No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/08/2024 PUBLIC HEARING October 8, 2024 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Beth Oliver County Attorney Matt Peterson Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Constituent Input Kris Miller, Edwards resident, spoke. She requested that Item 3 be removed from the Consent Agenda to allow for public comment. She also noted that there was no information with regard to the Executive Session so would be submitting a CORA request for all of the sessions except those related to employee matters. Commissioner Updates • Commissioner Chandler-Henry gave a shout-out to the Road and Bridge Department for all the repair work they were doing over the summer months. Commissioner McQueeney stated she was excited to go to Jackson Hole,Wyoming,next week with staff. This was the Mountain Towns 2030, a conference on climate action. She looked forward to some good conversions and presentations. Chairman Scherr reminded everyone about the upcoming election and ballots would be going out this Friday. Folks could register to vote online at GoVoteColorado.gov. He also mentioned that voters could sign up for BallotTrax to receive texts and/or emails with regard to one's ballot progress. And lastly,the Clerk&Recorder had great resources online. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll stated that he had no updates. Consent Agenda 1. Agreement for Professional Services between Eagle County and JVA Incorporated for the RFTA Park&Ride Project Ben Gerdes, Engineering 1 10/08/2024 2. Resolution 2024-062 for Denial of a Consolidated Special Use Permit for Twin Acres Riding Stable and Boarding Stable Planning File No. ZS-009260-2022 Vince Hooper,Planning 3. License Agreement between Eagle County and the Salvation Army for Modular Unit Temporary Storage -PULLED Kelly Muir,Project Management 4. Approval of the Minutes for the Board of County Commissioner Meetings for June 11, June 18,June 27, and July 2,2024 Kathy Scriver, Clerk&Recorder's Office 5. Public Improvements Agreement for Two Rivers Village Subdivision Phase IV Julie Pranger, Engineering Annie Barnett,Board Chair for Salvation Army, and Monica Villalobos Russell,Director of the Salvation ArmyNail Center were present. Ms. Barnett stated that they had been at their current site for 13 years and needed to move as they received a 30-day notice. They were looking for a permanent space but were hoping to move their unit to land in Edwards until a new location is found. The move to the temporary location would be storage for the moment. Jesse Meryhew,Eagle County Facilities Management Director, stated that the space was available and a great place for the unit's storage. He thanked the board for supporting the Salvation Army. Kris Miller stated that the agreement was for 20 modular residential units. There had been no public notification or referral letters set out and this was a major elk migration area. She wondered if the units would be tied down and if all 20 units would be moved at the same time due to the impact to Highway 6. Beth Oliver,County Attorney, apologized and stated that it appeared that the wrong document got attached, it was not 20 module units, it was one unit. She suggested that the document be pulled from the Consent Agenda to be corrected and placed on the upcoming Friday agenda. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for October 8,2024, as presented, excluding Item 3. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Business Item(s) 1. Resolution 2024-063 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Zoning Board of Adjustment Trent Hyatt, Community Development Executive Summary: Consideration of a resolution for appointments to the Eagle County Board of Adjustment. All candidates have been previously interviewed by the Board of County Commissioners and/or are requesting re-appointment. Bill Gibson,Director of Community Development, stated that some of the folks had served on these committees for many years and were reappointments, Others sat on other Eagle County committees and boards. He noted a typo, a misspelling of Clint Janssen's name on the Building Board of Appeals resolution, Trent Hyatt, Community Development Deputy Director, apologized for the misspelling and had nothing to add. 2 10/08/2024 Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Resolution Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Zoning Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Resolution 2024-064 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Building Board of Appeals Trent Hyatt, Community Development Executive Summary: Consideration of a resolution for appointments to the Eagle County Building Board of Appeals. All candidates have been previously interviewed by the Board of County Commissioners and/or are requesting re-appointment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Resolution Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Building Board of Appeals. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. Resolution Support for Eagle County Conservation District Ballot Measure in the November 2024 Election Kallie Rand, Open Space&Natural Resources -PULLED Executive Summary: The Eagle County Conservation District has a ballot measure on the November 2024 election to collect a property tax of 0.15 mills. If approved,the Eagle County Conservation District will use funds to support maintaining drinking water quality and the health of rivers and streams; restoring and protecting forests and grasslands to reduce the risk of wildfires; and conserving populations of native birds, fish and wildlife species. Chairman Scherr stated that staff was unable to attend so the resolution would be placed on a future agenda. Discussion Item 1. Habitat for Humanity Roaring Fork Valley priority purchase request Site Visit - Beaver Creek 1. Site Visit for Arcadian on Beaver Creek- SMA-009408-2023 and VIS-009469-2024 Work Session - Eagle County Room 1. Eagle County Land Use Regulation Reform Project. Discussion of Module 2 - Site Design and Improvements Planning File - Eagle County Room 3 10/08/2024 1.Arcadian on Beaver Creek- SMA-009408-2023 and VIS-009469-2024 Vince Hooper, Planning Executive Summary: Request to plat Tract C and Tract S, as identified in the Beaver Creek PUD Guide, into 3 lots and grant certain variances from ECLUR Section 4-620 and Table 4-460.J- Summary of Environmental, Geometric and Design Standards. These Applications are subject to change from time to time. Project Name: Arcadian on Beaver Creek File No.: SMA-009408-2023 Location: Address TBD,the property is generally located at the northern end of Beaver Creek Drive and south of Village Road,Beaver Creek area Owners/Applicants: OI Tag Beaver Creek,LLC Representative: Mauriello Planning Group-Dominic Mauriello Staff Planner: Vince Hooper, Senior Staff Planner Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Chairman Scherr stated that Matt Peterson,Assistant County Attorney,would be clarifying what the board would be considering based on some of the comments received by the public. Mr. Peterson stated that the applications before the board consisted of a Minor Type A Subdivision and a Variance from Improvements Standards (VIS). A Minor Type A Subdivision was a process that allowed a developer to create no more than three lots not previously subdivided. The requested variances addressed certain road and development standards on the lots. The board would be considering whether the division of the property into three lots met the relevant standards and whether certain variances for later development of the lots should be granted. The board was not considering whether the proposed use or site plan met any standards. The uses of the property remained governed by the Beaver Creek PUD Guide,and the applicant was not currently seeking to change or alter any of the uses already allowed by the PUD Guide. Future land use would have to comply with the PUD Guide and the County's BuildingCode and Site Development Standards. t3' p Vince Hooper,Eagle County Staff Planner,reviewed the process. The applicant went through a 21-day referral period and was sent to 24 referral agencies. The County provided public notice in the newspaper and to adjacent property owners. Staff received multiple public comments, which were included in the staff report. He showed a map that identified the subject parcels. Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group, introduced the applicant and their team. He introduced Joanna Hopkins, a local real estate agent who was present on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Hopkins stated she had over 20 years of experience in mountain resort development. On behalf of their team, she thanked the county staff for their guidance throughout the process. The application was extremely thorough and addressed all the land use criteria and staff and referral agency comments. She and the team were present to answer any questions. The team began studying the site in 2022 and took a long look at the property. The use by right could have allowed up to 26 condominiums,townhomes, or other uses allowed within the residential density of 12 units per acre. However,the team took the opposite approach and let the land and existing conditions dictate the plan to create something complimentary to the surroundings. They were utilizing two existing paved points of access and infrastructure. The ditch water that ran through the property would be enhanced,and any impacts to wetlands would be mitigated. The proposal consisted of 12 residences, a combination of single-family, duplex,and triplexes,with the remaining common areas maintained by a newly formed HOA. The proposal demonstrated a commitment to working with the land and not against it. Ultimately,the proposal created three lots, which were always anticipated to go back to the first Beaver Creek PUD. In summary,they were proud of how they approached the process and property. Mr. Mauriello provided a location map, identified the property, and proposed ditch route and surrounding properties. The Beaver Creek PUD guide was approved in 1983. The property was designated at that time as Tract C and Tract S. Tract C was designated as Residential Medium Density(RMD), and Tract S was designated as open 4 10/08/2024 space/recreation. Residential Medium Density allowed 12 units per acre or approximately 26 units on this parcel. The applicant was proposing only 12 units. The property was originally part of the Townsend Homestead, a large working ranch in the late 1800s to the 1970s. The two old buildings remaining on the property were owned by Vail Resorts. Lot 1 was where they were proposing the 12 residences; 2 single family homes, 2 duplexes=4 residences, and 2 triplexes=6 residences. Lot 2 was slightly smaller than 10,000 sq. ft. and would be deeded to Mirabelle for commercial uses. Tract S was about 11.4 acres and would be an open space parcel owned by the Arcadian HOA not to be developed. He showed the site plan identifying the areas where they proposed development. There was an upper road and lower road which were pre-existing roads. He provided a slide showing the existing ditch that ran through the property and existing head gate and culvert. The proposed ditch route had been included in an easement. Vail Resorts owned the rights to the ditch and approved an agreement allowing the ditch to be relocated and a 20 ft. easement around the ditch. The head gate would go under a larger culvert under the road and onto Tract S. He mentioned that there was a Wayne Creek sign near the ditch that someone had recently put up. He showed images of the proposed triplex/townhouses. The Beaver Creek Design Review Board(BCDRB)would review and approve anything being built. He reviewed the review process and stated that they would go to the Beaver Creek DRB for each home being built and comply with their design guidelines. They were obligated to comply with the Beaver Creek Metro District Requirements. Once everything was approved,they could pull grading and building permits to move forward. As buildings start to have foundations,the Minor Type B Subdivision could start, and an HOA could be established. A PUD Amendment, 1041 Permit, or employee housing was not required as part of this application.Regarding the water channel evaluation, Spronk Water Engineers, Inc. was retained by Eagle County and provided a determination related to the ditch on the property and the applicant Ecological Resources Consultants, LLC prepared an evaluation. Both analyses concluded that the water channel most closely resembled a ditch. Both the applicant and staff agreed with the conclusion. He reviewed the applicant's outreach efforts. Their team met with the Beaver Creek Metro District Board and Representatives,the Beaver Creek Resort company, Beaver Creek/Vail Resorts Representatives, Town of Avon, Vail Valley Mountain Bike Association,Mirabelle Owners, and the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association. He displayed the ECLUR Criteria for a Minor Type A Subdivision and believed that their request complied with the criteria. The application material thoroughly detailed how the proposal complied with all of the criteria for a Minor Type A. The application was consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Regulations. The subdivision was within an approved PUD, and significant development had already been completed. The site was currently served by all utilities as the density/development of the property was always contemplated by the PUD. The site was served by existing roads, and the spatial pattern was efficient. The suitability of development was in line with other developments. The environmental impact report indicated no federally threatened or endangered species,no raptor nests, and no high-priority habitats of concern or endangered species. He reviewed the zoning and compatibility with surrounding uses and showed pictures of some of the existing homes. He reviewed the criteria for hillside development applicable to units 8-12 and indicated that the application complied with regulations. The development would use the existing roadways to minimize disturbance. The foundations would utilize retaining walls to stabilize the existing grade. The driveways would be hidden from public view. The variances requested were needed to allow use of existing roads. He reviewed the existing road conditions and talked about the roadway patterns. The applicant was willing to fund pedestrian improvements. The applicant requested that the BoCC approve both applications. Mr. Hooper presented a zoning map. The property had never been final platted and was not currently a legal lot. The property was within the Beaver Creek PUD and known in the PUD Guide as Tract C -Residential Medium Density(RMD)and Tract S -Open Space Recreation. The applicant proposed to subdivide the property into three lots -Lot 1, 2.163 acres(12 patio homes),Lot 2, 9,991 square feet(Mirabelle operations), and Tract S, 11.40 acres (open space/recreation). He reviewed the referral comments. The CPW indicated that the habitat was fragmented. There was a high potential for human conflict with black bears and mountain lions. To minimize conflicts, it was advised that the development adhere to the Eagle County Ordinance 07-001 bear-resistant containers, feeding wildlife, and"Bear Aware"principles. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District had no concerns with the proposal. He reviewed all the standards of approval and indicated that the application had met all the standards and that staff was recommending approval of the application with conditions. A more in-depth analysis of compliance with future development would be completed at the building permit stage and the subsequent Minor Type B Subdivision 5 10/08/2024 stage. Wayne Creek was not identified on the county's named stream list. He reviewed the public concerns and comments with regard to the ditch. Tyler Ryan,Eagle County Staff Engineer,presented the Variance from Improvement Standards(VIS) application. The application went out to 16 agencies on September 9, 2024, for a 21-day referral period.No comments were received from the Eagle River Fire Protection District or Eagle River Fire. Public comments supported the BCPOA's position and encouraged compliance with existing rules and regulations. Some public comments expressed concern about the development on Wayne Creek and the impacts to the waterway. He reviewed the variance requested on the Upper and Lower Road outlined in the staff report and discussed the hardship to the applicant if not granted a variance. Staff believed the VIS met the standard of approval and recommended approval. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked the applicant about the wetlands mitigation. Dave Blauch with Ecological Resources Consultants stated that through the process,they met with the Army Corps of Engineers and submitted an application addressing the impacts to the wetlands onsite.As part of the process they look at mitigation. The application went through the process, and the 3-1 mitigation ratio was determined. The mitigation area was downriver. Chairman Scherr asked about the applicant's commitment to mitigation. Mr. Hooper stated that there was written confirmation from the applicant that they were willing and were committed to implementation of the mitigation. Commissioner McQueeney stated that many comments were made about the 75 ft. stream setback and wondered where it would apply. Matt Peterson,Assistant County Attorney, stated that the county's land use regulations provided two provisions; the first was that streams were subject to a 75 ft. setback;however,there was specific language in the code that if the stream was located within a PUD, the PUD guide for the property would control the applicable setback. In this case,the property was in the Beaver Creek PU,D and the BCPUD guide addressed stream setbacks. In this case,the stream setback was limited to the floodplain of the channel. The code also stated that when there were provisions, a more specific provision would govern. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Mr. Mayberry to discuss the issue of stream versus ditch. Jon Mayberry, Spronk Water Engineers (SWE) spoke. He stated that they had been consulting with the county for over 15 on water rights and projects. He believed the LUR spelled it out clearly. Their findings were that no irrigation was happening from the channel that went through the subject property. They determined that the source was above the Beaver Creek Resort area. The source was not natural; it was through the stormwater system from the resorts. The channel itself was not natural either and did not exist before 1979- 1983 based on aerial photos and discussions with people in the valley. Therefore,they concluded that it was more of a ditch than a stream as it was manmade. The Wayne Creek channel makes its way down from the golf course to the Arcadian property and drainage outlet,which seemed to imply that it was part of the stormwater drainage system for the whole development. Chairman Scherr asked Mr. Peterson if it was determined to be a stream,would the setback still be floodplain. Mr. Peterson stated that the way he read the PUD guide and land use code,the stream setback was determined by the PUD guide. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked staff to talk about the referral comments by Xcel Energy and if their concerns had been met. Mr. Hooper stated that he interpreted their comments during the referral period as they were looking toward building permits and the extension of utilities into individual units. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about Beaver Creek Metro District's concerns and if they had been addressed. Mr. Hooper stated that there were no outstanding issues with Beaver Creek Metro District. Chairman Scherr asked about the geological recommendations and wondered if this would happen at the time of building. Mr. Hooper stated that recommendations would be adhered to during building. 6 10/08/2024 Chairman Scherr stated that there were a lot of folks interested in speaking. He asked folks to limit their comments to the VIS and how the application related to the standards of approval. Mr. Peterson stated that the purpose of the application and this hearing was to determine whether the property boundaries met the standards, as proposed by the applicant. Chairman Scherr opened public comment. Alexia Jurschak, a full-time resident of Beaver Creek and a member of the Board of Directors of the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association(BCPOA), spoke. She was speaking today on behalf of the BCPOA and its members. They had submitted written comments at every stage and would submit further comments today. The BCPOA represented over 4,000 constituents who owned property in Beaver Creek. The proposed site included a natural water creek named Wayne Creek that, for more than 40 years,has flowed from the western mountainside of Beaver Creek through the proposed site. The BCPOA retained water experts from Edwards and Glenwood Springs to help with their assessment. Based on this work,the BCPOA and its advisors were of the opinion that Wayne Creek was a stream as defined by the county's LUR, and accordingly,the BCPOA submits that under applicable regulations,the county could not issue the land use permit as requested by the applicant. Their advisors would give further presentations to the board. Kim Moore ceded her time to Tim McGuire Jim Yager ceded his time to Tim McGuire Nancy Smith ceded her time to Tim McGuire Tim McGuire with Contour Design Collective, a Minturn-based consulting firm, spoke. He stated that the BCPOA contacted his firm in September of 2023 to review the potential development of Tract C. The obvious concerns were the steep slopes and the stream and wetlands. Based on decades of experience in mountain environments,they felt it was highly likely that the stream and wetlands qualified as a stream under the county's definition. Still, due to several technical questions,they deemed it prudent to get a second opinion and reached out to their hydrologic consultant,Kelly Colfer of Western Bionomics. They confirmed that Beaver Creek continued to be listed on the 303(d)list of impaired and threatened waters from the confluence of Wayne Creek to the Eagle River. These two facts highlighted the ecological risk of any work near or adjacent to Wayne Creek's downstream resources. The project, as currently planned,did not balance development and preservation of the environment. Most creeks in the valley had been modified over the years and didn't qualify them as manmade. Based on his analysis,the creek had a significant flow, and because there had been no rain in weeks,there was no way that any water was coming from any storm drains. There was no evidence suggesting that the water within the creek was not natural. He believed the source of Wayne Creek was springs located at the headwaters. He believed the board had a difficult decision ahead of them. He believed the condition that a 75 ft. setback should be required. Steve Formica ceded his time to Kelly Colfer. Suzanne Yager ceded her time to Kelly Colfer. Mollie Grojean ceded her time to Kelly Colfer. Kelly Colfer,with Western Bionomics, spoke. He was asked to look at the location and walk the entire water course near the golf course. He believed the creek had a natural source and was not a stormwater system. He spoke about the LUR and the definition of an irrigation ditch. In general,he reviewed the SWB report and disagreed with their conclusions. The fact that Wayne Creek did not appear on a government map was inconclusive. Even if the creek carried irrigation water, it was a moot point. It could still be a natural stream. He believed that most rivers and streams had been manipulated over the years,but just because they had been manipulated didn't mean they weren't natural rivers or streams. There was no evidence that the steam flow was intermittent or ephemeral. It flowed year-round. Dori Meyers ceded her time to Andie Hall. Boyd Gentry ceded his time to Andie Hall. Ray Heller ceded his time to Andie Hall. Andie Hall,with Balcomb Green, stated that she represented the BCPOA and was concerned with the lack of compatibility with the surrounding uses and environmental resources degradation that would occur if the county approves the Arcadian on Beaver Creek subdivision application without enforcing the setback requirements 7 10/08/2024 adopted to protect its water resources. The BCPOA had submitted several letters to the county identifying concerns about the application. There had been significant discussion regarding whether the water course across the Arcadian parcel was a stream or an irrigation ditch. This question had been a prominent aspect of public comment before this meeting. The spirit and intent of the county's regulations was to balance development with water protection. She reviewed the definition of stream. The county setback requirement applied to all streams unless the PUD specifies a greater setback distance. The applicant ignores the setback requirement by altering the county's definition of a stream and suggests that the water course must have an entirely natural source. She listed the reasons why the water course within the development met the four criteria of the county's stream definition. Since its modified definition the applicant determined that the water course was not a stream and was inconsistent with the county's definition and was misguided. Wayne Creek was more likely a stream than an irrigation ditch. The county setback should apply, and the application did not meet the standards. David Meyers ceded his time to Sara Dunn. Kathy Gentry ceded her time to Sara Dunn. Jane Heller ceded her time to Sara Dunn. Sara Dunn with Balcomb Green spoke on behalf of all members of the BCPOA she thanked the commissioners for their time and the careful consideration of this application. She addressed the suitability for development standards. She referred to the Eagle River Watershed Plan and its goal to protect and improve water quality,water quantity,wildlife habitat,and recreational opportunities and to promote compatibility and complementary land use strategies. The PUD was over 30 years old and identified the setback as the floodplain of live streams. Since that time,they had further refined what was necessary to protect the aquatic habitats. There was also a protection for irrigation ditches which was the width of the ditch plus 20 feet. She defined the goals of the Watershed plan. The county's adoption of the Watershed plan and protective stream setbacks demonstrated the county's commitment to achieving the goals in the plan and prioritizing the values and concerns of their constituents. Eagle County undeniably recognizes the benefits of streams and riparian areas and should be proud to continue to protect them by denying this application. Laura Bolt spoke. She was a homeowner on Beaver Creek Drive. She and her husband had been residents in the valley for over 30 years. The traffic from the development was already a problem, and there was a blatant disregard for Beaver Creek's emergency exit at the end of Beaver Creek Drive adjacent to the proposed development. The possible addition of 24 cars relative to the proposed development adds to what was already a dangerous traffic issue. The Eagle County strategic plan lists guided principles for elected officials and county employees, and a specific goal was to protect mountain ecosystems. Allowing a developer to convince you that a proven live stream requiring a setback was a ditch was inconsistent with these goals. Jeff Luker,Beaver Creek resident, spoke. He was an elected director of the Beaver Creek Resort Company (BCRC)Board of Directors,representing 4300 property owners in Beaver Creek. As the director of the BCRC, it was his responsibility to ensure that all rules and regulations in the declaration,the PUD, Eagle County,and the State of Colorado were appropriately followed for any development project within Beaver Creek. He'd been observing and monitoring the planning of the Arcadian project and supported all that had been said by the representatives and experts of the BCPOA. He wished to emphasize one key element,the opinion of the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources that the water course across the Arcadian property carries both natural flows and tail water from the Townsend Ditch should be given great consideration in the board's determination of appropriate conditions of approval or denial. Balancing development and the protection of aquatic resources as described in the Watershed plan was a priority for himself as a resident of Beaver Creek and for the 4300 constituents he represented. Christa Decker spoke on behalf of her clients,the United Beaver Creek Homeowners. She stated that the Arcadian Subdivision and associated variances violated Eagle County LUR and the Comprehensive Plan. She reviewed the specific sections in the LUR that she believed were violated. There was substantial evidence that Wayne Creek was a stream and that determination was fundamental to the board's decision. Lastly, several improvement standards could not be met, and the applicant sought variances. If the VIS application was not approved,the subdivision could not be approved. The property was not suitable for the subdivision. There was a live stream,wetlands, and steep and unstable slopes, and it was not suitable for this intensity of development. The subdivision would cause negative impacts to the surrounding area, increase noise, and vehicular and pedestrian 8 10/08/2024 traffic on roads that were not designed to accommodate it. While the zoning allowed for density,the land did not support it. Jackie Hovid of Beaver Creek Drive spoke. She'd lived in the area since 2001 and expressed concern for traffic and the width of the Beaver Creek Drive. She expressed concern for the wildlife and believed the area could not support any additional housing. Mac Slingerlend spoke as a 25-year resident of the community and homeowner adjacent to the subject property. He believed that the board was being misled. He believed that Wayne Creek was a tributary of interstate water of the Colorado River via the Eagle River as defined by the EPA and had federal and local protection. He believed the application should be denied. He believed that Vail Corporation and the developer worked secretly on the project for over two years before contacting any adjacent homeowner. Jim Clancy,Executive Director of the Beaver Creek Resort Company, spoke. He stated that the BCRC represented all members through a wide range of responsibilities, such as the design review. This application, as presented, did not cover any of the items that their design oversight would have control over,which was why he believed county review of the application was so important to the community. This was an important and high-profile project for the entire community. He believed the matter of the waterway and setbacks were inconclusive. He requested that the board take their time to study all the information before making a decision. Charles Smith,resident of 157 Beaver Creek Drive spoke. He had been a resident of the area for 15 years and had seen everything imaginable that was natural to the environment. He believed that water sources and wetlands were a draw for wildlife,and he did not want to see this change. He believed the proposal would destroy the wetlands. The road was not a two-lane road and was dangerous due to the amount of traffic they currently had. The steep slope was a concern and the amount of infrastructure needed was unbelievable. His main concern was protecting the environment and the wildlife. Glenn Adams spoke. He had been a homeowner in Beaver Creek since 1986 and had seen a lot of development. He believed there had been some great points made with respect to the SWE study. BCPOA even though not an official authorized body controlling Beaver Creek represented 2-3 billion dollars worth of assets and had a voice that was worth listening to. There are trees over 100 years old near the Wayne Creek water way. He suggested a compromise allowing the developer 6 units. Chairman Scherr closed public comment and asked the applicant if they wished to respond to any of the comments. Mr. Mauriello stated that the Watershed Plan addressed the best management practices and things required for a development. He believed that they had addressed all of the things laid out in the watershed plan for Eagle River. They had gone through an extensive review process with county staff, and it was found to comply with all the requirements. Their stormwater management plan was also reviewed and approved by the county. Clearly, there was a difference of opinion with regard to streams versus ditches. The suggestion that the land use regulations should provide the greater of or more restrictive of 75 ft. was being incorrectly interpreted. Regarding the comments made about streams being modified and moved,he believed this was the case in the Waynes Creek Subdivision. They had approval from the Army Corp of Engineers to relocate the stream, and there was no setback requirement. He didn't understand any of the comments regarding secret meetings. He got involved in the process in November of 2023,prepared an application along with some consultants, and went through the review process. A developer had no legal obligation to meet with neighbors before making an application. He believed their application went through the proper channels and met all the standards. Mr. Hooper stated that he had nothing to add but was happy to answer any questions. Commissioner McQueeney asked if a traffic study had been done. . Mr. Mauriello stated that their traffic study analyzed the intersection of Village Road and Beaver Creek Drive. He believed the road had adequate capacity. It was a residential street and was signed for 19 miles per hour. It was not uncommon to have narrow roads within residential areas. The road would be widened to meet county standards. An easement had been granted across the property that allowed for continued emergency access in the future. The people who reside in this project would have to drive down Beaver Creek Dr.just like the two adjacent property owners. The emergency access would remain in case there was a major accident. In terms of a fire truck 9 10/08/2024 turnaround,the upper road provided adequate turnaround movements. Their traffic engineer had communicated directly with the Eagle River Fire Protection District and concluded that there were no traffic-related issues. Commissioner McQueeney wondered who was responsible for reviewing the stream to the river. Bill Gibson, Community Development Director, stated that the application was being reviewed in the scope of the proposal. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that there could be temperature issues. Mr. Mauriello believed it might be a good idea to have the county's water engineer address the 303 issue because he believed there was an error in the plan as there was an inaccurate reference to Wayne Creek. Chairman Scherr asked if the traffic was a consideration. Mr. Peterson stated that traffic was a consideration as the Minor Type A application must meet certain roadway standards when there is a subdivide which was why the separate variance application was necessary and why the Minor Type A application was conditioned on approval of the variance. Mr. Maurello stated that the traffic study did not address the technical design standards. In terms of volume, county staff represented it in his study. The development would generate low volume and he believed the road was nowhere near being at capacity for a residential street. Chairman Scherr asked Mr. Peterson to address the comments regarding more specific versus more restrictive PUD versus the LUR. Mr. Peterson stated he agreed with the application of the code on this and advised the board on the following interpretation. The Eagle County Land Use Code discussed two different kinds of competing philosophies; one was that if two restrictive provisions equally apply, the more restrictive provision would govern. There was also a provision that stated if there was a more specific provision versus a more general provision the more specific provision would govern. Here,he believed that the county LUR had a more specific regulation as there was a provision that stream setbacks on lots located in a PUD shall comply with the stream setback as indicated by the PUD guide. Andy Peters, land use attorney with Otten Johnson and counsel for the applicant,wished to make the applicant's position clear on the code as well. The applicant was in agreement with Mr. Peterson. He believed the more restrictive language was about the 75 ft. setback or the 100-year floodplain. If the PUD was silent,reference the code, if the PUD was not silent,then one must do what the PUD says. In this case the PUD outlined the set back as the floodplain. He believed that this was not a stream, and even if it was a stream the PUD guide covered the scenario and did not require a setback. Chairman Scherr asked if there was a ditch setback. Mr. Peterson stated that it was not a setback, it was an easement and provided access for the ditch through the property. Before the deliberation,he believed it was important to respond to a few public comments. The first was that the board would have to make a finding on whether this was a stream or not a stream. It was important to keep in mind that the subdivision itself could not be denied on the basis that this was a stream or a ditch. A setback was a restriction on property but was not a basis to deny a land use application. He noted that there had been a lot of focus on the source of the stream and a lot of reference to a letter by the Division of Water Resources. He emphasized that a natural source was not the only factor that the board had to consider when determining whether this water course was a stream or not. All of the experts had stated at various points that there were natural flows inside this water course,but the board had to look at the full definition of a stream when determining whether to deem this a stream of a ditch. He also clarified that the Colorado Division of Water Resources water board did not have the jurisdiction to interpret the county's LUC as to whether the water course met the definition of stream under the county's regulations. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wished to clarify that as far as future development and that definition,the PUD guide would still determine the setbacks. Mr. Peterson stated that this was correct. If the board determined it was a stream, a stream setback would be applied to this development based on the language in the PUD guide. If it was a ditch, it was no longer a setback; it was a ditch easement. Commissioner McQueeney stated that there were conflicting reports from the applicant and the community and the county hired their own specialist and should listen to him. She would be willing to agree that it was a ditch as the county's consultant indicated. 10 10/08/2024 Commissioner Chandler-Henry agreed with that for all the reasons listed in the Spronk Water Engineering Report. Even though there were natural flows, it was not a natural stream and,therefore, should be considered a ditch. Chairman Scherr agreed. This was a difficult determination based on land use definitions. Based on the reports and having an independent consultant say it was a ditch, it would require other evidence that would show otherwise. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the Variation from Improvement Standards (VIS). Mr. Peterson stated that the board could vote on the VIS first as the Minor Type A Subdivision application was conditioned on subsequent approval. Chairman Scherr believed the impacts of the VIS were minimal and agreed with staff that it met the standards for approval. Commissioner McQueeney agreed and believed that widening the road would make it better. Commissioner Chandler-Henry concurred and believed that the VIS was appropriate here and the hardship on the application outweighed the adverse impact on health, safety, and welfare. The proposed improvements by the applicant would be an improvement to the safety of the road in the future. Commissioner McQueeney believed that should have been easier. The board got distracted by a lot of information that was not a consideration. This was an established PUD that was asking to apply some lines so it could be developed. This was approved as part of the much larger PUD,and all the easy properties were developed. This was the harder property to develop. Commissioner Chandler-Henry concurred with Commissioner McQueeney. The board's only job tonight was to decide if the property boundaries, as proposed,met the standards. None of the uses were being changed and the proposal was a lesser density than a use by right in the PUD. The Future Land Use Map designates this as an existing approved development and was in the PUD as an approved use. She believed the application met the seven standards that were reviewed by the applicant and by county staff She was prepared to vote"yes"on the file. Chairman Scherr agreed. The board did not consider whether density conformed or the type of use. The proposal seemed to be a fit within Beaver Creek. He believed the application met all of the standards. Commissioner Chandler-Henry understood the concerns. It was hard to see an open field be dug up but this application did meet the standards as difficult as it may be for folks already fortunate to live there. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve File NO. SMA-009408-2023,Arcadian on Beaver Creek, incorporating staff's findings and recommended conditions,because the application, as conditioned,meets the standards for approval of a Minor Type A Subdivision. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve Eagle County File No. VIS-009469-2024, incorporating staff's findings,because the application meets the standard of approval for a Variance to Improvement Standards. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned until October 9,2024. 1m c' Attest: ..-,,�- :C� v,cw ds Clerk to the Board Chairma 11 10/08/2024