HomeMy WebLinkAboutR01-075 approval of amendment to Cordillera PUD GuideCommissioner moved adoption
o the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
of the
BOARD OF EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUN'T'Y OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLU'T'ION NO- 2001- O _5
APPROVAL
of the AMENDMENT to the
CORDILLERA PUD GUIDE
FILE NO. PDA -00032
WHEREAS, on or about August 29th, 2000, the County of Eagle, State
of Colorado, accepted for filing an application submitted by Kensington
Partners (hereinafter "Applicant ") for approval of the amendment of the
Cordillera Planned Unit Development, Eagle County, Colorado
(hereinafter the "PUD"), File No.PDA- 00032,; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested the amendment of the PUD for the
purposes of:
1. Removing the sentence which dictates that a Preliminary
Plan must be done for the Southern Parcel Phase II;
2. Adjusting the Southern Parcel Phase II Planning Parcel
boundaries to allow the creation of Planning Parcels O-
3 and O -4;
3. Shifting (1) residential dwelling unit from Planning
Parcel M of the Western Parcel Planning Parcel T of
the Mountain Tract (due to geologic concerns);
.4. Adding the use of a small sales center adjacent to the
existing Community Center within Planning Parcel N of
the Western Parcel; and,.
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to all
owners of property located adjacent to the PUD, as well as the
relative homeowners associations and was duly published in a newspaper
of general circulation throughout the County concerning the subject
matter of the application and setting forth the dates and times of
hearings for consideration of the application by the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of County of Eagle,
State of Colorado (hereinafter the "Board "); and
IIIYV II IIII I III II VIII I II e 591 n3 e..i
Sara J Fisher Eagle, CO 370 R 0.00 D 0. 00
WHEREAS, at its public hearings of April 18 2001 the Planning
Commission, based on its findings, recommended approval of the
proposed Amendment of the Cordillera Planned Unit Development; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, on
May 8 2001; and,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence, testimony, exhibits, study
of the Master Plan for the unincorporated areas of Eagle County,
comments of the Eagle County Department of Community Development,
comments of public officials and agencies, the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, and comments from all interested parties, the
Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, finds as follows:
(1) That proper publication and public notice were provided as
required by law for the hearings before the Planning
Commission and the Board; and,
1. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-
240.F.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary
PUD Plan:
(1) Unified ownership or control. It IS represented that title
to all land is owned or controlled by one ('1) entity.
(2) Uses. The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE 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" for the zone district designation in effect for
the property at the time of the application for PUD.
(3) Dimensional Limitations. The dimensional limitations that
shall apply to the PUD ARE 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.
(4) Off - Street parking and Loading. It HAS been demonstrated
that off - street parking and loading provided in the PUD
complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off -
Street Parking and Loading Standards without a necessity
for a reduction in the standards.
2
1
(5) Landscaping. Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply
with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and
Illumination Standards
(6) Signs. The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE NOT as
specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations
However, the current Cordillera PUD has a comprehensive sign
plan, as provided in Section 4 -340 D., Signs Allowed in a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) that IS suitable for the PUD
and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users
to and within the PUD.
(7) Adequate Facilities. The Applicant HAS clearly
demonstrated that the development proposed in the
Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate
facilities for sewage disposal, electrical supply, and
roads; the applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the
development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be
provided adequate facilities for potable water, solid waste
disposal and fire protection. In addition, the Applicant
HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently
located in relation to schools, police and fire protection,
and emergency medical services.
(8) Improvements. AS CONDITIONED It HAS been clearly
demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to
the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division
6, Improvements Standards regarding:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access.
(b) Internal Pathways.
(c) Emergency Vehicles -
(d) Principal Access Points.
(e) Snow Storage.
(9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. The development
proposed for the PUD IS'compatible with the character of
surrounding land uses.
(10) Consistency with Master Plan. The PUD IS consistent with
the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM).
(11) Phasing. A phasing plan IS NOT necessary for this
development.
(12) Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD HAS demonstrated
that the proposed development will comply with the common
recreation and open space standards with respect to:
(a) Minimum area;
(b) Improvements required;
(c) Continuing use and maintenance; or
(d) Organization.
K
(13) Natural Resources Protection. The PUD DOES demonstrate
that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis
documents available at the time the application was
submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral
agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural
Resource Protection Standards have been considered.
2. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-
280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary
Plan for Subdivision:
(1) Consistency with Master Plan. The PUD IS consistent with
the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM).
(2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The Applicant HAS
fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies
with all of the standards of this Section and all other
provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not
limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone
Districts and Article 4, Site Development Standards
(3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed
subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery
of public services, or require duplication or premature
extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog"
pattern of development.
(a) Utility and Road Extension: Proposed utility
extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service
plan or that County approval of a service plan
amendment will be given; or that road extensions are
consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital
Improvements Plan
(b) Serve Ultimate Population: Utility lines WILL be sized
to serve the planned ultimate population of the service
area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-
sized lines.
(c) Coordinate Utility Extensions: The entire range of
necessary facilities CAN be provided, rather than
incrementally extending a single service into an
otherwise un- served area.
(4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be
subdivided IS suitable for development.
4
3.
(5) Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The proposed
subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing
land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the
future development of the surrounding area.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 240.F.
3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD
(1) Is consistent. The proposed PUD Amendment IS consistent
with the efficient development and preservation of the
entire Planned Unit Development;
(2) Does not affect in a substantially adverse manner. The
proposed 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; and
(3) Does not grant special benefit. The proposed PUD Amendment
IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any
person; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO:
THAT, the application submitted by Kensington Partners for
amendments to the Cordillera Planned Unit Development be and is hereby
granted.
THAT, the "Cordillera Subdivision 8 Amended and Restated PUD
Control Document" attached hereto incorporates the changes approved by
ttiis Resolution and is hereby approved, effective immediately upon its
recording the Office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, and
replacing in its entirety the "Cordillera Subdivision 7 Amended and
Restated PUD Control Document."
THE BOARD further finds, determines and declares that this
Resolution is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
the C�y of Eag e, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held
the day o 2001, nunc pro tunc to the 8th day of
May, 2001. (!Y ��
5
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners
BY: I/ V
Michael L.
om C. Stone, Chairman
M. Menconi, Commissioner
Commissioner Z seconded adoption of the
foregoing resolution. the roll having been called, the vote was as
follows:
Commissioner Tom C. Stone
Commissioner Michael L. Gallagher
Commissioner Arn M. Menconi *ua
This Resolution passed by IZ)4 y�,(,LeQ,/v of the Board of County
'6 Commissioner of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
OF EAGLE, STATE OF
DO, By and Through Its
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
C1
Exhibit `A'
DEFENSIBLE SPACE
GUIDELINES
for
CORDILLERA
SUBDIVISION
Brian Kurtz
Colorado State Forest Service
The wildland urban interface is the zone on the landscape where structures and other development
meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildlands or vegetative fuels. Defensible space is an area
developed and maintained around a structure where fuels (flammable materials) are cleared,
modified, or otherwise treated to slow the spread of wildfire to the structure, as well as, from the
structure to the surrounding areas. Defensible spar_.~ provides a place from which structure
protection and fire suppression operations may occur. Distances within the defensible space area
are measured from the farthest projection of the house (drip line) to the closest branch of
vegetation (drip fine).
All defnsible space areas should begin with an area 3 -5 feet wide where nothing is planted,
particularly if the house is sided with wood, logs, or other flammable material. Decorative rock
or gravel creates an attractive, easily maintained non - flammable ground cover. If the house has
non - combustible siding. widely- spaced foundation plantings of low growing shrubs are
acceptable. Do not piant shrubs directly under windows or next to foundation vents. Be sure
there are no areas of continuous --rass adjacent to the shrubs in this area. Extend gravel coverage
under any deck or projection of the house larger than two feet (eaves, overhangs, etc.).
Next an area extending out an additional 10 -12 feet should be cleared of all large vegetation,
including trees and shrubs, for a total distance of 15 feet from the structure to the nearest branch
on a tree. Mow grasses to a maximum of 6 inches during the growing season.
The size of the defensible space is based on structure size and slope of the ground. An avers_ ►e
percent slope for the land above and below the structure should be obtained. Then refer to the
chart below to determine the total distances for your defensible space from the furthest projection
of the structure.
Defensible Snag Dimensions
S lope M
Distance Uphill and Sides
Distance Downhill
00
70
70
05
76
76
10
80
86
15
86
96
20
90
106
25
96
116
30
100
130
35
106
146
40
110
160
>45
116
200
The final prescription exists on the land extending 15 feet from the structure to the edge of your
defensible space. The objective in this area is to modify the fuels (trees) continuity and
arrangement. The goal is to obtain a 10 foot average separation between tree crowns Green
part). To achieve this objective, primarily suppressed and diseased trees are removed including an
occasional mature tree to provide adequate fuel separation. Prune remaining trees so that lowest
branches are 3 to 10 feet above the ground. Remove all ladder fuels beneath the trees. Ladder
fuels are small shrubs, trees, and tree limbs that can allow a fire to climb into a tree top.
The defensible space area should be cleared of all slash (limbs and branches) and flammable
debris. Most dead trees should be removed. WildHe only need two or three dead trees perzere. -
- -- Be sure that these trees cannot fall onto the house or block access roads. Locate firewood and
propane tanks in the outer porion of this segment. This firewood s►orage area should be located
on contour or uphill of the structure. Beyond the defensible space area traditional forest
management activities should be implemented.
W -)FIRE & FIRE PROTECTION G R LINES
CORDILLERA FILING #33 — PHASE 11 SOUTH PARCEL
Wildfire Regulations:
To reduce the wildfire hazard, areas of Cordillera have been categorized into four hazard classes
corresponding to the degree of wildfire hazard. These classes, A, B, C, and X, listed below, are
used to define the extent of mitigation necessary to minimize exposure to wildfire risks:
• Class A is a low hazard category in which miitigatioti for wildfire hazards are not required.
• Class B is a moderate hazard category in which mitigation to reduce wildfire hazards are
required.
• Class C is a severe hazard category that includes conifer stands with dense crowns, steep
slopes, or existing slash of standing dead timber. Mitigation to reduce wildfire hazards is
required.
• Class X is a severe hazard category that includes dense brush vegetation less than ten feet tall.
Mitigation to reduce wildfire hazards is required within this class
As can be seen from the following table, all Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 within Phase II of the Cordillera
Southern Parcel (aka Filing 33) are within Wildfire Hazard Class X:
Lot
Wildlife
Corridor
Wildfire
Class
Harrington
Penstemon
Habitat
Minimum
Home
Size (sq ft)
Maximum
Home
Size (sq ft)
Additional
Bldg Height
Restrictions
Shared
Access
Required
Log
Home
Const
Caretaker
Unit
1
Outside
X
Within
2,500
18,000
Yes
No
Allowed
Allowed
2
Within
X
Within
2,500
18,000
Yes
No
Allowed
Allowed
3
Within
X
Within
2,500
18,000
Yes
No
Allowed
Allowed
4
Within
X
Within
2,500
18,000
Yes
No
Allowed
Allowed
Accordingly, the following wildfire regulations are to specifically apply to Phase II of the
Cordillera Southern Parcel and are to supplement the Cordillera Design Guidelines for the Divide,
Ranch, and Mountain Tract subdivisions:
• Noncombustible Underwriter Laboratories approved roof materials are required in Wildfire
Hazard Classifications A, B, C, and X.
• Cedar Shake roofing may only be used if treated with fire retardant. Fire retardant cedar
shakes must be pressure impregnated. No surface only application of fire retardants on wood
shake roofing is allowed.
• Implementation of a fuel reduction program to establish a defensible space is encouraged in
Wildfire Hazard Classification A and is required in Wildfire Hazard Classifications B, C, and
X. Such fuel reduction program shall be in accordance with the "Defensible Space
Guidelines for Cordillera Subdivision ". Reference attached for Defensible Space Guidelines.
• All horizontal surfaces such as decks and patios are encouraged to be constructed with fire
impervious materials such as stone or pavers.
Fire Protection Regulations:
• All permanent buildings within Phase 11 of the Cordillera Southern Parcel must be
constructed with an approved fire suppression system Consult the Cordillera Design Review
Board Administrator for information regarding specifications of such systems for permanent
buildings within all Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 of this parcel.
• For information on the central well water system, fire hydrant protection, water storage, and
water distribution system for Phase II of the Cordillera Southern Parcel, please reference the
Engineering Improvement Plans for Cordillera Filing 33.
05115101 Page l of l
Exhibit `B'
C
'
Western Ecosystems, cgn
E cological Consultants
905 West Coach 7coa� �Boulkr, CO 80302 (303)442-6144
May 10, 2001
Mr. Matt Dean
Cordillera
2206 Cordillera Way
P.O. Box 988
Edwards, Colorado 81632 -0988
Re: Commitments to equestrian management on Cordillera's Southern Parcel, Planning Parcels
0-2 (Lot 1), 0 -3 (Lot 2), and 0-4 (Lots 3 and 4).
Dear Matt:
Per direction provided by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners at the May 8, 2001
Preliminary Plan hearing for the above home sites on Phase II of the Southern Parcel, outlined below are
equestrian provisions that are consistent with those previously adopted and in effect at Cordillera's The
Territories development.
Owner(s) of each of the four home sites on Phase II of the Southern Parcel will be permitted to seasonally
keep up to 2 horses on their lot under the following conditions:
A. Horses shall be contained within fenced areas, contiguous with each home's building envelope,
as shown on the Final Plat. Approximate sizes of fenced areas to contain horses shall not exceed the
following. Lot 1, 10 acres; Lot 2, 10 acres; Lot 3, 5 acres; and Lot 4, 4 acres. There shall be no structures
located within the fenced areas. Barns, stalls, trailer storage, or other equestrian facilities shall be contained
within the building envelope.
B. Fencing used to contain horses shall be of a design that facilitates local and migratory wildlife
movements, optimizes habitat availability, and reduces wildlife mortality, with the exception noted in
Paragraph C, below. Fencing approval will be under the purview of the Design Review Board or Property
Owners' Association. A design employing three- strand, smooth -wire fence, with strands located at 18, 30,
and 42 inches above mean ground level is considered by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CROW) to be
compatible with wildlife movements. Other designs may also be acceptable, but require approval by the
CDOW or the project wildlife biologist and the Design Review Board or Property Owners' Association.
Gates in the fence that can be opened outside the period when livestock are present would further facilitate
wildlife use.
C. Owners are permitted a separate, nested, horse corral within the larger fenced area provided
that it is contiguous with the home building envelope and it does not enclose more than fl.5 acres. Corral
Mr. Matt Dean
May 10, 2001
Page 2
fencing may be incompatible with wildlife movements to more securely contain the horses. The purpose
of such a corral is concentrate horse impacts on vegetation to a subset of the overall fenced area and for
use as a feeding area and more convenient holding facility. The purpose of the larger fenced area outside
any corral is for owners to exercise and train horses.
D. To preserve critical big game forage values, it shall be prohibited for owners to graze horses or
other livestock on their lots and elsewhere on the Southern Parcel, unless part of a valid, Cordillera Wildlife
Committee and CDOW authorized wildlife enhancement program. Owners hereby recognize that plant
resources within the fenced horse areas are inadequate to feed the horses. Owners also recognize that
horse grazing and use may adversely affect vegetation w-it'iin fenced areas. 1X'hile horse- grazing and
browsing will occur in fenced equestrian areas, is Cordillera's intention that existing vegetation be
maintained in its present condition to the extent practicable. To that end, all feed required to maintain
horses on individual lots shall be supplied. Hay used to feed horses must be certified weed free. This will
help reduce the spread of noxious weeds that have degraded wildlife habitats elsewhere. Hay storage will
be in a barn to exclude elk and deer access.
E. Owners whose horses graze their property, that of an adjacent Cordillera property owner,
and /or common open space areas in violation of this agreement shall be required by the County, CDOW,
and the Design Review Board or Property Owners' Association to reclaim the property to its former
condition. Fines 'Will be imposed following the spirit of guidelines detailed under enforcement of pet
restrictions applicable to the overall Cordillera PUD.
F. Owners are prohibited from boarding any horses other than their own or those of their
Southern Parcel (Lots 1 -4) neighbors. This is permitted to encourage neighbors to reduce the number of
corrals or fenced equestrian areas in this important wildlife habitat area. Horses of other Cordillera
property owners may be kept overnight for up to two consecutive nights (.e., a weekend) at an owners'
private (Lots 1 -4) facilities, but longer stays shall constitute boarding, which shall be prohibited.
Commercial boarding shall be prohibited, with the exception of remuneration between neighbors, as
defined above.
G. Qwners of Lots 1 -4 intending to board horses on -site shall submit a Horse Management Plan
to the Cordillera Design Review Board prior to ground breaking for any equestrian facilities and before any
horses are kept on -site. The Horse Management Plan shall address:
• the proposed type, design, and location of all horse facilities, including
fencing.
• the number horses to be boarded and the duration they are to be kept.
• proposed waste management.
• proposed runoff management.
• proposed feed management.
• proposed trailer storage.
• documentation and credentials of a caretaker to manage the horse(s).
Mr. Matt Dean
May 10, 2001
Page 3
Please call me if you or the County have any questions:
Sincerely,
( 9 ,- ICL
Richard W. Thompson
Certified '% Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT /s
REFERENCES:
Thompson, R.W. 1997. Wildlife mitigation agreement for The Territories at Cordillera. Western
Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. July. 12 p.
