been received by the Permit Authority to make the approval criterion positive. 2. CHRONOLOGY 2003: The original Adam's Rib Frost Creek& Salt Creek PUD was approved, allowing a gated, 18-hole, residential golf course community with 60 single family lots and up to 30 ADU's on approximately 1,106.97 acre Frost Creek property and 21 additional single family residential lots on the 520.348 acre Salt Creek property. 2005: The Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment of the PUD Guided to: 1) Transfer of 20 out of the 21 previously approved Salt Creek Single-Family Residential Lots to the Frost Creek property; 2)Added 7 12/13/2016 16 additional Single-Family Residential Lots for total of 97 Lots; 3) Encompassed an existing home and property, located at 6902 Brush Creek Road,within the PUD boundary; 4) Utilized five of the previously approved 30 Accessory Dwelling Units as 'Guest Cottages'located near the clubhouse; 5) Added one Accessory Dwelling Unit to the Single-Family Residential Lot on the Salt Creek property; 6) Allowed Equestrian Facilities, Shooting Club and Training Center on the Salt Creek property. 2008: Special Use Permit was approved,to memorialize the Salt Creek equestrian facilities and associated residences. December 2015: Application for this proposed 1041 Permit received by Eagle County. Applicant notified that absent the approved water service agreement it is unworkable to satisfy the 1041 Permit criteria. April 2016: Letter dated April 19, 2016 (attached)received from Garfield&Hecht, legal counsel for the Town of Eagle, indicating that the Water Service Agreements will not be done until the later part of May or into June,but to not hold up the land use application review and hearing process because of this. July 2016: Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the PUD Amendment application. 3. REFERRAL RESPONSES This 1041 Permit application was referred to the following departments and agencies with request for comment: • Eagle County Engineering Department • Eagle County Attorney's Office • Eagle County Planning Commission • Eagle County Sheriff's Office • Colorado State Department of Environmental Health(Air Quality and Water Quality Divisions) • Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Colorado Geological Survey • Colorado Historical Society • Colorado Division of Water Resources • Colorado River District • Colorado Water Conservation Board • United States Forest Service • Army Corps of Engineers • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Northwest Colorado Council of Governments • Roaring Fork Transportation Authority • Town of Eagle As of this writing,the following responses have been received: Engineering Department: Please reference the attached letter dated May 4, 2016,which sets forth all Engineering comments regarding the entire Project proposal; both the PUD Amendment and the 1041 Permit. The Engineering focus is primarily on the PUD Amendment; however includes comments pertaining to the 1041 Permit as well; namely potential impacts upon riparian/wetland areas due to road/drive crossings. Town of Eagle: In the attached letter dated February 19,2016,the Town set forth the following concerns: 1. The preparation of an Amended Frost Creek Water Service Contract to serve this additional density and perhaps more density in the future-the Town is currently working on drafts but has not even entered into negotiations with the Applicant at this time. Therefore,there currently is no agreement in place for potable water service for the proposed additional units; 8 12/13/2016 2. Improvements required to the Town's current water system infrastructure serving the Frost Creek PUD to serve the additional density. The Town has engaged a consultant to provide an analysis of what may be required to ensure adequate pressure and water service for this increased density but has not yet received this report and,related to item 1 above, cannot finalize an amended water service agreement without it; 3. Bike path connection to the Town of Eagle; 4. Traffic Impacts-the only access to this PUD is through the Town and on its roads. 5. The Town does not object to the commencement of public review of this application provided that no final action of approval is provided by Eagle County until the Town and the Applicant have executed a Second Amendment to the Frost Creek Water Service Agreement. Town of Eagle: In the attached letter dated April 19,2016 from Garfield&Hecht,P.C., legal counsel for the Town,prepared by Mary Elizabeth Geiger,"This office represents the Town of Eagle for water matters. As you are aware,the Town is the domestic water service provider for the Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD pursuant to various agreements with BCP-ARR's predecessors(which were then acquired by BCP-ARR). BCP-ARR approached the Town with regard to its application to the County to amend the PUD to increase density, and we have been working closely with the representatives of BCP-ARR,LLC with regard to the amendments to the Town's Water Service Agreements to provide domestic water service for the amended Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD and adjacent property. However, since the Town can only negotiate and act through the Town Board, and since we are amending and restating the existing Water Service Agreements because many provisions are no longer applicable,these negotiations will likely not be completed and new agreements signed until the later part of May or into June. Therefore,rather than hold up the land use application review process for BCP-ARR,the Town would support the County commencing its review and processing of this PUD Amendment application while these water service negotiations are ongoing, and then condition any County approval thereof upon the successful execution of an Amended and Restated Water Service Agreement to serve the amended Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD". Town of Eagle: In the attached letter dated December 1,2016 from Garfield&Hecht,P.C., legal counsel for the Town,prepared by Mary Elizabeth Geiger,"This office represents the Town of Eagle for water matters. As you are aware,the Town is the domestic water service provider for the Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD pursuant to various agreements with BCP-ARR's predecessors(which were then acquired by BCP-ARR). It is my understanding that the above applications will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners("BOCC")on December 13, 2016. BCP-ARR and the Town have been working together for nearly a year to amend the existing Water Service Agreement by which the Town provides domestic water service to the Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD in order to allow for the Town to provide service to the proposed amended PUD. The Town and BCP-ARR have reached an agreement which has been fully executed and will be ratified by the Town at its meeting on December 13,2016 (the Board of Trustees had previously authorized the Mayor to execute this agreement on behalf of the Town). A copy of this agreement is attached hereto for your review." Eagle River Watershed Council: The following comments have been provided for consideration during the review process: "Generally,the Watershed Council staff found no concerns with the application. The Applicant references the existing water quality monitoring network and sampling and analysis plan implemented annually in the PUD in coordination with Eagle County. The Watershed Council appreciates the Applicant's continued commitment to assessing the impact of development activities on local surface and groundwater quality. Nonetheless,the County should work with the Applicant to revisit specific details of the water quality monitoring program to ensure that the sampling locations,parameter lists, and sampling frequency are sufficient and likely to capture any water quality changes associated with the amended development plan. Eagle River Watershed Council is available to work with County staff and the Applicant in this regard. While limited development at this location has not previously indicated significant impact to downstream water quality,the Watershed Council suggest that ongoing development and redevelopment activities adjacent to streams and rivers throughout the County can contribute to the incremental degradation of downstream water quality. Therefore,the Watershed Council believes that the Frost/Salt Creek water quality monitoring program represents an important model for future PUD approval processes. Such monitoring programs can greatly assist the County in 9 12/13/2016 • understanding how certain patterns of development may assist or obstruct meeting environmental stewardship goals. As water conservation is a growing concern,Eagle River Watershed Council also sees an opportunity for the County to work with the Applicant to incorporate conservation measures into the plan. This would support Eagle County's objective to `protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity'. Eagle River Watershed Council appreciates the opportunity to provide Eagle County with comments on this proposal and hopes to remain involved in the process to ensure that proposed activities do not negatively impact the character,condition, or function of local waterways." Colorado Division of Water Resources: In the attached letter dated February 19,2016,the State Engineer indicated that, "Water use estimates were not provided. A water service agreement was made between the developer(Kummer Development), and the Town in 2002 for the Brush Creek properties also referred to as Salt Creek,Upper Ranch and Lower Ranch and Ridgeway properties. A second water service agreement was made in 2004 for the Frost Creek property and the agreements were amended in 2004 to transfer 21 EQR's from the Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek. The 2004 agreements currently allow for 121 EQR's in the Frost Creek development which translates to 97 single family dwellings, 5 guest cabins and 25 ADU's,based on 1 EQR per single family dwelling an 0.8 EQR per both a guest cabin and an ADU. The applicant indicated that they are pursuing an amendment to the agreements with the Town to reduce the number of EQR's for the Brush Creek properties from 114 to 55 and transfer the 59 EQR's to Frost Creek to allow for the increase in single family dwellings and guest cabins. As of the date of this referral, it does not appear that the amended agreements have been signed. Furthermore,pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included. See the Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports(online at http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/memo subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary information. In addition, since this proposal also depends on the transfer of EQR's from Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek,the report should also include the number of lots(if any)that are currently being served in the Brush Creek properties as well as any future commitments for platted lots within these properties. Since insufficient information was provided,we cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II). If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for assistance". Colorado Parks and Wildlife: In the attached letter dated February 16, 2016, offered the following comments: "The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife(CPW)appreciate the opportunity to review and provide recommendations and comments on this proposal. The proposal requests an increase in density of homes from 98 to 142,a 44%increase and guest cabins from 5 to 20, a 300%increase. This increase in numbers of units will have a direct,on ground impact with increased disturbance to wildlife habitat. More impactful disturbances to wildlife will occur with the associated increase in human habitation and activity on the PUD and adjacent federal lands with the increase in homes and cabins being proposed,the indirect impacts. The application offers few management or mitigation strategies to offset or minimize disturbance to wildlife or wildlife habitat from either the direct or indirect influences. This proposal is designated to occur partially within and adjacent to deer and elk winter range. The area also encompasses wetlands and riparian area habitat types. This habitat type supports a greater diversity and number of wildlife species than any other habitat type found in Colorado. Both deer and elk use the native hillsides adjacent to the area designated for increased density. Hillsides and low bench areas adjacent to the proposal are recommended to be left in a native vegetative state. The deer and elk use 10 12/13/2016 the hillside for feeding, resting and thermal cover. These hillsides also are areas that produce large mast crops, berries and acorns that black bears will use and seek out. The protection and enhancement of the existing riparian/wetland areas will provide for a diversity of wildlife species including birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The existing fishery would also benefit from this type of management. The creation of more designated open space in and around this habitat type may or may not be beneficial to wildlife. This will depend on how the open space is managed and what uses are or are not allowed. Open space that receives high human use has a relatively low value to wildlife. Current PUD guidelines, setbacks from riparian and wetland areas,and designations by other regulatory agencies already protect this habitat, so the mitigation of more open space in and along riparian and wetlands areas that is being offered already probably exists. The Project does not appear to completely meet the intent of Eagle County's Comprehensive Plan: 3.73.Development Impacts Policies: a. Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that impacts to wildlife from development and human activity cannot always be fully mitigated. Existing critical wildlife habitats in Eagle County should be identified and preserved, and residential,commercial and recreational development that removes critical habitat,or diminished the use by wildlife of these habitats, should not be allowed. While the direct impacts from this proposed density increase are fairly limited the indirect impacts are substantially increased. The proposal fails to offer mitigation strategies to address these impacts. Strategies that would help offset the increase in human activity and loss of habitat in the area include: Seasonal use restriction in and around sensitive habitats need to be implemented. The use of important seasonal habitats by humans can create a negative impact to wildlife. Areas that require seasonal closures to human activity include wither range,migration corridors,production areas,nesting areas or other critical habitats. Regulating or restricting access to the adjacent federal lands becomes paramount during critical time periods,winter. Active signage and enforcement of these closures is critical and must be assumed by the HOA. • Winter range closures should be closed to human activity from December 1 until April 30th. • Riparian and wetland areas should be closed to human activity from March 1 to July 1 for the breeding, nesting, and rearing of the wildlife species associated with this habitat. In addition,new management of the PUD has an opportunity to implement a mitigation strategy that will provide for enhancement projects in perpetuity. A Wildlife Mitigation Fund could be established and managed on a cooperative basis by the developers,the HOA, interested homeowners and the CPW. This fund would then be managed,with money staying under the developer's control and being stipulated specifically for wildlife projects. These projects could be diverse including projects for improving upland habitat,riparian and wetlands, or the fishery. Current models exist with Eagle Ranch being the prototype that has generated over$1 million dollars and has reinvested this money into wildlife projects and enhancement for the PUD. Originally, mitigation monies around$13,000 were paid for the treatment of adjacent habitat on federal lands for mitigation for the proposed direct impacts,actual acreage impacted. This amount was determined from an accepted formula based on habitat. This money was only enough for a single treatment. The impacts from the original PUD and this project will continue into perpetuity. Negative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat have not been fully mitigated and a mitigation strategy has not been proposed. Eagle County's Comprehensive Plan designates that full mitigation of potential impacts be addressed. The proposal with increase in density of homes and the associated human activity will exacerbate these impacts. 11 12/13/2016 The potential exists for this proposal to benefit local wildlife and wildlife habitat with new management strategies. Without the creation and adoption of new strategies to offset impacts,local wildlife populations will be impacted by this proposal." (The applicant is proposing to implement a real estate transfer fee on the sale of lots within Frost and Salt Creek for the purpose of providing wildlife habitat improvements within the PUD, in perpetuity. At the Eagle County Planning Commission hearing, Craig Wescoatt, with CPW, testified in support of the proposed real estate transfer fee as long as it is in perpetuity and includes resales as well- i.e.: an ongoing funding stream for wildlife and wildlife habitat improvement both in the Frost Creek PUD and adjacent federal lands.) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: In the attached email dated February 3,2016,the CDPHE notes that land development construction activities(earth moving)that are greater than 25 acres or more than six months in duration require an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice(APEN)from the Air Pollution Control Division and may be required to obtain an air permit depending on estimated emissions. In addition, a start-up notice must be submitted thirty days prior to beginning a land development project. Also, CDPHE recommends that the applicant comply with all state and federal environmental rules and regulations. This may require obtaining a permit for certain regulated activities before emitting or discharging a pollutant into the air or water,dispose of hazardous waste or engaging in certain regulated activities. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers: In the attached email dated March 14,2016,the following was provided, "The Corps of Engineers'jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to,rivers,perennial or intermittent streams, lakes,ponds,wetlands,vernal pools,marshes,wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site,the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation, in accordance with the"Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations"on our website at the address below,and submit it to this office for verification. A list of consultants that prepare wetland delineations and permit application documents is also available on our website at the same location. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternative to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation". (Watershed Environmental Consultants, Inc. conducted a wetland delineation of the four development areas (Southern Parcels, Red Bluffs Way, Hunters Way, Squires Lane) in accordance with the USAGE standards. All impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States have been avoided with one potential exception for a single driveway access in the Hunters Way area (between proposed Lots 42 and 43). No engineered details for this driveway access are available at this time for review. If the driveway can be accommodated without impacting wetlands, such as in the case of a span, no 404 permit is required for the project. If impacts to wetlands are anticipated, a 404 permit will be obtained prior to construction.) Eagle County Planning Commission: Following the public hearing before the Eagle County Planning Commission for the companion PUD Amendment application on July 6,2016,the Eagle County Planning Commissioners indicated that: • The proposal is inconsistent with the Master Plan; • Land use patterns in Brush Creek should not be changing, • No current or future sector of the local economy would be significantly degraded as a result of the project; • The project will have additional traffic impacts compromising access to public recreational areas accessed via Brush Creek Road. • The proposal does reflect principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling/reuse. 12 12/13/2016 • The proposed project's impacts would be no greater than any other similar project; however, will introduce more traffic and smaller homes will impact the local economy less. • This is leapfrog development; it's not meeting demand, it is creating it. • The Golf Course is visual open space. • Overall this 1041 Permit application is not ripe because there is no formalized water service agreement. • ECPC's concerns are primarily with the companion PUD Amendment proposal to increase density. 4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Chapter VI,Section 6.04.01,Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest, and as more specifically described in the application materials,the following analysis is provided. The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold font. A summary response is provided with the recommendation indicated in the findings box. A Permit to conduct a designated activity of state interest or to engage in development in a designated area of state interest shall be approved if the Project complies with the following general criteria and any additional applicable criteria in Sections 6.04.02 or 6.04.03. If the Project does not comply with any one or more of these criteria,the Permit shall be denied or approved with conditions. In determining whether the Project complies with these criteria, or if conditions should be imposed,the Permit Authority may utilize the considerations set forth in Chapter VI, Appendix `A' of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights,permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion,defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights,permits and approvals are obtained. Per the application, "All permits and approvals will be obtained by final plat for the amendment areas including the following to implement the proposed amendments." Federal Permits: • Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit as necessary for two minor ditch crossings. State Permits and Approvals: • Stormwater Discharge Permit Eagle County Permits and Approvals: • Approval of this 1041 Permit application. • Approval of the companion PUD Amendment application. • Final Plat approval. • Grading Permit(s). • Building Permit(s). Town of Eagle: • Approved, executed Water Service Agreement allotting the additional water service taps to serve the proposed additional development density. Staff concurs that the above itemized list of permits and approvals are required prior to site disturbance. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others. 13 12/13/2016 Per the application: "The project will not impair the property rights held by others as all property being amended is within the control of the owners or the Homeowner's Association. The replatting is occurring within current platted lots held in the same ownership. The proposed changes have no impact upon the water rights held by the applicant. All new units will be served by the Town of Eagle for water,which taps or EQR are already held by the applicant. The Water Service Agreement includes copies of all water rights and agreements for water service. Any ditches that convey water to other parties are not being altered by the proposal." The Town and the Developer have come to agreement regarding the Water Service Agreement. This Agreement is scheduled to be formalized(ratified) by the Town on December 13, 2016. However,per the State Engineer's original referral response, the Town of Eagle has not filed a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights; therefore it is not feasible for Staff to make a determination that the proposed development can occur without causing injury to existing property (water) rights. (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. Per the application: "A complete review of the project's compliance with applicable land use plans is provided in the PUD submittal. The project is consistent with the relevant provisions of the applicable land use and water quality plans as follows: Eagle River Watershed Plan Water Quantity Goal: Streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs in the watershed are managed and cared for in a manner that insures adequate amounts of water for domestic, agricultural, recreational and ecological needs at all times of the year. Objective 2.1: Manage water storage, water diversions and water releases within the Eagle River Watershed in a manner that sustains or enhances stream health and recreational uses. Applicant's Response-The project has adequate water rights commensurate with the amended PUD development proposed to ensure that Brush Creek is managed in a manner consistent with demands for domestic, irrigation and other needs created by the development. Municipal water is provided for through an existing agreement with the Town of Eagle; depletions to Brush Creek were contemplated as part of that agreement and legal adjudication. Objective 2.2: Minimize and/or mitigate adverse impacts to aquatic habitat and stream health from existing development and future growth. Water Quality Goal: Water in the Eagle River and its tributary streams is of the highest quality, providing excellent drinking source water and supporting healthy and self-sustaining trout populations as indicators of a healthy watershed. Land Use Goal: Land uses in Eagle County are located, designed, occupied and operated in a manner that minimizes impacts to water quality and quantity in the Eagle River and its tributary streams. Applicant's Response: The project does not propose new development within the floodplain,and the only new impact to wetlands or waters of the US includes a single driveway in the Hunters Way area. No other impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. are proposed. Wetlands monitoring was included as part of the Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan approved with the original PUD project. No new development is proposed within the existing riparian area setback,which in most cases is more restrictive than the 50-foot wetlands setback. Additionally, approximately 88%of Brush Creek riparian habitat and 75%of Frost Creek riparian habitat is within designated open space,thereby ensuring development resulting from approval of the PUD Amendment minimizes impacts to both tributary streams. 14 12/13/2016 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan 3.6 Water Resources Goal: Source water in Eagle County is protected, and contributors of surface and groundwater pollution are identified and eliminated to the fullest extent possible. 3.6.2.Water Quantity Policies: a. The long-term viability of both ground and surface water sources should be protected. b. Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented. Applicant's Response-As a result of concerns regarding potential water quality impacts to surface and groundwater, a Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan for the Frost Creek PUD was developed by Wright Water Engineers. The Plan addresses water quality monitoring pre,during and post construction phases of the project. As detailed in the Environmental Impact Summary Report, approval of the PUD Amendment will continue to be subject to the periodic monitoring, and potential amendments to the Plan might include additional sampling locations to reflect the four new development areas to ensure that water resources remain protected. 2012 Regional Water Quality Management Plan(the 208 Plan) Policy 1: Protect and Enhance Water Quality. The surface and groundwaters of the region shall be protected to minimize degradation of existing water quality and maintain existing and designated uses of those waters; waters not currently supporting designated uses shall be restored as soon as possible. Policy 2: Water Use and Development. The project developer shall mitigate the impacts to water quality and the aquatic environment caused by water supply projects. Policy 3: Land Use and Disturbance. Water quality, including wetlands,floodplains, shorelines and riparian areas must be protected from impacts of land use and development so that significant degradation of water quality is prevented. Policy 4: Domestic, Municipal and Industrial Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Decisions to locate water supplies, wastewater treatment systems and other water and wastewater facilities shall be made in a manner that protects water quality and the aquatic environment. Where growth and development requires the need for additional facilities capacity, existing facilities should be expanded instead of developing new facilities, unless expansion is not feasible because of technical, legal or political reasons. Applicant's Response-As outlined herein,the project will continue to protect water quality of Brush Creek through the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan and implementation of water quality best management practices to ensure that existing designated uses are not affected. Wetlands and floodplains have been identified and will be delineated in the field with fencing prior to any construction in order to protect these areas from development impacts so that significant degradation of water quality is prevented. Water supply is already provided for by the Town of Eagle so that no duplication of services will be required. On-site wastewater treatment systems will be located and designed to County permitting standards to ensure that the highest level of treatment is required for any additional development resulting from this proposal." Staff concurs that 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. Staff also concurs with the 208 Plan analysis. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. 15 12/13/2016 Per the application: "The Town of Eagle has the financial capability to operate the water system and the consultants hired to manage the OWTS onsite are qualified to operate and maintain these systems. The consultants overseeing the operation and maintenance of the OWTS are licensed engineers and who carry the proper certifications to manage these facilities. The HOA funds the oversight and activities of the OWTS facilities gaining these funds through charges to homeowners up-front during construction and annually in the form of dues to ensure continuous inspection and maintenance. Changes in management and oversight may occur from time to time but the qualifications of the consultants will remain those that are licensed engineers who hold proper certifications. OWTS systems are designed with the oversight of the HOA's consultant all the way through final inspection. The homeowner pays for the design and installation and the HOA is responsible for long term operation and maintenance. All new common infrastructure such as roadway extensions and water mains will be funded entirely by the developer." Inasmuch as the applicant comments on the Town of Eagle's financial capabilities, staff concurs that the applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. Per the application: "There is additional capacity in the Town's water system and therefore the project is technically and financially feasible. An amended water service agreement has been submitted with this application. Each OWTS is being funded by the homeowner and maintained by the HOA with funding through fees and dues." A copy of the agreed upon, but not yet ratified by the Town, amended water service agreement was received by County Staff on Friday, December 2nd at approximately 12:00 p.m. Receipt of this information necessitated immediate update of the staff reports, in order to.achieve the deadline for the paperless, BoCC Agenda system; which was the same day. We did not have time available to re-refer the Water Service Agreement back to the State Engineer for determination of injury to property(water) rights. The Colorado Division of Water Resources initial referral response states that, "We have reviewed the above referenced proposed amendment to the Frost Creek (formerly known as Adam's Rib)and Salt Creek PUD to develop a total of 142 single family dwellings, 26 accessory dwelling units (ADU),and 20 guest cabins. With this proposed amendment, in Frost Creek,the number of single family dwellings will increase from 97 to 141 and the number of guest cabins will increase from 5 to 20. There appears to be no changes to the number of ADUs in Frost Creek and to the number of structures for Salt Creek(1 single family dwelling and 1 ADU).The water supply is to be provided through the Town of Eagle(Town) and sewage disposal is to be through individual systems. Water use estimates were not provided. A water service agreement was made between the developer(Kummer Development), and the Town in 2002 for the Brush Creek properties also referred to as Salt Creek, Upper Ranch and Lower Ranch and Ridgeway properties.A second water service agreement was made in 2004 for the Frost Creek property and the agreements were amended in 2004 to transfer 21 EQRs from the Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek. The 2004 agreements currently allow for 121 EQRs in the Frost Creek development which translates to 97 single family dwellings, 5 guest cabins and 25 ADUs,based on 1 EQR per single family dwelling and 0.8 EQR per both a guest cabin and an ADU. The applicant indicated that they are pursuing an amendment to the agreements with the Town to reduce the number of EQRs for the Brush Creek properties from 114 to 55 and, transfer the 59 EQRs to Frost Creek to allow for the increase in single family dwellings and guest cabins.As of the date of this referral, it does not appear that the amended agreements have been signed. Furthermore,pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi- municipality is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer 16 12/13/2016 documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included. See the Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports(online at http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/memo_subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary information. In addition, since this proposal also depends on the transfer of EQRs from Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek,the report should also include the number of lots(if any)that are currently being served in the Brush Creek properties as well as any future commitments for platted lots within those properties: Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II). If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter,please contact me for assistance". The Town and the Developer have reached agreement on the provisions of the Water Service Agreement, and this Agreement is to be executed by the Town on December 13, 2016. However; per the State Engineer, the Town of Eagle has not filed a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing property (water) rights. As such, it is not feasible for Staff to make a determination that the proposed development can occur without causing injury to existing property(water)rights, in turn, the Project may also be technically infeasible. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. Per the application: "As provided in the original development application,Frost Creek is underlain by the Eagle Valley evaporite formation,which can be soluble under the correct hydrologic conditions. As the original Geologic Site Assessment prepared by HP Geotech states: `The potential sinkhole hazard on this parcel does not appear to be any greater than that present in the Town of Eagle, or most parts of Eagle County where the Eagle Valley evaporite is present. Additionally, since the OWTS are all located below grade they are generally protected from most hazards. All improvements lie outside of the 100 year floodplain and therefore are protected from a 100 year flood event'. The applicant has agreed to additional measures recommended to address fire and wildfire. New homes have square footage triggers established to make them more fire resistant. These standards are included in the PUD Guide and the Design Guidelines. Both the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and the County Wildfire Mitigation Manager have been satisfied with the proposed amendments." Staff concurs with the Applicant's assessment. The Colorado Geological Survey did not respond to the referral for this application or the companion PUD Amendment application; however, 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 PUD area. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. Per the application: "The proposed increase in density is to occur within already platted lots within the subdivision. The development potential(residential square footage)of the lots has been decreased over what was previously allowed. Additional open space parcels have been created from what was previously residentially platted lands. The general pattern of development will remain unchanged but the number of structures will increase in number while decreasing in overall mass. As a result,the project will not have an adverse effect on land use patterns." Staff concurs that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The Eagle County Planning Commission indicated that the proposal is leapfrog development in that it is not meeting demand, it is creating it. 17 12/13/2016 (8) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services,or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. Per the application: "The project is within an already developed subdivision,with existing homes nearby. The project will not adversely affect the capability of local governments to provide services as the project still remains very low density. Further,the Town of Eagle and the Greater Eagle FPD are provided with significant revenues to help offset the expense of providing services. As evidenced by the traffic report provided,there is very limited new traffic generated by the amendment. All traffic generated by Frost Creek is less than 2%of the traffic on Brush Creek Road at buildout. Further,the original developer made roadway improvements an overlaid 6-miles of the roadway after major development work was completed. This extended the life of this roadway significantly and in the 10 years since,there has been little traffic from Frost Creek impacting the roadway. Additionally, each home developed is required to pay road impact fees. Impact fees offset the financial impacts to the government and the community. Additional density typically generates the need for more County services such as law enforcement,health and human services, and school impacts. Certainly there will be some impact but these services are generally offset by taxes paid by the owners. In the case of this project and given the likely composition of homeowners being second homeowners,the impact on these types of local government services will be very low and the property tax rates will be relatively high,thus resulting in an overall positive impact(i.e.paying for services not being used)" Staff concurs that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide most services. The capacity of Brush Creek Road; however, will be exceeded. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. Per the application: "There is no financial burden being placed on the residents for this project as the water facilities are already in place and no debt is being sought to fund improvements. Additionally, Plant Improvement Fees and connection charges will be collected from each lot owner. These fees are a type of impact fee that ensures the cost to the community is being offset with up front fees. The OWTS systems create no burden for the community at large and due to the state of the art technology being employed and the monitoring of ground and surface water,there is no downstream impact to the community at large. The purchasers of these lots will fund the OWTS facilities themselves through upfront payments and dues paid to the HOA. No existing or future residents of the County, outside of the project limits,will have any financial burden to serve the development." Staff concurs that the Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. Per the application: "There is no financial burden being placed on the residents of this project and no debt is being sought to fund such improvements. The changes will help to improve the local economy with additional revenues in the form of taxes and spending by owners and members." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. The Eagle County Planning Commission indicated that this criterion is debatable, without providing explanation of the debate. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. Per the application: "The PUD will have little impact on the overall recreational opportunities within the immediate area or within Eagle County. The proposed PUD Amendment is located entirely within existing platted developable lots,with no impact on existing open space and recreational tracts. There are significant,high quality recreational opportunities being provided 18 12/13/2016 onsite for owners and members including trails, open space areas,the golf course,fitness facilities, tennis courts, and a community swimming pool. Other recreational activities include fishing and paddle boarding. This PUD includes more recreational opportunities than most residential projects in the region and with the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities borne entirely by the private sector." Staff concurs that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. The Eagle County Planning Commission believes that the additional traffic impacts upon Brush Creek Road, as a result of the proposed project will indeed compromise public access to public lands accessed via Brush Creek Road. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principles of resource conservation,energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Per the application: "Best management practices will be implemented in the construction and operations of the project and will be reflected on construction plans, including but not limited to dust suppression, erosion control, runoff mitigation and protection of vegetation impacts through practices outlined in the Environmental Impact Report summary. The project uses raw water for its irrigation on the residential lots, golf course and open spaces. The use of raw water is limited by agreement with the Town as documented in the Water Service Agreement. Additionally,the design guidelines limit the amount of irrigation area on each lot to 7,500 square feet and does not allow irrigation of native areas. The project will adhere to the Town's Water Conservation Plan as required by the Water Service Agreement. The Town has a tiered rate for water usage and provides standards for low flow devices. The project does not provide a drop point for recycled materials but homeowners are provided with the opportunity to recycle like other developments in Eagle County. The commercial facilities adhere to a recycling program that insures recycled materials are appropriately eliminated from the waste stream. The project will comply with all Eagle County regulations for resource conservation, energy efficiency, and recycling or reuse." Staff concurs that the planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. Per the application: "In context of the new proposal adding 47 new dwelling units,project-related emissions are not anticipated to cause violation of ambient air quality standards or be in violation of air quality related regulations. During construction there will be minor impacts to air quality however, all home development and infrastructure installation will use dust suppression and the stormwater runoff BMP's. Project activities are not anticipated to lead to or cause visibility problems for the nearby wilderness areas and views of distant mountains." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. Per the application: "The design and landscape standards associated with the Frost Creek development area incorporate the highest visual quality standards. The proposed amended Frost Creek PUD will only include development in areas already designated for development and will follow the established design standards for the Frost Creek PUD. No ridgeline development is proposed with this amended submittal." Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that the Project will not significantly degrade visual quality. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. 19 12/13/2016 Per the application: "Impacts to surface water are not anticipated as a result of the new development. However,the protocol outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan(WQMMP) and associated documents have provided for advanced mitigation measures and will allow the determination of whether development of the amended PUD using BMP's adversely affects surface water quality and if so provides for responses to activation of applicable triggers to be enacted. Documents associated with the WQMMP which have been reviewed include: • Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2006), • Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2009), • Addendum to the April 2009 Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2012) The primary potential impacts to surface water from the Frost Creek PUD have been mitigated by adherence to local(Eagle County), state(Colorado), and federal permitting requirements, established guidelines, and high standards of design, construction and maintenance. Mitigation measures include: • Strict adherence to site-specific Stormwater Management Plans(SWMP's), a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)Construction Dewatering Discharge Permit, and a site-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan(SPCC). The Developer will monitor the BMP's within the SWMP throughout the construction process. Changes to the BMP's will be made to accommodate any problems that may cause impacts to surface water. • Roadway runoff for the Frost Creek PUD was mitigated by adherence to the October 29,2004 Final Drainage Analysis prepared by Johnson Kunkel&Associates, Inc. Stormwater drainage or overland sheet flow is treated in grass-lined swales. Stormwater is directed from the grass-lined swales to sedimentation ponds, lakes, and protected wetlands and riparian buffer zones prior to discharge into Brush Creek. • Potential impacts from pesticide and fertilizer use at the golf course in the Frost Creek PUD are currently mitigated by adherence to the Integrated Pest Management and Operating Procedures. • The homeowner's association through their Codes, Covenants, and Regulations will mitigate potential impacts from activities at individual home sites in the Frost Creek PUD. • Potential impacts from the Frost Creek PUD golf course maintenance facility may include vehicle wash water and small quantity chemical discharges. These potential impacts are currently mitigated by: a)routing all vehicle wash water to floor drains,which are discharged to a grass- lined swale for treatment,and b)a chemical fertilizer and storage area which has been created with appropriate spill containment separate from the maintenance facility to prevent impacts from chemical discharge. • Potential impacts from the swimming pool at the Frost Creek PUD golf course clubhouse are mitigated by discharging pool overflow and drain water only after dechlorination to a grass-lined swale in small quantities with no discharge to surface water. The Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan has established trigger limits, a measurable limit on monitored surface water quality parameters including Total Suspended Solids(TSS),Total Dissolved Solids(TDS),total phosphorous, and total nitrogen whose exceedances will cause mitigation measures to be enacted. Three assessment methods are used conjunctively as trigger limits for TSS,TDS,or total phosphorous. The three assessment methods include: 1)Detections of concentrations of the parameters in excess of the 85th percentile historic concentration for the given parameter, and 2) Comparison between upstream and downstream concentrations, and 3)Graphical analysis to assess temporal changes in the parameters will consist of visual examination of time series graphs,which may show general long-term changes in parameter concentrations. The trigger limit for TSS,TDS, or total phosphorous will be activated only when all three of the assessment tools show abnormal results or rises in concentrations. 20 12/13/2016 Not enough historical data regarding total nitrogen is available to establish a trigger limit as described above. Therefore,the established water quality standard for nitrate,a component of total nitrogen of 10 mg/L is used instead. If the downstream concentration of total nitrogen exceeds 10 mg/L, and is greater that the upstream concentration,then the trigger has been activated. Bio assessment triggers will be activated if the bio assessment indicates that there is a significant decline in any of the applicable bioassessment metrics at either of the downstream stations from one sampling activity to the next, and that the decline may be attributable to contamination of surface water or other aspects of the development. Responses to activation of applicable triggers have been clearly outlined. If any of the triggers listed above are activated,the following steps will occur: • (Step 1)Confirmation of sample collection. • (Step 2)Assuming that the confirmation sample shows that trigger was activated, inform the Environmental Health Department and schedule a meeting to take place after steps three and four occur. • (Step 3)Inspection of suspected pollutant sources. • (Step 4)Inspection of relevant BMP's,to assure that they are properly functioning. • (Step 5)Meet with the Environmental Health Department. Review available data and results of the inspections. The responsible party will propose an action plan for review and approval by the Environmental Health Department. • (Step 6)Implement action plan. • (Step 7)Conduct follow-up monitoring to determine if actions are effective." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. Per the application: Per the application: "Impacts to groundwater are not anticipated as a result of the new development. However,the protocol outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan(WQMMP)and associated documents have provided for advanced mitigation measures and will allow the determination of whether development of the amended PUD using BMP's adversely affects groundwater quality and if so provides for responses to activation of applicable triggers to be enacted. Documents associated with the WQMMP which have been reviewed include: • Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2006), • Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2009), • Addendum to the April 2009 Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2012) The primary potential impacts to groundwater from the Frost Creek PUD have been mitigated by established guidelines, and high standards of design, construction and maintenance. Mitigation measures include: • All onsite wastewater treatment systems at the clubhouse, golf course maintenance facility, individual home sites will be designed by a licensed professional engineer and shall include denitrification at a minimum. The licensed professional engineer will design the wastewater treatment systems to minimize their potential to impact groundwater. • Potential impacts from pesticide and fertilizer use at the golf course in the Frost Creek PUD are currently mitigated by adherence to the Integrated Pest Management and Operating Procedures. • The homeowner's association through their Codes, Covenants, and Regulations will mitigate potential impacts from activities at individual home sites in the Frost Creek PUD. 21 12/13/2016 • Potential impacts from the Frost Creek PUD golf course maintenance facility may include vehicle wash water and small quantity chemical discharges. These potential impacts are currently mitigated by: a)routing all vehicle wash water to floor drains,which are discharged to a grass- lined swale for treatment, and b)a chemical fertilizer and storage area which has been created with appropriate spill containment separate from the maintenance facility to prevent impacts from chemical discharge. • Potential impacts from the swimming pool at the Frost Creek PUD golf course clubhouse are mitigated by discharging pool overflow and drain water only after dechlorination to a grass-lined swale in small quantities with no discharge to surface water. The Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan has established trigger limits, a measurable limit on monitored groundwater quality parameters including total phosphorous,total nitrogen, and the target pesticide whose exceedances will cause mitigation measures to be enacted. Three assessment methods are used conjunctively as trigger limits for total phosphorous. The three assessment methods include: 1) Detections of concentrations of the parameters in excess of the 85th percentile historic concentration for total phosphorous, and 2)Comparison between upgradient and downgradient background groundwater monitoring wells,and 3) Graphical analysis to assess temporal changes in the parameters will consist of visual examination of time series graphs,which may show general long- term changes in parameter concentrations. The trigger limit for total nitrogen is 10 mg/L. If the downgradient concentration of total nitrogen exceeds 10 mg/L, and is greater that the upgradient concentration,then the trigger has been activated. Any detection of the target pesticide at a concentration in excess of the applicable water quality standard(if available)for that chemical will activate the trigger limit. Responses to activation of applicable triggers have been clearly outlined. If any of the triggers listed above are activated,the following steps will occur: • (Step 1)Confirmation of sample collection. • (Step 2)Assuming that the confirmation sample shows that trigger was activated, inform the Environmental Health Department and schedule a meeting to take place after steps three and four occur. • (Step 3)Inspection of suspected pollutant sources. • (Step 4)Inspection of relevant BMP's,to assure that they are properly functioning. • (Step 5)Meet with the Environmental Health Department. Review available data and results of the inspections. The responsible party will propose an action plan for review and approval by the Environmental Health Department. • (Step 6)Implement action plan. • (Step 7)Conduct follow-up monitoring to determine if actions are effective." ." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands,and riparian areas. Per the application: "The original lot configuration in the three amended areas contain delineated wetland and riparian areas(i.e., actual wetlands and riparian areas on lots in private ownership). The proposed amendments resolve this conflict except in a couple very limited areas where access to two lots must cross a ditch,which is the existing condition today, as well. The new open space areas were created to pull wetlands and riparian areas into HOA controlled tracts to further enhance their protection. The proposal will adhere to the 50-foot setback in three of the new development areas (Hunters Way,Red Bluffs Way and Squires Lane)with limited disturbance in the Hunters Way area for driveway access in two locations where a ditch crossing may be required. Water quality impacts to wetlands are not anticipated as a result of the new development. However,the protocol outlined in the WQMMP will allow the determination of whether development of the amended PUD using BMP's adversely affects wetlands and if so provides for mitigation measures to be enacted." 22 12/13/2016 Staff concurs that with the reconfigured access to the reduced number of lots in the Hunters Way area the Project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. Per the application: "The proposal will not result in any significantly differing impacts beyond increased human activity due to higher density residential uses,which will only take place in areas already identified for development as part of the original Frost Creek PUD. A Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan was adopted for the Frost Creek PUD in order to avoid or minimize impacts to the extent practicable and mitigate unavoidable impacts to wildlife. Colorado Parks and Wildlife comments include the request for seasonal closures of open space areas and that a mitigation fund be developed to mitigate for wildlife impacts. The current PUD Guide already provides for seasonal closures which CPW staff has acknowledged and the applicant is proposing a 0.2%transfer fee of the sale of any lot that will be used by the HOA for wildlife habitat enhancing activities. Staff concurs that with the proposed wildlife mitigation real estate transfer fee approach in perpetuity, the Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. Per the application: "All of the proposed site improvements are on areas identified as dry meadows, which previously supported upland irrigated pasture prior to the establishment of the Frost Creek development. The most sensitive vegetative habitat includes riparian habitats,no new impact are proposed to these areas." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat and that the previously mapped riparian/wetland areas will be preserved, as well the additional 50 foot setback from the outer edge of mapped wetland areas. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. Per the application: "Extensive geologic site assessments for the original Frost Creek PUD were conducted. The development areas of the original PUD took into account geologic constraints and produced a plan following specific recommendations for pavement design,roadway alignments, drainage, site grading,maintenance, and bridge design. No new areas are being contemplated for development with the proposal;the four development areas for review in the amended Frost Creek PUD only include changes in density,not areas affected. However,because compressible soils may still exist on any lot, geologic conditions should be evaluated on a lot specific basis prior to building." The Colorado Geological Survey did not respond to the referral for this application; however, staff does concur that the subject pr.operty was extensively evaluated at the time of the original PUD approval, and during subsequent improvement of the golf course, infrastructure and existing vertical development on the site. A site specific geologic assessment is to occur prior to issuance of any building permits for permanent structures. (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. Per the application: "Minimal nuisance factors will be encountered and dealt with during the construction phase of the project. Factors that are common during the construction of new homes, including noise, dust and construction traffic will be the most noticeable." Staff concurs that upon completion of the construction phase, the Project will not cause a nuisance. 23 12/13/2016 (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological,historic,or archaeological importance. Per the application: "A cultural resource study was performed by Western Cultural Resource that found only one historic structure,which was preserved as part of the original PUD approval. The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archeological importance." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. Per the application: "The project will not result in an unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. The project will have normal construction activities and will use the approved methods of disposing of any construction materials so as not to cause a release of hazardous materials. These amendments to the PUD have no impact upon the location, storage, containment procedures, spill countermeasures plan with regard to fertilizers,pesticides,herbicides, lubricants,and fuel. There are no changes proposed to the previous plans to address these issues. Fueling of golf course equipment will be from fueling pumps developed at the maintenance facility. All golf related storage of potentially hazardous materials is within the Golf Maintenance Facility which has containment facilities built-in. All potential spill runoff is funneled to a catch basin on the north side of the structure, if a spill is not addressed and contained within the facility first by staff. Therefore all spills will be prevented from entering the environment, surface waters, or groundwater. Onsite fuel pumps have spill well containment. Pesticides and herbicides are also stored in the golf maintenance facility." Staff concurs that the Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural,recreational,grazing,commercial or industrial resources within the County,or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. Per the application: "All proposed development to occur as a result of the proposed PUD amendment occurs within existing platted developable area,with no loss of natural, agricultural,recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within Eagle County." Staff concurs that the benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. B. 6.04.02 Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Projects. In addition to the general criteria set forth in Section 6.04.01,the following additional criteria apply to municipal and industrial water projects: 1. The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water,including the recycling,reuse and conservation of water. Per the application: "The project provides efficiency and conservation by utilizing senior water rights decreed for irrigation that have been historically used on the Frost Creek lands. The lands projected to be irrigated in the Frost Creek PUD will be irrigated with these senior water rights through a raw water irrigation system consistent with the approvals for the PUD and the Water Service Agreement-Frost Creek, dated February 26, 2002, as amended September 7, 2004(Holland&Hart,LLP, 7/15/05). The water being used on the project is very near the point of diversion. As part of the 2002 Water Service Agreement and a contribution to the Brush Creek Management Plan, an Irrigation Management Plan was drafted to help maintain streamflow levels immediately downstream of the Town's point of diversion,the installation and operation of a streamflow gage station just downstream on Brush Creek 24 12/13/2016 and certain limits on the amount of water the project diverts from various Brush Creek diversion structures were all agreed to. The lowered diversions are less than historic diversion, and are made possible by increased irrigation efficiencies associated with the golf course and residential development as planned. Best management practices will be implemented in the construction and operation of the project and will be reflected on construction plans, including but not limited to dust suppression, erosion control, runoff mitigation and protection of vegetation impacts through practices outlined in the EIR summary. The project uses raw water for its irrigation on the residential lots, golf course, and open spaces. The use of raw water is limited by agreement with the Town as documented in the Water Service Agreement. Additionally,the design guidelines limit the amount of irrigation area on each lot to 7,500 square feet and does not allow irrigation of native areas. The project will adhere to the Town's Water Conservation Plan as required by the Water Service Agreement. The Town has a tiered rate for water usage and provides standards for low flow devices. The project does not provide a drop point for recycled materials but homeowners are provided with the opportunity to recycle curbside like other developments in Eagle County. The commercial facilities adhere to a recycling program that insures recycled materials are appropriately eliminated from the waste stream. The project will comply with all Eagle County regulations for resource conservation, energy efficiency, and recycling or reuse." Staff concurs that the Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. It is important to note that the amended water service agreement provided on December 2, 2016, did not include the Exhibits referenced in the water service agreement. As such, it is not feasible to determine whether or not the above discussed water service agreement provisions related to irrigation have changed, or remain the same. 2. The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. Per the application: "The project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The Town of Eagle will provide domestic water for the project. The project will redistribute EQR density per Water Service Agreements from lower Brush Creek properties to an area with existing approved density and significant infrastructure. The Town has the current capacity to serve the project. While there is some chance that a future Town Board could choose to allow more EQR's, or taps, in the future on the Brush Creek properties,under the terms of the amended Annexation and Water Service Agreement, the density of these properties is being restricted to reflect the transfer of EQR's (taps). Said differently,the number of total EQR's available to all of these properties,Frost Creek and the Brush Creek properties does not change as a result of this amendment. So addressing this criterion No. 2,there is no excess capacity of water or wastewater facilities being proposed. Senior agricultural water rights from Frost Creek(Adam's Rib)were transferred to the Town of Eagle prior to the dedication of the EQR's for Frost Creek and associated properties. The transfer provided for municipal diversion that meet or exceed the anticipated demands and historic monthly consumptive water uses. Water depletions associated with the Adam's Rib projects have been augmented. Engineering reports by Resource Engineering, Inc. and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. determined that a sufficient and reliable source of supply to irrigate the lands designated for irrigation in the Frost Creek portion of the PUD. Wastewater will be serviced through Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems(OWTS). Each OWTS system must have denitrification capabilities,equipped with an(centralized)alarm system and inspected every two years (by the HOA)." Staff concurs that the Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. 25 12/13/2016 3. The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. Per the application: "According to the Colorado State Demographer estimates,the population of Eagle County was 43,288 in the year 2000; 47,278 by the year 2005,and projected to be 53,303 in the year 2015. By 2020,the Colorado State Demographer projects Eagle County's population to increase to 57,226. The Colorado State Demographer estimates the 2014 Town of Eagle population to be 6,750, and the 2014 unincorporated area of Eagle County to be 23,395. In 2010,the Town of Eagle and Eagle County adopted the Eagle Area Community Plan,which indicated that the population of Eagle County will double by the year 2030,with much of that growth anticipated to occur in communities and towns in western Eagle County, like Eagle and Gypsum. The project is necessary to meet community development and population demands." Staff concurs that the Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. The Eagle County Housing Department has indicated its support of the Affordable Housing Plan, as submitted. 4. Urban development,population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. Per the application: "The surrounding privately owned property has generally been subdivided into five to ten acre lots. The proposed development is compatible with this pattern of urban development, population density,and site layout. Additionally, as specifically outlined in the Environmental Impact Summary Report provided in the Compendium of Technical Reports, a Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan(WQMMP) was developed for the Frost Creek PUD in order to establish baseline(predevelopment)water quality information and ensure that the development would not adversely affect water quality of aquatic life,or pollution of aquifer recharge areas." Staff concurs that urban development,population densities, site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. C. 6.04.03 Additional Criteria Applicable to Major New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems and Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems. In addition to the general criteria set forth in section 6.04.01,the following additional criteria apply to any development of major new domestic water and wastewater treatment systems or major extensions of existing domestic water and wastewater treatment systems: 1. The Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project,or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. Per the application: "The PUD Amendment adds new density to the Frost Creek PUD. No changes are proposed to the water treatment facilities to accommodate the proposed density especially given that the new density in Frost Creek is simply a transfer of density already contracted for in the Brush Creek valley. There is new demand for OWTS generated by the new lots proposed in Frost Creek. There is a direct relationship between the new density and the proposed number of OWTS,thus meeting the demands for wastewater treatment which reflects the new population in Frost Creek. Therefore,the project(water and wastewater facilities)are reasonably necessary to meet the specific development and population demand being created by the PUD Amendment." Staff concurs that the Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. 26 12/13/2016 (2) To the extent feasible,wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. Per the application: "The project's water facilities are owned and operated by the Town of Eagle and the OWTS are managed by a single entity, a consolidated approach to management and operations." Staff concurs that to the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities are being and will continue to be managed by the appropriate entities. No further opportunity for consolidation exists. (3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. Per the application: "The water system is utilizing the existing Town of Eagle's Water Treatment Plant and ties into the Town of Eagle's Water System. The Town of Eagle is the only water provider in this location. Wastewater is being treated on each lot with an OWTS of the strictest standards." Staff concurs that no new domestic water and sewage treatment systems are proposed as part of this Project. (4) The Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. Per the application: "The water treatment facilities already exist in the area and serve the entire Town of Eagle. The additional density and growth being proposed with the amendments will be within the environmental capacity of the area given the attention to ground and surface water quality built into the PUD. The proposed changes will not generate new growth in the region as new water and wastewater treatment capacities are not being created. The Town of Eagle's Water Treatment Plant is located adjacent to the Frost Creek property(on land dedicated by the original developer for its construction), and the other utilities are located near the project." Staff concurs that the Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2, Waiver Provision, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations,the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant showing that: 3.310.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. 3.310.2.b. Compliance with the Special Use Review Permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Review Permit requirements as such application would be redundant with this 1041 Permit process and would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. E. Recommended Motions: I move that the Eagle County Permit Authority DENY File No. 1041-5943, authorizing the Chairman to sign the Resolution. 27 12/13/2016 If the Eagle County Permit Authority approves this 1041 Permit application, the following motion is recommended: I move that the Eagle County Permit Authority APPROVE File No. 1041-5943,waiving the requirement for Special Use Review Permit in accordance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations 3-310(I.),authorizing the Chairman to sign the Resolution, and incorporating the following condition: 1. That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this permit application, correspondence, and at all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval,unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 17. PDA-5941 Frost Creek Salt Creek PUD Amendment Kris Valdez,Planning BCP-ARR, LLC,Applicant Dominic Mauriello, Representative Note: Tabled from July 26,August 2,August 23 and October 16,2016 Action: The intent of this PUD Amendment application is to make adjustments to the PUD Preliminary Plan and PUD Guide which will allow an additional 45 permanent dwelling units and an additional 15 guest cabins. Location: Brush Creek Road, Eagle area FILE NO./PROCESS: PDA-5941,Amendment of a Planned Unit Development PROJECT NAME: Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD Amendment LOCATION: Brush Creek Road OWNER: BCP-ARR, LLC APPLICANT: BCP-ARR, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group STAFF PLANNER: Kris Valdez,MURP,AICP STAFF ENGINEER: Ty Ryan, PE STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: "Eagle County is a Great Place to Live for All"and"Eagle County Protects the Natural Environment" POLICY ISSUE: The policy question is whether or not the Eagle County Permit Authority should approve this application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Unanimous Recommendation for Denial I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Request and Process The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Adam's Rib Planned Unit Development Guide,now called Frost and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development Guide. The intent of this PUD Amendment application is to make adjustments to the PUD Preliminary Plan and PUD Guide which will allow an additional 45 permanent dwelling units and an additional 15 guest cabins. This is a 28 12/13/2016 reduction from the 47 lots originally proposed.The Applicant decided to reduce the proposal by two lots that are adjacent to the wetlands along Brush Creek to reduce the environmental impacts to the area. If the application is approved,the lots sizes in Red Bluffs Way and Squires Lane would be reduced from 3 acres to .75 acres,while lots sizes in Hunters Way would be reduced to .40 acres. The allowable square footage of homes in these area would also be reduced.Residences located along Squires Lane and Red Bluffs Lane would have a maximum square footage of 7,000 square feet and those located along Hunters Way would have a maximum square footage of 3,750. The proposal also includes a reduction in allowable housing size on all other lots within the subdivision from 12,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet. However,the other lots are still required to have a three(3)acre minimum lot size. The additional 15 guest cabins on the property would function similar to hotel rooms that are rented out on a nightly basis. There are five(5) existing guest cabins on the property across from the clubhouse located on Frost Creek Drive. The Applicant has stated that there is a pending agreement with the Town of Eagle to dedicate a pedestrian and bike easement from the northern end of the existing Frost Creek bike path to the Haymeadow property, allowing for the future development of approximately two miles of additional recreation path.However,the Applicant is not proposing to construct the bike trail. The Applicant is also proposing the creation of a transfer fee on the sale of lots within Salt and Frost Creek("Frost Creek")to be spent on wildlife habitat improvements within the PUD.The applicant is agreeable to adding a wildlife mitigation transfer fee of 0.2%on the sales price of any property transfer within Frost Creek. All new 3,000+square foot buildings,including garage,would be required to have a fire suppression system in each home on the smaller, amended lots based on recommendations from Greater Eagle Fire Protection District. Also based on recommendations of the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District,the Applicant would be providing an emergency access roadway connecting Hunters View Way to Frost Creek Drive that would meet the requirement of the International Fire Code and which would be paved and maintained year round. The emergency access may be secured to prevent daily traffic but must be able to be opened and left opened by responding emergency personnel. The Applicant is in the process of negotiating the water taps necessary for the expansion of the density with the Town of Eagle. According to the Applicant,these will not be new water rights or water taps,but are being transferred from the Upper and Lower Ranch Properties to Frost Creek to accommodate the increase in density. The Applicant states that this transfer of water rights or water taps removes the development potential of the Upper and Lower Ranch.However, staff believes this transfer of water taps by itself does not preclude future development on the subject properties. Well permits and/or additional water taps may be potentially acquired to support future development above and beyond an exempt 35+-acre subdivision of the Upper and Lower Ranch property. Staff has determined that Brush Creek Road is not adequate for the current traffic usage when considering the existing condition of the road and current traffic volumes. Given such determination, and based on the potential addition of 450 daily vehicle trips which would result from proposed dwelling unit increases, staff determined the appropriate recommendation is for denial of the PUD Amendment because of the inadequacy of Brush Creek Road. Please see the chart below for a summary of the changes being proposed to the existing PUD. Standard Proposed Original PUD 29 12/13/2016 Density- Single Frost Creek: 142 Frost Creek: 97 Family Units Salt Creek: 1 Salt Creek: 1 Total Single Family: 143 Total Single Family: 98 Density-Accessory Frost Creek: 25 Frost Creek: 25 Dwelling Salt Creek: 1 Salt Creek: 1 Units(ADU) Total ADU: 26 Total ADU: 26 Density- Guest Frost Creek: 20 Frost Creek: 5 Cabins Salt Creek: 0 Salt Creek: 0 Total Guest Cabins: 20 Total Guest Cabins: 5 Minimum Lot Area 3 acres(for areas not 3 acres Per Use amended) .75 acres for Squires Lane .75 acres for Red Bluffs Way .40 acres for Hunters Way .50 acres for Lot 50 Resubdivision Maximum Lot Lots 1 &2, 9-49, 51-72, 97: Building Envelopes -Lots ranged in size from 3.674 Coverage Building Envelopes acres to 9.862 acres in area with one acre building Squires Lane: 7,000 sq. ft. envelopes. footprint/unit Red Bluffs Way: 7,000 sq. ft. footprint/unit Hunters Way: 3,750 sq. ft. footprint/unit Lot 50 Resub: 3,750 sq. ft. footprint/unit Minimum Front Brush Creek Road: 50 ft. Arterial Street: 50 ft. Yard Setback 60' wide R/W of Frost Collector Street: 50 ft. Creek Drive: 50 ft. Local Street: 25 ft. All Other Roads: 25 ft. Minimum Rear and 12.5 ft. or half the height of 12.5 ft. or half the height of the Side Yard the tallest building tallest building on the lot. Setback on the lot. Minimum Stream 75 ft. 75 ft. Setback Maximum Building 35 ft. 35 ft. Height Minimum Riparian 50 ft. 50 ft. and Wetland Setback Maximum Lots 1 &2, 9-49, 51-72, and 12,500 sq. ft. Residential Square 97: 10,000 sq. ft. 30 12/13/2016 Footage Squires Lane resubdivision: 6,000 sq. ft. Red Bluffs Way resubdivision: 6,000 sq. ft. Hunters Way resubdivision: 3,000 sq. ft Lot 50 Resub: 3,000 sq. ft. Parking Single Family: 3 spaces per Single Family: 3 spaces per unit Requirements unit Clubhouse: 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Clubhouse: 1 space per 250 ADU: 2 spaces per unit sq. ft. ADU: 2 spaces per unit Guest Cabin: 1 space per unit Conformance with Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Standards Staff believes this PUD is not appropriate for an amendment. With the additional impacts and traffic proposed by this new density, staff believes the proposed amendment is not consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD and is not compatible with adjacent properties and the character of the Brush Creek valley.The Eagle County Planning Commission also decided the proposed PUD Amendment is not in conformance with Preliminary Plan for PUD Standards,therefore,unanimously recommended denial of the proposed PUD Amendment. Requested Variations to Standards During the course of review of this file, staff,working with the Applicant and certain referral agency partners,have identified areas of non-conformance with certain approval and improvement standards as outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In each case where design-related standards (improvement standards for roadway widths and design)have been found to be non-conforming, staff and the Applicant have been unable to work through the proposed non-conformance issues. Consequently, staff cannot recommend approval of the Application as proposed. 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 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"(ECLUR's,pp. 5-43—44). Overview of Findings 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 proposed Amendment to the Preliminary Plan for PUD meets or does not meet applicable standards is provided in Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation starting on page 9 of the report. Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Standard Conformance Discussion Modification Staff does believe this modification is consistent with The modification,removal, or release Yes the original Adam's Rib,Frost Creek, Salt Creek PUD is consistent with the efficient Guide; which was to establish the standards, 31 12/13/2016 development and preservation of the restrictions and regulations that govern development entire Planned Unit Development; and land use with the original Adam's Rib Frost Creek (am 3/12/02) and Salt Creek Development. Adjacent Properties The proposed PUD Amendment will affect, in a The PUD Amendment does not substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of affect,in a substantially adverse land abutting,upon or across a street from the manner, either the enjoyment of land No Planned Unit Development or the public interest due abutting upon or across a street from to the perceived impacts of increased density the Planned Unit Development or the proposed in the PUD Amendment. public interest; (am 3/12/02) Benefit The PUD Amendment would not confer a special The PUD Amendment is not granted benefit upon any(single)person due to the fact the solely to confer a special benefit Yes lots within the PUD are under multiple owners and upon any person. (am 3/12/02) the majority of the property has not been developed yet. Amendment The proposed PUD Amendment will not have the Amendment of a Preliminary Plan effect of extending the vesting period,because the for PUD shall not have the effect of existing PUD has already started the development extending the vesting period absent a process and Final Plats have been approved on the specific finding and declaration to Yes existing lots.The PUD Amendment, if approved, does that effect. (am.05/08/12) not reset the vesting period.If the PUD Amendment is approved,the Applicant will be required to provide a Final Plat to define the newly approved and amended lots and development areas within the PUD. Standards Please see the discussion in the chart below and in the PUD Amendments shall address the remainder of the staff report standards Pursuant to Section 5- 240.F.3.e. Applicant shall also Mixed provide a copy of the PUD Guide clearly demonstrating what amendments are to be made. (am 3/12/02) Notification All property owners within the PUD and all adjacent The applicant shall provide pre- property owners have received notice of this PUD addressed, stamped envelopes for Amendment; inclusive of the Eagle County Planning every property owner in the PUD, as Commission and Board of County Commissioner well as for all adjacent property Yes hearing dates and times. owners. The applicant shall also comply with Section 5-210.E. (am 3/12/02) Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan Standards Standard Conformance Discussion Unified Ownership or Control The owners of Frost Creek Properties and on The title to all land that is part of a PUD Yes behalf of the Frost Creek Master Owners' shall be owned or controlled by one(1) Association,provided a letter stating they had person. A person shall be considered to the authority to submit a PUD Amendment 32 12/13/2016 control all lands in the PUD either through Application. ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. For the purposes of amending a PUD, written consent by the governing Home Owner's Association or Property Owner's Association shall satisfy this standard. The Home Owner's Association, or Property Owner's Association,with a majority vote of its constituents,may also apply for a PUD amendment on behalf of all individual property owners of the land subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD to be amended. (am.05/08/12) Uses Staff and referral agencies are in support of the The uses that may be developed in the PUD proposed additional uses. Please see the full shall be those uses that are designated as discussion in the staff report. (See further uses that are allowed, allowed as a special discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3- Recommendation) 300, "Residential,Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3- yes 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. Dimensional Limitations Variations from dimensional limitations have The dimensional limitations that shall apply been proposed in accordance with the ECLUR's. to the PUD shall be those specified in Table Staff is amenable to the proposed variations. 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional (See further discussion under Section III—Staff Limitations", for the zone district designation Findings and Recommendation). in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these yes 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. Variations from dimensional limitations as well Yes,requires as from improvement standards for roads and Variations Authorized variation dual access. Staff supports all variations approval proposed. (See full discussion under Section III —Staff Findings and Recommendation). Off-street Parking and Loading The Applicant is representing that off-street Off-street parking and loading provided in parking and loading standards are being met. the PUD shall comply with the standards of Yes However, staff does have concerns regarding the Article 4,Division 1, Off-Street Parking and lack of parking being provided at the guest Loading Standards. cabins. The Applicant has addressed this concern by providing one(1)parking spot for 33 12/13/2016 • each guest cabin. (See further discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation) Landscaping The amended Preliminary Plans for landscaping Landscaping provided in the PUD shall indicate overall conformance with the comply with the standards of Article 4, requirements and recommendations of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination ECLUR's. (See further discussion under Section Standards. Variations from these standards III—Staff Findings and Recommendation). may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping Yes 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. Signs The PUD Guide contains signage restrictions The sign standards applicable to the PUD and requirements that meet or exceed the shall be as specified in Article 4,Division 3, standards of the ECLUR's. (See further Sign Regulations,unless, as provided in discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Recommendation). Planned Unit Development(PUD),the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan Yes 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. Adequate Facilities Public facilities in regards to roads have The applicant shall demonstrate that the been found to be inadequate to serve the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for proposed development. (See further PUD will be provided adequate facilities for discussion under Section III—Staff potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste No-Roads Findings and Recommendation). disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools,police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Improvements Variations from improvement standards for The improvements standards applicable to the Yes-Requires roads and dual access are requested. Staff development shall be as specified in Article 4, variation supports all variations proposed. (See full Division 6,Improvements Standards. approval discussion under Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation). Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The amended Preliminary Plan has been The PUD shall be generally compatible with the found to be incompatible with surrounding existing and currently permissible future uses of _ uses with the impact of traffic on existing adjacent land and other lands, services or NO infrastructure. (See full discussion under infrastructure improvements that may be Infrastructure Section III—Staff Findings and substantially impacted. (am.05/08/12) Recommendation). Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The amended Preliminary Plan has been The PUD shall be in substantial conformance with Mixed found to be generally consistent with a 34 12/13/2016 the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan,Area preponderance of the goals,policies, Community Plans, and any applicable ancillary objectives and implementation strategies of County adopted documents pertaining to natural the Eagle Area Community Plan., (See resource protection, affordable housing or discussion under Section III—Staff infrastructure management. (am.11/08/05) Findings and Recommendation). (am.05/08/12) Phasing There will be no phasing associated with The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a this PUD. phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases,then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary or N/A desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project as determined by the Board of County Commissioners in the Resolution of approval. (am.05/08/12) The PUD Amendment proposes adding an Common Recreation and Open Space additional 54.05 acres to the approximately The PUD shall comply with the following 262 acres already existing in the approved common recreation and open space standards [in Yes Final Plat. Approximately 59.4/o of the Section 5-240.F.3.e.12] project is considered open space. Therefore,the application meets the standards of the ECLUR's. Natural Resource Protection The proposal complies with prescriptive The PUD shall consider the recommendations stream setbacks from wetlands,high water made by the applicable analysis documents, as mark and floodplain of Brush Creek. (See well as the recommendations of referral agencies Yes discussion under Section III—Staff as specified in Article 4,Division 4,Natural Findings and Recommendation) Resource Protection Standards. II. BACKGROUND: History of the Adam's Rib PUD In 2003, a zone change was approved on the Adam's Rib property to go from Resource to PUD under Resolution No. 2003-047, for development of a private, gated, 18-hole, residential golf course community (inclusive of ancillary golf clubhouse and maintenance facility) with 60 single family lots and up to 30 accessory dwelling units (ADU's) on approximately 1,106.97 acre Frost Creek property and 21 additional single family residential lots on the 520.348 acre Salt Creek property. Then on September 28, 2004, an Amended PUD was filed with the County and approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2005 under Resolution No. 2005-016. Specifically,this amendment allowed for the following: • To relocate 20 of the previously approved 21 Salt Creek Single-Family Residential Lots to the Frost Creek property; • To include 16 additional Single-Family Residential Lots which had not received prior approval; • To encompass an existing home and property, located at 6902 Brush Creek Road, within the PUD boundary; • To utilize five of the previously approved 30 Accessory Dwelling Units as 'Guest Cottages'located near the clubhouse; 35 12/13/2016 • The addition of one Accessory Dwelling Unit designated specifically for the one Single-Family Residential Lot to remain on the Salt Creek property. Development of this single family residence and accessory dwelling unit is subject to subsequent Special Use Permit review and approval prior to any building permits being issued; • To allow an Equestrian Facility, Shooting Club and Training Center on the Salt Creek property. These amenities are subject to subsequent Special Use Permit review and approval prior to any building permits being issued. The application in 2004, stated that these proposed alterations were necessary and would be beneficial in order to protect the riparian and wetland areas on the Salt Creek property and to avoid potential high water table,rock fall, slope stability, debris flow and sediment yield hazards associated with the Salt Creek property. The layout in 2004 on the Frost Creek property utilized the same roadway configuration originally established by filling in the open space between already approved lots with the 20 relocated lots and 16 newly proposed lots.The only notable differences included a new private road in the northwest corner of the Frost Creek property and a new, longer road alignment to serve several of the relocated/new residential lots located in the northernmost portion of the site. The relocated/new residential lots in the 2004 PUD Amendment were situated so as to not encroach onto or into the hillsides,riparian areas and wetlands open space found on the Frost Creek property.Lots at that time ranged in size from 3.674 acres to 9.862 acres in area with one acre building envelopes. The golf course was also modified in the 2004 PUD Amendment to accommodate the additional residential density on Frost Creek.All other governing standards in the 2004 PUD Amendment carried forward and remained unchanged. Then in 2008, a Special Use Permit was approved,under Resolution No. 2008-100, on the Salt Creek portion of the PUD allowing for the following improvements: • Indoor arena and associated stables, including accommodations for up to four(4) employees; • Outdoor arena; • One manager residence; • One single family residence(square feet of structure limited to 7000) and limited to a maximum of nine(9) acres-no accessory dwelling unit allowed; III. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Eagle County Planning Commission and staff are recommending denial of this application,based on a finding that the proposed PUD Amendment application cannot meet all applicable standards for an Amendment of a Planned Unit Development. Along with a description of how and why staff believes certain standards required for a PUD Amendment 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. Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Standards Per the ECLUR's,"No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County,following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 2467104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes that; (am 3/12/02) 36 12/13/2016 (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (am 3/12/02) Staff believes the proposed PUD Amendment, is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development since the proposed increase in density does not alter the uses of the PUD. The PUD is still maintaining the proposed use of a private, golf course, and resort development with residential units. (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not affect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or the public interest; (am 3/12/02) It is staff's opinion that the proposed PUD Amendment will affect,in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting,upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or the public interest because of the impacts of traffic on Brush Creek Road and the substandard nature of the road. Staff has determined that Brush Creek Road is not adequate for the current traffic usage when considering the existing condition of the road. This proposal will add more vehicle trips in addition to the trips yet to be realized from existing development approvals and typical background growth. Therefore this impact would affect adjacent land and property owners in a substantially adverse manner. (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. (am 3/12/02) The PUD Amendment would not confer a special benefit upon any(single)person due to the fact the lots within the PUD are under multiple owners and the majority of the property within the PUD has not been developed yet. (4) Amendment. Amendment of a Preliminary Plan for PUD shall not have the effect of extending the vesting period absent a specific finding and declaration to that effect. (am.05/08/12) The proposed PUD Amendment will not have the effect of extending the vesting period,because the existing PUD has already started the development process and Final Plats have been approved on the existing lots.The PUD Amendment, if approved,does not reset the vesting period. If the PUD Amendment is approved against the recommendation of staff and the Eagle County Planning Commission,the Applicant will be required to provide a Final Plat for the newly created and amended lots and development areas in the PUD. (5) Standards. PUD Amendments shall address the standards Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.e. Applicant shall also provide a copy of the PUD Guide clearly demonstrating what amendments are to be made. (am 3/12/02) This finding is stating the Preliminary Plan for PUD may be amended, extended,varied or altered only pursuant to the standards and procedures established for its original approval. Evaluation of the PUD standards set forth in Section 5-240.F.3.e, is provided below in this report. (6) Notification. The applicant shall provide pre-addressed, stamped envelopes for every property owner in the PUD, as well as for all adjacent property owners. The applicant shall also comply with Section 5- 210.E. (am 3/12/02) All property owners within the PUD and all adjacent property owners have received notice of this PUD Amendment; inclusive of the Eagle County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearing dates and times. 37 12/13/2016 Preliminary Plan Standards As stated in the ECLUR's, "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 ofperformance 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; 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." Staff Response: Please see staff's response to these standards throughout the report. 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 BCP-ARR, LLC.The owners of Frost Creek Properties and on behalf of the Frost Creek Master Owners' Association,provided a letter stating they had the authority to submit a PUD Amendment Application. 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 ECLUR's.This application proposes an additional 45 homes and 15 guest cabins within an existing PUD. The Applicant is also proposing the additional use of childcare as a Use By Right in the Commercial Space of the PUD Guide. Staff is in support of the proposed new use in the Commercial Space. 38 12/13/2016 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: Conforms Variations from dimensional limitations have been proposed in accordance with the ECLUR's. Staff is amenable to the proposed variations. STANDARD: Variations Authorized[Section 5-240.F.3.£]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 (1)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. (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. (I) 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: Conforms with Variation Approval Under the standard, Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards, the following comments were provided by Colorado Department of Public Health: The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)has the following comments on the Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD Referral.These comments were provided by Kent Kuster, an Environmental Specialist with CDPHE: "In Colorado, land development construction activities(earth moving) that are greater than 25 acres or more than six months in duration require an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN)from the Air Pollution Control Division and may be required to obtain an air permit depending on estimated emissions. In addition, a start-up notice must be submitted thirty days prior to beginning a land development project. In addition, we recommend that the applicant comply with all state and federal environmental rules and 39 12/13/2016 regulations. This may require obtaining a permit for certain regulated activities before emitting or discharging a pollutant into the air or water, dispose of hazardous waste or engaging in certain regulated activities." Applicant Response: "The applicant will continue to work with Eagle County on this unique water quality monitoring program and other conservation measures necessary to maintain the water quality standards into the future." 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 committed that off street parking and loading standards will be met.No design demonstrating the parking for the lots has been provided.The Applicant has amended the application to include one parking spot for each guest cabin. 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 Preliminary Plans for landscaping indicate overall conformance with the requirements and recommendations of Article 4, ECLUR's. For an outline of the Landscaping Standards,please review the proposed PUD Guide. 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 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 For an outline of the Sign Standards,please review the proposed PUD Guide. 40 12/13/2016 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: Non-Conformance—Roads Substandard Public facilities in regards to roads have been found to be inadequate to serve the proposed development. Also,the Applicant has a water service agreement with the Town of Eagle being signed December 13th regarding water service and road impact fees which would be in addition to those required by Eagle County. Roadway-Brush Creek Road This development is served by Brush Creek Road which is defined as a Rural Major Collector.From a traffic count taken in June of 2016,the average daily traffic on Brush Creek Road was 1,288 vehicles per day. The road currently consists of an average road width between 21-feet and 22-feet which equates to two (2) lanes of 10.5-feet to 11-feet in width. There are no shoulders along the roadway from Sylvan Lake Road to Salt Creek Road which is staff's greatest concern. The County Standard for a Rural Major Collector with that volume of traffic would be two(2), 11-foot lanes with 5-foot shoulders on each side. The design speed for such a roadway should be 50 MPH as opposed to the posted speed of 40 MPH. Also per standard,when the traffic volume reaches 1,350 vehicles per day,the road should be widened to 12-foot lanes, 6-foot shoulders, and a design speed of 60 MPH. Due to seasonal and yearly fluctuations, we have seen traffic volumes exceed that level in the past. Using an average growth rate observed from historical counts for Brush Creek Road of 3%,the traffic volume will exceed 1,350 vehicles per day by 2018. These standards are similar to the standards provided in the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (the Green Book). The Green Book would recommend a similar road have 6-foot shoulders, a design speed of 50 MPH, and two(2), 11-foot lanes until the traffic level reaches 2000 vehicles per day. The Green Book recommends upping the lane width to 12-feet when the traffic volume reaches 2,000 vehicles per day. For this development, it is difficult to separate the traffic impact of the previously approved development from the proposed amendment,but we will try to provide some perspective. As currently approved,Frost Creek is anticipated to generate 1,800 vehicle trips on a weekday. As described in the application,there are currently 6 residences in Frost Creek, one under construction, and the golf course and clubhouse membership is about 27%of the total anticipated. That equates to about 254 daily trips from the existing development which means an additional 1,546 trips can be anticipated at full buildout. This proposal is anticipated to add 475 vehicle trips per day to Brush Creek Road. Without considering any background growth in traffic,the total of the existing not already realized and the amended Frost Creek development combined will be 2,021 trips per day. When added to the current traffic,that is 3,309 trips per day, but remember that doesn't include background growth from other areas along Brush Creek Road so the traffic volume would likely be higher. Which means the existing traffic more than doubles solely with the combination of traffic already approved for Frost Creek and the traffic associated with this proposal, and the concerns about the deficiency of Brush Creek Road are exacerbated. Dating to 1996, CDOT began implementation of a Statewide Plan which included a policy to encourage the consideration of bicycle access along state roadways. This policy was enacted to encourage the addition of shoulders along roadways in order to improve the safety for the motoring public and bicyclists. In addition to improving the safety of a roadway, shoulders have also been found to increase capacity by allowing space for a cyclist to travel without impeding the flow of vehicular traffic. Because of the narrow road width without shoulders,the ability of a driver to stay on the road or return to the road if they drift off the edge of the travelled way is limited. This has been observed by County Road and Bridge crews, 41 12/13/2016 especially in wintery conditions necessitating assistance to pull cars back onto the roadway. The narrow road is also a concern for emergency responders requiring them to slow when passing vehicles because there is no space for a vehicle to pull over without leaving the roadway. This route is increasingly used by cyclists as a popular ride and is identified in the ECO Trails Regional Trails Plan as a priority for widened shoulders and/or a separated trail along with Share the Road signage. This same recommendation has also been made by the Trustees and Manager for the Town of Eagle. As part of this review,accident data was also considered along this stretch of roadway. Since 2012,there have been 20 accidents reported to Vail Public Safety Communications Center, and 5 of those were classified as rollovers. Specific causes of the accidents were not determined from the research, and there could be a number of causes for the accidents reported including speed,road design, alcohol,road conditions and distracted driving. With these considerations,County staff does not believe adequate facilities exist for this development and recommend denial of this application. Applicant Response: "The entirety of Brush Creek road was overlaid with the original Frost Creek approval, after the major infrastructure of Adam's Rib was completed. This project included approximately 6 miles of paving from the intersection with Sylvan Lake Road to the southern access to the Frost Creek property. This exaction was in addition to the provision of road impact fees that Eagle County receives for every home constructed at Frost Creek. Since Brush Creek Road was repaved, there has been very little impact attributed to Frost Creek as only 6 homes sites were developed. Any degradation of the roadway is likely from traffic related to other developed properties and Sylvan Lake State Park The road impacts fees are intended to be used for roadway improvements based on impacts. The County is responsible for maintaining Brush Creek Road which has been more than mitigated by the current and former owners. Town of Eagle- Road Impacts,Bike Path and Water Service The proposed increase of density in the PUD Guide impacts the Town of Eagle since all traffic for this development will be going through the Town.The Town is requesting the payment of road impact fees in the Water Service Agreement. Specifically,the following comments were provided by Kevin Sharkey,Assistant Town Engineer, "...the Town requests that Eagle County require the payment of a traffic impact fee to the Town of Eagle at the time of approval of the Final Plat. Computation of such fee would be based on the formula provided in Section 4.13.185 of the Town of Eagle Land Use and Development Code. Traffic from the development will have direct impacts on Sylvan Lake Road, Capitol Street, and Highway 6(Grand Avenue). We believe collecting Traffic Impact fees for the Town of Eagle is a fair and reasonable way to mitigate the traffic impacts in the Town of Eagle. As discussed in the Town's referral letter from Tom Boni, dated February 19, 2016, the Town is working with the Frost Creek Developer on amending the Water Service Agreements (WSA)for the Frost Creek and Brush Creek Properties. The original WSA's included provisions for the construction of a bike path along Brush Creek Road. The Town would like to see the bike path constructed as envisioned in the original WSA's. Biking is increasingly popular up and down the Brush Creek Valley, and we believe the bike path will benefit both the public and residents and visitors to the Frost Creek PUD. Furthermore, by providing cyclists with an alternative path, the number of bicycle and vehicle conflicts on Brush Creek Road would be reduced." Applicant Response: "The current annexation and water service agreement with the Town requires that when the Upper and Lower Ranch properties are developed they include a bike path connection. The applicant is agreeable to maintaining this requirement and has worked with the Town to maintain this provision in the agreement. The Town is in agreement with this provision. We support the Town's desire for traffic impact fees. Since any impacts from traffic from this project, however slight, are realized on streets within the Town, we believe the Town and Eagle County should enter into an agreement on how the impact fees from this project are spent and where. There is no justification for assessing one development project with compounded impact fees." 42 12/13/2016 The Town anticipates the(WSA)will be approved by December 13th.The Applicant provided a draft of the agreement. Eagle County cannot collect road impact fees for the Town of Eagle,however,the Town is negotiating this payment through the WSA. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District The Greater Eagle Fire Protection District had concerns regarding the wildland fire and urban interface of this project.The Fire District has asked that the following items be addressed if construction begins on the project: • "All homes that have a gross square footage of 3,000 square feet(Including garage)will be required to have a residential fire suppression system. • All residential fire suppression systems will be designed, engineered, Installed, and tested under NFPA 13D. • All residential fire suppression systems will include a water flow switch that will notify the fire district in the event of a water flow. • All residential fire suppression systems will have a tamper switch that will notes the fire district if the • water supply for the fire suppression system has been shut off. • All homes that have a residential fire suppression system installed will have a fire department connection (FDC) that will allow responding personnel to supplement the water supply of the fire suppression system. • All homes that are equipped with a residential fire suppression system will have a horn/strobe installed above the fire department connection (FDC). • All homes that are equipped with a residential fire suppression system will have a Knox Box(fire department access box) installed that will allow responding personnel to access the residence. This is to limit the amount of damage done in the event of activation of the fire suppression system from responding crews having to enter the structure to shut down an active suppression system. All of the above listed requirements are in place currently within the Frost Creek project with the exception of the square footage parameters. These requirements are to ensure that you,your potential property owners, and the fire district are safe and property is protected against the threat offire." Applicant Response: "The applicant has been working with the District on modifications to the PUD Guide in order to secure their support for the project. Provisions we added to the PUD to require that homes in excess of 3,600 sq.ft. (lots unaffected by the proposed amendment)contain a fire suppression system and homes development in the amended areas of 3,000 sq.ft. or greater contain a fire suppression system. We are now in agreement with the District and have provided language that has satisfied their concerns. The District is in support of the proposed PUD amendment." Additional Comments from GEFPD:In a letter dated June 27, the following comments were provided: The Greater Eagle Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed Frost Creek PUD amendments. The district feels the following recommendations are acceptable after reviewing code requirements of the International Fire Code 2009 ed.: 1. Brue Lane—The district feels this roadway serves a limited number of homes and does not require secondary means of access. 2. Red Bluffs Way—The district feels that with the road width in place, the added width of the cart path next to the road, and the number offire hydrants that are in excess of what is required by code, that a secondary means of access is not required for this roadway. 3. Hunters View Way—The district feels that this road would need a secondary means of access. The secondary means of access can be restricted to emergency use only and shall meet the following requirements. a. The emergency access roadway must met the requirement of the International Fire Code 2009 ed., Chapter 5, Section 503 and Appendix D 43 12/13/2016 b. The emergency access must be paved and maintained year round c. The emergency access may be secured to prevent daily traffic but must be able to be opened and be left opened by responding personnel. The Greater Eagle Fire Protection District is in full support of this project and the future growth of the Frost Creek Development. We look forward to working with you and supporting the project in any way we are able. Wildfire According to Eric Lovgren,the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, "The overall wildfire hazard rating for the areas in question is LOW to MODERATE, depending on location. These ratings are based on fuel types present, topography, slope, access, water supply and existing and proposed improvements. Several concerns arose related to housing density and the structural ignitability of new homes built in the above mentioned areas. The applicant's representatives took the time to meet with me to address these concerns on January 13, 2016. Several strategies were discussed during this meeting to mitigate wildfire loss within Frost Creek. The applicant has addressed my initial concerns by calling for elevated levels of ignition resistant building design, and defensible space throughout the PUD. Specifically, they have agreed to: • Require Class-A roof assemblies for all new construction in the Frost Creek PUD • Provide a 3 foot, non-combustible apron (i.e. rock or stone)surrounding homes on Hunters Way and Red Bluffs Way • Adhere to additional wildfire mitigation requirements related to the creation of defensible space and use of ignition resistant construction when applying for building permits (per Eagle County Wildfire Regulations and Building Resolution) It is my opinion that the proposed amendments adhere to my recommendations. These additional conditions would be a requirement of building permit approval for any new construction within the Frost Creek PUD." Applicant Response: The applicant worked closely with Eric Lovgren to develop a set of standards for each of the amended areas to mitigate for the potential for wildfire. The language agreeable to Eric has been included in the PUD Guide. The Applicant has agreed to these additional levels of protection for any new construction in the PUD Guide. 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 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. 44 12/13/2016 (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. Staff Response: Conforms with Variation Approval As discussed elsewhere in the staff report,Brush Creek Road is not currently constructed to Eagle County standards. Applicant Response: "The entirety of Brush Creek road was overlaid with the original Frost Creek approval, after the major infrastructure of Adam's Rib was completed. This project included approximately 6 miles of paving from the intersection with Sylvan Lake Road to the southern access to the Frost Creek property. This exaction was in addition to the provision of road impact fees that Eagle County receives every home constructed at Frost Creek Since Brush Creek Road was repaved, there has been very little impact attributed to Frost Creek as only 6 homes sites were developed. Any degradation of the roadway is likely from traffic related to other developed properties and Sylvan Lake State Park The road impacts fees are intended to be used for roadway improvements based on impacts. The County is responsible for maintaining Brush Creek Road which has been more than mitigated by the current and former owners. • Frost Creek PUD Variation Summary Variance ECLUR Street Applicant Comment Eagle County Comments Standard Road Geometry Due to the rural setting and distance Not applicable because of from emergency service providers, Urban Cul-de-Sac Urban Cul-de-sac is not an appropriate Road ends in cul- Dual Access Brue classification and classification.However,Brue Lane only de-sac Lane contains 5 lots, does have domestic domestic water system water, and is supported by the Fire within the subdivision. District.With these considerations,staff accepts this variation request. Again,due to the rural setting and distance from emergency service providers Urban Cul-de-Sac is not an Not applicable because of appropriate classification.The length of Red Urban Cul-de-Sac Red Bluffs Lane is 2200 LF with 17 lots Road ends in cul- Dual Access Bluffs classification and which,in combination exceed the de-sac allowance for an Urban Cul-de-sac. Lane domestic water system However,the Fire District has reviewed within the subdivision. and approved of the plan for Red Bluffs Lane. Following discussion with the applicant and Fire District,staff accepts this variation request. K Value of 2.5 K=20 for 20 Brue Since the intersection will While vehicles exiting Brue Lane will be for sag curve MPH sag Lane be controlled by a stop traveling at a slow rate,vehicles entering 45 12/13/2016 transitioning to curves sign, vehicles will be will be traveling at higher speeds and the Brue Lane from traveling below the vertical curve may feel abrupt and Squires Lane required design speed of uncomfortable.This does not pose a 20 MPH as the approach significant safety concern,and staff the intersection from all accepts this variation request. directions. Since this intersection will 50'Vertical be controlled by a stop Curve length to sign, vehicles will be Vertical Curve Brue traveling below the See request#3 above for reduced K Length of 25' transition to Lane required design speed of Value. side street from 20 MPH as they approach intersection the intersection from all directions. 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: Non Conformance-Infrastructure 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: Mixed The project was reviewed against the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Eagle 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 In Policy 3.2.6.j. it states, "Development should be fully responsible for the mitigation of development related impacts upon both the natural and built environment." Staff has determined that Brush Creek Road is not adequate for the current traffic usage when considering the existing condition of the road and it could not support the additional density/traffic proposed by the applicant Brush Creek Road in its current condition is a substandard road and would require significant improvement to meet 46 12/13/2016 the County Standards. As such, staff determined the appropriate recommendation is denial of the PUD Amendment because of the inadequacy of Brush Creek Road. Economic Resources Policies Policy 3.3.9.c, states, "Those qualities that make Eagle County a world class tourist destination and a great place to live should be identified,promoted and protected."One of the strategies to accomplish this policy is to, "Advance year-round, multi faceted tourism opportunities to broaden the economy and benefit the residents."With the integration of the Adam's Rib Country Club, now named Frost Creek Country Club, for recreation,this policy is supported. Housing Affordable housing for local residents is one of the biggest issues facing Eagle County. Policy 3.4.7.j, states, "Land use planning objectives should promote an appropriate amount of workforce housing."With the Applicant meeting the Eagle County Housing Guidelines,this policy is being met by the project. Infrastructure and Services Trails Ellie Caryl, Trails manager with ECO Trails provided the following comments in regards to the trail allow Brush Creek, "Citizens have noted lack of maintenance of the Frost Creek paved trail, including gravel, mud, a muddy disconnect back to Brush Creek, vegetation hindering safe sight distance. I have in the past reported these issues to owner. I suggest any new conditions, if transfer approved, include a more specific commitment to regular maintenance of Frost Creek and Salt Creek including: 1. Monthly trail sweeping, March through November 2. Monthly vegetation control including weed removal, mowing, cutting and trimming particularly at safe site distance locations(e.g. crossing of Brush Creek Road from Frost Creek Trail to Salt Creek Trail) 3. Repairs to asphalt due to cracking or heaving 4. Trash removal 5. Repair and replacement of all trail features 6. Snowplowing, in season 7. Inspections Monthly 8. Install short asphalt connection back to Brush Creek Road from Frost Creek-apparently this ends at a gravel road with poor drainage. Install to County specifications. 9. Could you please ask applicant to provide a confirmation that the Salt Creek, Frost Creek and Trail Gulch improvements were completed to plan?I was not an inspector on the finished product and have only reviewed Frost Creek section." Applicant Response: "The original developer constructed more than 3 miles of separated bicycle path along Brush Creek Road and within the Salt Creek development area. The staff has requested that the applicant provide a paved path from the point where the northern end of the path runs through Salt Creek ends at County Road 8A. The ending point of the path as constructed was a logical ending point for the path and the applicant's responsibility. It coincides with the end on the Salt Creek property upon a County roadway. County Road 8A appears to be an unmaintained road that may cross other privately held properties. The applicant believes it would be more suitable for the County to maintain this existing roadway to allow for a reasonable connection back to Brush Creek Road(with signage and road crossing) rather than requiring the applicant to provide this connection potentially across private property." By installing the bike/walking trail along Brush Creek Road,the project would address,Policy 3.5.6.a, `Developed areas in Eagle County should be served by multiple modes of transportation."Also,Policy 3.5.6.d states, "Bike paths should be safe, well designed, well maintained and appropriately connected within and between communities." 47 12/13/2016 Water Resources In Policy 3.6.7.f. Addressing water quality, specifically,the policy states, "Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable standards."The project already has water monitoring system as outlined below in the referral letter from the Eagle River Watershed Council. Eagle River Watershed Council According to Holly Loff,the Executive Director of the Eagle River Watershed Council, "Generally, the Watershed Council staff found no concerns with the application. The Applicant references the existing water quality monitoring network and sampling and analysis plan implemented annually in the PUD in coordination with Eagle County. The Watershed Council appreciates the Applicant's continued commitment to assessing the impact of development activities on local surface and groundwater quality. Nonetheless, the County should work with the Applicant to revisit specific details of the water quality monitoring program to ensure that the sampling locations, parameter lists, and sampling frequency are sufficient and likely to capture any water quality changes associated with the amended development plan. Eagle River Watershed Council is available to work with County staff and the Applicant in this regard." Applicant Response: "The applicant will continue to work with Eagle County on this unique water quality monitoring program and other conservation measures necessary to maintain the water quality standards into the future." Wildlife Perry Will with Colorado Parks and Wildlife had significant comments regarding the expansion of density within the PUD. "The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW)appreciate the opportunity to review and provide recommendations and comments on this proposal. The proposal requests an increase in density of homes from 98 to 142, a 44%increase and guest cabins from 5 to 20, a 300%increase. This increase in numbers of units will have a direct, on ground impact with increased disturbance to wildlife habitat. More impactful disturbances to wildlife will occur with the associated increase in human habitation and activity on the PUD and adjacent federal lands with the increase in homes and cabins being proposed, the indirect impacts. The application offers few management or mitigation strategies to offset or minimize disturbance to wildlife or wildlife habitat from either the direct or indirect influences. This proposal is designated to occur partially within and adjacent to deer and elk winter range. The area also encompasses wetlands and riparian area habitat types. This habitat type supports a greater diversity and number of wildlife species than any other habitat type found in Colorado. Both deer and elk use the native hillsides adjacent to the area designated for increased density. Hillsides and low bench areas adjacent to the proposal are recommended to be left in a native vegetative state. The deer and elk use the hillside for feeding, resting and thermal cover. These hillsides also are areas that produce large mast crops, berries and acorns that black bears will use and seek out. The protection and enhancement of the existing riparian/wetland areas will provide for a diversity of wildlife species including birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The existing fishery would also benefit from this type of management. The creation of more designated open space in and around this habitat type may or may not be beneficial to wildlife. This will depend on how the open space is managed and what uses are or are not allowed. Open space that receives high human use has a relatively low value to wildlife. Current PUD guidelines, setbacks from riparian and wetland areas, and designations by other regulatory agencies already protect this habitat, so the mitigation of more open space in and along riparian and wetlands areas that is being offered already probably exists." 48 12/13/2016 Mr.Perry goes on to say that the proposal does not appear to meet the intent of Wildlife Habitat in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan.However,this area is designated as PUD in the Eagle Area Community Plan which states that uses within these areas are dictated by the PUD Guide.Mr.Perry went on to offer suggestions to mitigate the proposal should it be approved, "Strategies that would help offset the increase in human activity and loss of habitat in the area include: Seasonal use restrictions in and around sensitive habitats need to be implemented. The use of important seasonal habitats by humans can create a negative impact to wildlife. Areas that require seasonal closures to human activity include winter range, migration corridors,production areas, nesting areas or other critical habitats. Regulating or restricting access to the adjacent federal lands becomes paramount during critical time periods, winter. Active signage and enforcement of these closures is critical and must be assumed by the HOA. • Winter range closures should be closed to human activity from December 1 until April 30. • Riparian and wetland areas should be closed to human activity from March 1 to July 1 for the breeding, nesting, and rearing of the wildlife species associated with this habitat. In addition, new management of the PUD has an opportunity to implement a mitigation strategy that will provide for enhancement projects in perpetuity. A Wildlife Mitigation Fund could be established and managed on a cooperative basis by the developers, the HOA, interested homeowners and the CPW. This fund would then be managed, with money staying under the developer's control and being stipulated specifically for wildlife projects. These projects could be diverse including projects for improving upland habitat, riparian and wetlands, or the fishery. Current models exist with Eagle Ranch being the prototype that has generated over$1 million dollars and has reinvested this money into wildlife projects and enhancements for the PUD. Originally, mitigation monies around$13,000 were paid for the treatment of adjacent habitat on federal lands for mitigation for the proposed direct impacts, actual acreage impacted. This amount was determined from an accepted formula based on habitat. This money was only enough for a single treatment. The impacts from the original PUD and this project will continue into perpetuity. Negative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat have not been fully mitigated and a mitigation strategy has not been proposed. Eagle County's Comprehensive Plan designates that full mitigation of potential impacts be addressed. The proposal with increase in density of homes and the associated human activity will exacerbate these impacts. The potential exists for this proposal to benefit local wildlife and wildlife habitat with new management strategies. Without the creation and adoption of new strategies to offset impacts, local wildlife populations will be impacted by this proposal." Applicant Response: "We have communicated with CPW after receiving its comments. We made CPW aware of the existing language within the PUD Guide that addresses seasonal closures as well as the areas already mapped as open space areas. Craig Wescoatt has indicated to us that the current provisions of the PUD Guide address his concern. CPW has also indicated a desire to see a transfer fee established within the PUD Guide that would provide funds to the HOA to be expended on wildlife enhancements within the PUD. A similar requirement exists within the Eagle Ranch PUD at a rate of 0.2%on the sales price of a home during a transfer of ownership. The applicant is agreeable to adding a wildlife mitigation transfer fee of 0.2%on the sales price of any property transfer within Frost Creek. This money would be set up in an account with the HOA to be used for projects that benefit or enhance wildlife habitat including, but not limited to, water quality improvements, appropriate vegetation management in open space and wetland areas,fisheries improvements, wildlife enhancements, stream enhancements, and open space acquisitions. The funds may be used onsite or within five miles of the Frost Creek PUD. The expenditure of these funds shall be made by the Executive Committee of the HOA, consistent with the PUD Guide and its intent to mitigate impacts to wildlife, and with the advice of the CPW." 49 12/13/2016 For further clarification on the preferences of CPW, Craig Wescoatt, in an email on June 10, 2016, stated, "Best case scenario ffor wildlife]is long term habitat improvements on the property and/or adjacent federal lands, hence the wildlife mitigation fee being collected off sold properties and then managed specifically for projects on the property by a board of homeowners and possibly a CPW person in an advisory capacity." 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 PUD area.The State of Colorado Geologic Survey did not provide comments for the Application. Eagle Area Community Plan The Eagle Area Community Plan lists Frost Creek as Planned Unit Development.According to the Future Land Use Map description,"Future changes to existing PUD's in unincorporated areas should satisfactorily addresses all standards established through the County's PUD Amendment process."However,according to the Character Area summary, it is intended that any future development of any significance within this Character Area be located within the Town's established Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed PUD amendment does not occur within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. 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. 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. (0 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 50 12/13/2016 The Open Space consists of an additional 54.05 acres to the approximately 262 acres already existing in the approved Final Plat.Therefore,the application meets the standards of the ECLUR's.The existing Home Owners Association is responsible for the maintenance and preservation of the open space within the PUD. 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. Staff Response: Conforms While the proposal complies with prescriptive setbacks from high water mark and floodplain of Brush Creek,Lots 40-45 impact wetland and riparian areas. Impacts to Wetlands The ECLUR's contain the following language in Section 3-340.C.6 regarding stream setbacks,wetlands, and riparian areas: Stream Setbacks and Water Resource Protection. For the purpose of protecting water resources, including wetlands and riparian areas, the following shall be observed in all zone districts: a 75 foot strip of land measured horizontally from the high water mark on each side of any stream, or the 100 year floodplain, whichever provides the greater separation from the stream, shall be protected in its natural state. No grading or removal of vegetation may occur within the stream setback. If necessary to protect the stream, wetlands, or riparian areas, additional width may be required. PUD zoned areas shall also comply with this standard unless either granted a Variance by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or a variation has been granted by the Board of County Commissioners. There shall be no projections into either a 100 year floodplain or stream setback. The additional lots in the Hunters View Lane area have been reduced by two lots and revised to avoid wetlands near Brush Creek. Due to the environmental quality and value to wildlife,this area along Brush Creek warrants preservation through setbacks,reduction of uses, limits of impact,and/or seasonal access closures as recommended in the CPW referral letter referenced on page 26 above. Brush Creek is within the Eagle River watershed as a direct tributary to the Eagle River. The 2013 Eagle River Watershed Plan lists the following strategy to support water quality under Objective 3.1 of the plan which is to "Reduce or eliminate impacts to water quality in aquifers, rivers, streams and lakes from existing land use and future growth:" 3. Draft and implement a watershed strategy to manage,protect and restore riparian corridors and natural buffer areas as growth occurs. Enforce adequate setbacks from streams, wetlands and riparian habitats within which disturbances should be minimized. Support efforts to develop and incorporate model standards for the protection of stream and river corridors in the Eagle River watershed. The proposed new lots in the Hunters View Lane area are near riparian and wetland areas along Brush Creek. To support the intent of preservation of these areas to enhance water quality, aquatic life, and wildlife habitat corridors as articulated in the Eagle River Watershed Plan, Eagle Area Community Plan,the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan,the applicant has agreed to eliminate two of the originally proposed lots, apply building envelope restrictions, and reconfigure access to avoid wetland impacts.. While best practices would support greater buffer areas and avoidance of this area for development,the proposal is in alignment with the stream setback regulations to protect aquatic life,riparian buffers, and wildlife migration corridors. Army Corp of Engineers 51 12/13/2016 According to Matt Montgomery,the Senior Project Manager for the Army Corp of Engineers, "The Corps of Engineers'jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers,perennial or intermittent streams, lakes,ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation, in accordance with the 'Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations"and "Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program"under "Jurisdiction"on our website at the address below, and submit it to this office for verification. A list of consultants that prepare wetland delineations and permit application documents is also available on our website at the same location. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation." The Applicant hired a consultant,Daiva Katieb,with Watershed Environmental Consultants,Inc.in response to the Army Corp of Engineers comments. According to an email response dated,March 16, 2016,Watershed Environmental Consultants, "...conducted a wetland delineation of the four development areas(Southern Parcels, Red Bluffs Way, Hunter Way, Squires Lane) in accordance with the USACE standards. All impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. have been avoided with one potential exception for a single driveway access in the Hunters Way area (between proposed Lots 42 and 43). No engineered details for this driveway access are available at this time for review. If the driveway can be accommodated without impacting wetlands, such as in the case of a span, no 404 permit is required for the project. If impacts to wetlands are anticipated, a 404 permit will be obtained prior to construction." 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. OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARD(S)FOR PUD 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 modification to the commercial 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.Per Sandra Mutchler,the Chief Financial Officer of the Eagle County School District,the Applicant is required to pay school land dedication fees based on the increase of the number of units being proposed. Specifically,Ms.Mutchler's comments are, "Page 28 of the applicant's submittal addresses schools and states that `In addition, the project paid$22,502.56 in school land dedication fees in 2005. No additional payment is required by state statute". The District does not agree with this conclusion. The proposed amendments would result in a net increase of 44 lots. This "re platting"situation is addressed by Section 4-700 D. of the Eagle County Development Standards. Based on this section it is the District's opinion that addition school land dedication is required. The District requests a cash-in- lieu of land dedication based on the provisions of 4-700 C. 52 12/13/2016 Page 30 of the applicant's submittal mentions the possibility of guest cabins being converted to residential dwelling units. The District would appreciate more information on this aspect of the project, specifically how guest cabin that may be converted to a residential dwelling unit could be used. If for example, this conversion meant the units could be occupied by permanent residents, it is the District's opinion that a school dedication should be applied to these units. Applicant Response: "The applicant will comply with Eagle County regulations related to school site dedication fees at Final Plat." The amount of units has increased from 44 to 45 since the referral letter was sent to the ECSD, additional fees may be required for the additional lot. Should the PUD Amendment get approved,the Applicant will be required to pay these fees prior to the Final Plat being approved. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; The Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and the Eagle County School District were sent a referral and these agencies provided comments as outlined in other sections of the staff report. All their comments have been addressed. A referral was provided to Sheriff's Office and no response was provided. Staff is assuming that there are no issues with the proposed PUD Application from the Sheriffs perspective. However,the impact on County Services, including Brush Creek Road has been identified elsewhere in this staff report. (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 standard was not addressed in the application nor was it requested by staff. (1) Conceptual site plans,and conceptual architectural plans.A detailed site plan, landscape plans, and circulation plans have been provided. Conceptual architectural plans were not provided by the Applicant. (g) Proposed method of fire protection.Including information demonstrating a legal,adequate water supply for firefighting purposes.Please see previous comments in regards to Greater Eagle Fire Protection District comments. (h) Employee housing plan. According to Tori Franks, a Research Specialist in the Housing Department, "the applicant has included an Affordable Housing Plan within its updated PUD Guide, which is acceptable. The developer has indicated he/she will provide 11 affordable housing units or will purchase 11 affordable housing credits. I agree with the lnclusionary Housing calculation of II affordable housing units. If the developer intends to provide 11 affordable housing units, the Housing Plan should detail the affordable housing unit type, estimated number of bedrooms, initial sales price, proposed location, etc. The Housing Plan should include if the 15 new guest cabins are to be converted to residential use the conversion of those units through a PUD amendment would trigger compliance with the Guidelines. At that time, the developer would be required to provide 25%of the guest cabins, 3.75 units as affordable housing.Additionally the Housing Plan needs to include a timeline by which the developer agrees to provide the affordable housing units or purchase affordable housing credits." Applicant Response: "The Housing Department's analysis was based upon 44 net new lots/units. With the proposed conversion of Lot 50 to three single-family lots instead of guest cabins, the new net increase is 47 units. This will generate the need for 11.75 units of workforce housing. The applicant has modified the plan to provide for 12 units rather than the previous 11." Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the proposal does address a preponderance of applicable master plan goals,policies and strategies.However, staff believes the proposal cannot meet all required standards and findings necessary for the approval of the PUD Amendment due to inadequate infrastructure. 53 12/13/2016 Based upon a thorough analysis of the Amendment to a Preliminary Plan for a Planned Unit Development Standards by County staff and key external agencies, and taking into consideration the project's non-conformance with the standard of adequate facilities standard, staff is recommending denial of the request. Planning Commission Recommendation: Unanimous Denial Planning Commission Questions: Commissioner Moffet: The HOA will manage the wetland/riparian/open spaces,including within platted lots? How do we know the HOA has the financial capacity to make repairs and necessary corrections if the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan so requires? Applicant Response: The HOA is responsible. If necessary the HOA will pursue the individual property owner as a civil matter. The OWTS designs already require robust denitrification treatment capability. Also, all OWTS systems in the development are connected to a centralized, alarm monitoring system Commissioner Moffet: What is the Housing Fee in Lieu going to be? Applicant Response: Intending to acquire Housing Credits from Fox Hollow in Edwards. Have discussed with the Housing Department and they concur. Public Testimony: Chris Adams: Wrote letter. Traffic is his issue. Owned in Brush Creek Valley since 1991. Traffic is already ridiculous. The traffic study doesn't factor in 400+golf memberships. Households will have 3+cars each. Applicant trying to now maximize development. What's to stop them from pursuing development of the Upper/Lower Ranch? Bikers need to be required to use the path and be ticketed for using the road. Concerns about septics on smaller lots and possibly future connection to public sewer. Costs to taxpayers to correct deficiencies(of Brush Creek Road). Doesn't want a Frost Creek City. RV Traffic+Bikers+Additional Traffic=Problem. Craig Wescoatt: Colorado Parks and Wildlife(CPW)concerns addressed with the 2%transfer tax, including resales. Appreciates the buffer to the creek being provided for the cabins in the Red Bluffs area. Rosie Shearwood: Has lived in the Brush Creek Valley since 1969. Many more accidents occurring over the years as traffic has increased. Frost Creek was an appeasement for 30-years of Fred Kummer trying to get something entitled. County set limits(maximum density)back when the PUD was approved and amended in the 2000's. This proposed amendment will create more open space,but will also create greater traffic impact on Brush Creek Road. Cathy Young: Moved to Brush Creek Valley to escape traffic. Traffic increases have completely changed the character of the area. Wetlands are coming back now—they weren't damaged by livestock and horses,but by bulldozers. Can she have a copy of the study of water quality in the ditch? Daiva Katieb(Wetland Consultant): All data procured from Frost Creek is given to the County and is on the web site. Audrey Gulick: Country character,ranches,horses is what attracted her to the Brush Creek Valley. It is disappearing! Why was Frost Creek approved to begin with? Why can't higher density be better hidden? Overall, not a fan of the proposed PUD Amendment. Applicant Response: Applicant will be paying Road Impact Fees to the Town of Eagle. The applicant will be dedicating a trail easement across the Upper/Lower Ranch properties. The proposed new density is not going to change the future of Brush Creek Road. Planning Commission Deliberations: 54 12/13/2016 Commissioner Brock: Ty and Kari are both Professional Engineers. Both possesses degrees and licenses. What would you do Ty? Vern knew Brush Creek Road in 1958. Increased speed=more fatalities. Engineering Staff: Do not have a direct answer; Perform studies, design accordingly—likely at a 50 mile per hour design. County has not looked at improvement of Brush Creek Road. Commissioner Brock: Both parties agree that at build out,traffic attributable to Frost Creek will be 4%of what is on Brush Creek Road. County cannot require off-site improvements. Speeding on Brush Creek Road is the number one problem. $500,000 for shoulders is only about one half of the amount needed to provide shoulders on Brush Creek Road all the way to Town. Turnouts for heavy vehicles to pass on Brush Creek Road could be an improvement. No one likes or wants to see Ghost Town Development. Agrees with Wescoatt's comments. It is a benefit to the Town. All considered,he is in agreement with Staff regarding Brush Creek Road impacts. Commissioner Warner: What limits the number of golf memberships that will be made available? Applicant Response: We cannot sell more memberships above the established maximum, or the people who already purchased memberships will sue. Commissioner Warner: The bike path easement doesn't work for him. If you built it, it would. Smaller lots with OWTS is a concern for him. Foresees yet another amendment to re-shift taps/development back to the Upper/Lower Ranch. He is not on board with the proposed PUD Amendment. Commissioner Farmer: Road is destined for improvement. No other comments. Doesn't work for now. Commissioner Runyon: It was an appeasement by former elected officials that Frost Creek was approved to begin with. Engineering would have said the same thing in 2004/2005. Let's not compound the problem by approving this PUD Amendment. Motion to Deny Vote was unanimous. V. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: North: Residential Agricultural Residential Residential Resource South: Residential Resource BLM Resource Preservation East: Residential Agricultural Residential BLM/State Land Board Resource Preservation West: BLM Resource Preservation Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development(PUD) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development(PUD) Current Development: Single family homes,golf course,clubhouse,pool and tennis courts Site Conditions: Developed,open space,golf course,wetlands,Brush Creek Total Land Area: Acres: 532.045 Square feet: 23,175,880 Total Open Space Acres: 316.05 Percentage: 59.4% Water: Public: Town of Eagle Private: N/A 55 12/13/2016 Sewer: Public: N/A Private: OWTS Access: Brush Creek Road VI. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Please see referral comments and the Applicant's Response in the Attachments and Section III of the staff report. Referral comments were provided by the following agencies and are attached to the staff report: 1. Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2. Eagle County Road and Bridge 3. Eagle County School District 4. Town of Eagle(2 letters) 5. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District 6. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist 7. Eagle River Watershed Council 8. Eagle County Trails 9. Eagle County Housing Department 10. Colorado Department of Public Health 11. Colorado Division of Water Resources VII. EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: At the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application, the relevant support materials, the Staff Report, and the public information given at the public hearing. The Board of County Commissioners may confer with the applicant on changes deemed advisable and the kind and extent of such changes, and request Planning Department input. After the close of the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the PUD Amendment. 1. Approve [File No.PDA-5941] with conditions and/or performance standards 2. Deny [File No.PDA-5941] 3. Table [File No. PDA-5941] if additional information is required Suggestion Motions: PROPOSED MOTION: TO APPROVE PUD AMENDMENT:: I hereby move to recommend approval of File No. PDA-5941, incorporating staff's findings and staff's conditions,because the application,as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of an amendment to a planned unit development. PROPOSED MOTION: TO DENY REQUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT: I hereby move to recommend denial of File No. PDA-5941, because the proposal does not meet the standards for approval of an amendment to a planned unit development. DISCUSSION: Kris Valdez provided some background on the property, showed photos and presented a vicinity map. The applicant was requesting the allowance of 45 single-family residential lots,to allow for an additional 15 Guest 56 12/13/2016 Cabins for short term rental,reduce lot sizes on Red Bluffs Way and Squires Lane from 3-acres minimum to 0.75- acres minimum,reduce lot sizes on Hunters Way from 3-acres minimum to 0.40-acres minimum and reduce the allowable residential square footage of homes in Red Bluffs Way and Squires Lane to 6,000 sq. ft. and Hunters Way residences would be capped at 3,000 sq. ft. If approved there would be an establishment of real estate transfer fee on the sale of lots within Frost and Salt Creek for the purposes of providing wildlife habitat improvements within the PUD. All structures of 3,000 sq. ft. or larger would require a fire suppression system. Access improvements within the PUD would provide for dual access for fire and emerging access. One of the primary concerns was that staff did not believe the applicant had demonstrated their adequate facilities. Brush Creek Road did not meet County and National standards at current traffic counts,there was inadequate facility to share the road with bicyclist, and there was a high accident rate on Brush Creek Road. The additional units would add an additional 1,546 trips and as a result, staff recommended against the PUD amendment. The water service agreement had not been signed by the Town of Eagle but was to be ratified this evening. Bob Narracci presented the 1041 request. The applicant proposed to amend the water service agreements with the Town to shift more water taps from the Upper and Lower Ranch properties to the Frost Creek Property. Of the 32 evaluation criteria,there were three(3)that staff was unable to find positive. The reasons for the negative findings were the lack of a water service agreement between the applicant and the Town of Eagle,the State Water Engineer was not able to find that the proposed project would not injure the water rights of others, and the state of Brush Creek Road. Dominic Mauriello on behalf of Brue Capitol Partners presented the applicant's request. He provided aerial photos of the property for orientation. He provided some history and background of the property. Adam's Rib was owned by Fred Kummer from early 1970 to 2015 and was acquired by Brue Capital Partners in March of 2015 and rebranded Frost Creek. Garrett Simon, partner at Meriwether Companies spoke. The development was originally planned as 97 large homes sites. He explained the need for housing and that their goal to create a sustainable community. Today they had about 200 members, 80 of them being local. Their focus was to have a wide range of users both members and homeowners. They hoped to create smaller clustered lots in three areas.They were proposing to convert the existing accessory dwelling units (ADU)to 15 new cabins. They focused on the development becoming more than just a golf community.They continue to build trails(Nordic,biking and hiking), improve fishing, add classes (fitness and yoga) and focus on the environmental education communication within the property. Mr.Mauriello spoke about the changes made in the project since submittal. The applicant reduced the number of dwelling units and removed two lots in the Hunters Way area. They proposed reducing the ADUs from 25— 10. The guest cabins were intended to be used by members as a rental option. The applicant wished to add 45 dwelling units plus 15 cabins,the 25%reduction was taking away the 15 cabins because they were coming out of an already approved supply of ADUs. They were suggesting changes with the berm on the north boundary of the property along Eaton Lane. The applicant was offering to provide irrigation and landscape plan to the berm. There had been significant changes to the PUD Guide to make everything safer than it was with the existing requirements. The agreement with the Town of Eagle had yet to be executed for water service. The Town of Eagle would be provided$125,000 in park land fees to develop a bike path. Every resident would pay an impact fee per unit to the Town of Eagle that would address traffic impacts. In total there was about$900,000 in water plant investment fees that the town would receive from the project. Density and taps were being transferred to Frost Creek, and this was key The applicant agreed-to a real estate transfer fee of.2%that would be collected and would be used for wildlife enhancement. Twelve offsite resident dwelling units would be provided and/or credits purchased to meet the housing requirements. The overall floor area had been reduced across the board and severely reduced the amount of development area. There would be no increase on water demands. Daiva Katieb with the Watershed Environmental Consultants reviewed the wetland delineation reports for each of the proposed development area. The development had a 75 ft. stream set back and an additional set back from wetlands and riparian areas. The water quality monitoring and mitigation plan was robust and addressed water quality monitoring before,during and after construction. The most recent bio-assessment took place in September 2013. The review had not identified surface water, ground water, aquatic life, or physical habits to be threatened or endangered. Eagle River Watershed Council found no concerns with the proposal. There would be impact to wildlife so seasonal closures in certain areas would helpful as well as the.2%fee that would be collected to help wildfire. Mr.Mauriello stated that an employee housing mitigation fee of$620,000 was paid for the original impacts. The current requirement was for 12 local resident housing units, and those would be satisfied by new construction or housing credits. The applicant proposed,in the water agreement, an additional easement that 57 12/13/2016 would extend the existing trail for two-miles. In terms of fire mitigation, they required fire resistant materials to be used in the development of homes. Mr. Simon spoke about the Frost Creek memberships and overall use. Since they were shifting nonresident members to members he didn't believe the additional density had as great as impact as one might think in terms of additional traffic on Brush Creek Road. Kari Schroeder with McDowell Engineering spoke. She explained the traffic study process. Brush Creek Road was determined by staff to be too narrow because it did not meet the county standards. Brush Creek Road currently was at a level A and would be at a Level of Service C if the amendment was approved. The biggest concern was the speed. If the road was to be widened,the speed would increase. The official state crash data indicated that the most recent accidents on the road were related to speed. She reviewed the new road standards and the county's road standards and believed that the county's roads standards were a bit outdated. She believed that Brush Creek Road was safe and did not need to be widened to accommodate additional traffic. Mr.Mauriello believed they adequately offset the traffic impacts by reducing the ADUs,the traffic impact fees,and by giving notice and inviting adjacent properties owners to meetings with the applicant. The proposed amendment occurs entirely with the existing plan. He reviewed the criteria. He spoke about the neighboring density and believed the proposal was in line with the surrounding area.The comprehensive plan recognizes density beyond the growth boundary and the proposal complied with the cluster style development. There were pedestrian paths, and they preserve mountain character.The proposed amendments would be phased. The common recreation and open space activities would not change. The applicant believed the benefits outweighed the potential impacts. Chairman McQueeney wondered what the difference was between an ADU and a guest house. Mr.Mauriello stated that currently they were allowed to have 25 ADUs,they could be 2,000 sq. ft. and be either above a garage or attached to a home. There were 5 existing cabins and they would like 15 additional cabins which could be built in different locations within Frost Creek. After that, 10 ADUs would remain and could be assigned by the developer to any lot within the project that allows for an ADU. Ms.Valdez stated that the difference between the cabins and ADUs was the guest cabins were separate units. Chairman McQueeney wondered about the proposed open space and wildlife closures and who would monitor those closures. Mr.Mauriello stated that the community HOA would monitor the open space properties and closures. Chairman McQueeney stated that Commissioner Ryan had recused herself from the file as her husband Taylor Ryan was the engineer on the file. Taylor Ryan,Eagle County Engineer, spoke about the existing road conditions on Brush Creek Road.The existing traffic was roughly 1,300 vehicle trips per day. What was currently approved in the original PUD for Salt Creek and Frost Creek was about 1,800 daily trips. Staff estimated that approximately 254 daily trips were currently being realized from the sight, leaving 1,546 daily trips that were yet to be realized. He calculated that there would be 475 additional daily trips with this requested amendment. Considering the existing trips,what's been approved and yet to be realized, and the proposed trips,the trips would equal 3,309 vehicle trips per day. Staff believed the applicants study fell short as the original traffic studies provided with the 2013 approval and the 2003 amendment assumed that all the residents would be full time use and single family residences. The applicant's traffic study assumed that any improvements would be by others such as the roundabout at Haymeadow or improvements to other intersections within the Town of Eagle.The study also assumed the majority of trips to Hwy 6 would be on an extended Brush Creek Road. No offsite improvements were proposed. The Town of Eagle simply requested that the development pay a road impact fee,but those fees may only amount to $46,000,which was not much considering the needed intersection improvements. Chairman McQueeney asked Mr. Ryan what his estimate of Brush Creek Road growth would be. Mr.Ryan stated that there had been 3 -4%growth on Brush Creek Road over time. The trips generated by this projects and the background growth was between 3,500 and 4,000 trips per day. He showed photos of the road. There were no shoulders or space for vehicles to pull over. He reviewed the current regulations and nationally accepted safety standards for road shoulders. He spoke about the motor vehicle accidents since 2012. The County was asked to add shoulders and"Share the Road"signs but more funding was needed. In summary the applicant's traffic study did not include all development traffic. Brush Creek Road could not accommodate the additional traffic. Traffic impacts to the Town of Eagle had not been reconciled. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Mr. Ryan to comment on speed and how that affected the shoulders and lane width. 58 12/13/2016 Mr. Ryan stated that there were a number of ways to adjust the speed. In this case, CDOT did not recommend shoulders. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the level of service. Mr.Ryan expressed concern for the existing traffic as well as what was known to be have been already approved. Mr. Garrett asked the board to consider the home ownership and that the second home owner trips would be fewer. Mr. Ryan stated that even though they might be second homes the number of trips coming out of these type of developments were much more in line with single family residents because of lack of amenities and the need for services. Ms. Schroeder agreed that road improvements within the Town of Eagle were necessary. It was agreed that they would use the Haymeadow traffic study as their background data because they were generating 8,000 per day once they reach buildout. A lot of the intersections needing improvements were being triggered by the Haymeadow • development. The Town of Eagle had planned for 2017 to look at Grand Avenue and the sort of improvements needed to address traffic concerns. She believed the 4%growth rate was acceptable and was in alignment with the water model. She believed the accident data she provided was accurate. She stood behind her recommendation. Chairman McQueeney opened public comment. Chris Adams spoke. He believed there were problems with the proposal. The trips could be 2,000 trips per day. The road with did not support emergency vehicles. He wondered about the extra costs to residents for emergency services. He owned property on Brush Creek and didn't want to lose it. He believed it was unfair to make the taxpayers pay for road improvements and unfair to burden the local taxpayers. Joanna Gilbert spoke. She moved to the Brush Creek area for the rural character. She asked about the number of septic systems and wondered how that would affect the quality of water. She was concerned with the road hazards for people that walk, drive,ride bikes, or ride horses. She sees car accidents frequently. There was a lot of wildlife and the amount of crashes because of wildlife had not been mentioned. She felt that the Frost Creek group should take the time to sell the lots at lower costs and live within the current zoning. Jack Cornell,Moser Subdivision resident, spoke. The bike path was not needed and a waste of money because the bikers insist on using the road. Rick Beverage,resident of 2839 Brush Creek Road, spoke. He did not believe the traffic was a Frost Creek issue. He believed this was a good opportunity to get a bike path completed on Brush Creek Road. It didn't make sense to widen the road or increase the speed limit. This was a once itt a lifetime opportunity. He supported development and job creation. - Kent Meyers spoke. He supported the developt'iient and believed there were ways to improve road safety. Mick Daly,runner, spoke. He supported the de�'e opment and believed the road was a dream. Levi Rozga, Eagle resident, spoke. He was impressedby the new owner's proposal and supported the amendment. He believed there needed more attainable housing for the people that live in the area. Chairman McQueeney closed public comment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the affordable housing component. Ms.Valdez stated that the applicant would be required to build 12 units onsite or offsite. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the impacts to water quality and septic tanks. Ray Merry,Environmental Health Director, stated that the septic systems were newer not like the older models and should last 20-25 years and would be maintained by the Property Owners Association. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed this was a difficult file. There were some great pieces but at the same time the road did not support a 40%increase in traffic. Chairman McQueeney agreed with Commissioner Chandler-Henry's comments,however, it was difficult to get past the public safety risk. If the board denied the application,the applicant could return in one year and reapply or the applicant could request a tabling of the file allowing more time to work through the traffic issues. Mr. Simon stated that the applicant preferred a short tabling. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the county could not require Frost Creek to fix the road. The road was inadequate and adding the additional traffic was a health and safety issue that the board had to take seriously. Based on that, she was not sure how they board could approve the file. 59 12/13/2016 Mr. Ryan was unsure if the county and applicant could come to an agreement. He was unsure whether the traffic was really going to change the impact on Brush Creek Road but was willing to review the data again. Mr. Simon wondered if there was some level of acceptable density. The applicant spent a lot of money getting to this point. Chairman McQueeney believed there was a lot of benefit to this proposal. She believed the bike path was a benefit but as of now the standard was such that it would be near impossible to approve Mr. Simon requested a tabling to a date certain allowing them to work with staff and see if they could close the gap. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no. 1041-5943 Frost Creek Planned Unit Development 1041 Permit to January 31, 2017. Chairman McQueeney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared • unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no.PDA-5941 Frost Creek Salt Creek PUD Amendment to January 31, 2017. Chairman McQueeney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business befo• .c: .e meeting was adjourned until December 20, 2016./0 ‘:it ;44 Attes — * _ l v G.ti ler/ t' o the Board Chairm 60 12/13/2016