The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 08/28/2000 PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 28, 2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher Robert Loeffler Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first item on the agenda was an "Executive Session". Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into an "Executive Session" to discuss the following matters: 1) Discuss negotiations with the Eagle County School District regarding an IGA with respect to a property tax to raise money to make a grant to Eagle County schools; determine the County's position in negotiations and give directions to staff for negotiations. 2) Receive legal advice regarding the Smart Growth Initiative and the interpretation of Eagle county Land Use Regulations relating to it. 3) Receive legal advice regarding School Land Dedications as provided in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the application of those regulations to Two Rivers development. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone noted it was 8:44 a.m. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn from the "Executive Session" and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:44 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the first item on the agenda was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of August 28,2000, subject to review by the County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioner meeting for August 14,2000 C) Resolution 2000-121, Re-establishing the rate of charge for Emergency Telephone Service D) Eagle County Emergency Telephone Service Authority, grant approval E) Resolution 2000-122 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit number 1294 for 1.N.M. Missouri Heights, Inc., for Sopris Mesa Subdivision, for $496,826.33 issued by Vectra Bank, will expire August 31, 2000 F) Resolution 2000-123 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit number 45 for Eby Creek Mesa Phase I, for $5,000.00 issued by Alpine Bank, will expire September 1, 2000 1 08-28-2000 G) Resolution and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit number 423 for Michael & Patricia Biggs, for $250.00 for Road Cut Permit number 2756, issued by Weststar Bank, will expire August 30,2000 H) United States Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, amendment of Joint Funding Agreement for water resources investigations I) Agreement between Eagle County and Sudi Berg J) Agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood Connections K) Agreement between Eagle County and the Family Leaming Center L) Agreement between Eagle County and Terri Allender. Chairman Stone asked if the Attorney's office has any items to be addressed. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated item G can be pulled as they have received a substitute letter of credit. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the consent calendar as presented deleting item G. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00131. RiverEdee at Beaver Creek Condominiums. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to subdivide the RiverEdge buildings into condominium units, as well as to create an access and utility easement as shown on the plat. He stated all the findings for this file are positive and asked the Clerk to incorporate the findings into the record as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this is the employee housing. Mr. Gennett suggested that would be the next file. Chairman Stone clarified that RiverEdge does provide employee housing. Commissioner Gallagher asked about combining the two files as a concept of employee housing, he asked if it is known if the applicant intends to continue using them as employee housing even after they are condominiumized. Mr. Gennettt stated he doesn't believe they intend to change the status. Chairman Stone asked why they would want to make this change. He questioned the desire of the applicant. He spoke to the financing of the units. Mr. Gennett stated as far as the Tames is concerned it is to create the units as separate units. He stated he believes the intent is the same for RiverEdge so they can be used as separate units. Chairman Stone asked if there is a timing issue on either of these files that has to be acted on today. Mr. Gennett stated as for the Tarnes he believes there may be some time constraints. 2 08-28-2000 Chairman Stone questioned from a legal standpoint what is the process. He spoke to the original approval which was based on density at the time. He stated he recalls being in on part of the approval. He asked if this requires them to go through any kind of additional subdivision approval process. Ms. Black stated there wouldn't be an additional approval process and those things previously approved would still be binding. Chairman Stone asked about plat notes. Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, stated the purpose of the plat is to condominiumize and through this process to subdivide the buildings into 104 separate units. It also shows an easement. He read that they intend to condominiumize for the purpose of ownership. Jenna Skinner, Planner, stated she also understood that this would allow for greater voting rights. Michael Cacioppo, area resident, stated as a citizen he does not appreciate this coming before the Board without he as a citizen being able to comment. He questions this being listed on Plat and Resolution signing only. He questioned this being a slam dunk deal without the public knowing. He stated once these become condominiums and are sold to individual owners, who may work for the company, what prevents them from selling these to others who are not employees. Commissioner Phillips stated this is an item on which the decision is made by staff, as it is a minor type B subdivision. Mr. Cacioppo asked if staff has the authority to okay Vail Resorts selling off these units. Commissioner Phillips stated she does not believe that the status of the units changes anything. Mr. Cacioppo asked ifthey are selling these to employees. Chairman Stone read from a letter dated July 12,2000 to Bob Loeffler from Vail Resorts, Martha Rehm as follows: "Dear Bob, BC Housing, LLC, in support of its application for a Final Plat/Condominium Map for RiverEdge at Beaver Creek Condominiums, file number 5MB-OO 131, represents to Eagle County, Colorado as follows; 1) BC Housing LLC acknowledges its continuing obligations under that certain Housing Facilities Financing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1997, between Eagle County, CO and BC Housing, LLC, until all of the Eagle County Revenue Bonds issued pursuant to that agreement have been paid in full, including its obligation to own, maintain and operate the project, including all of the proposed RiverEdge at Beaver Creek Condominium as residential facilities for low and middle income families or persons; and 2) the condominiumization ofthe Project is solely to accomplish a change in the structure ofBC Housing, LLC's ownership of the project, i.e., from undivided fee simple ownership of the buildings to fee simple ownership the condominium units and general common elements created by said Final Plat/Condominium Map, and there is no intent to sell all or any part ofthe Project while the bonds are outstanding. Sincerely, BC Housing, LLC, Martha Rehm, Sr. Vice President." Chairman Stone stated he hoped that this could be tabled until they can have the applicant present. Commissioner Phillips moved to continue file number 5MB-OO 131, RiverEdge at Beaver Creek Condominiums to September 5, 2000 to allow the applicant to be present. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00247, The Tarnes at Beaver Creek Condominiums Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00247, The Tames at Beaver Creek Condominiums to September 5, 2000 to allow the applicant to be present. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00249. First Amendment to Beaver Creek Subdivision. Second Filine:. A 3 08-28-2000 Re-subdivision of Lot 7. Tract L. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re- subdivide Lot 7 into two (2) 'is duplex lots, Lots 7 A and 7B, as well as an area of common ownership called Lot C. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00249, First Amendment to Beaver Creek Subdivision, Second Filing, a resubdivision of Lot 7, Tract L, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-124. to Approve the Special Use Permit for VoiceStream PCS (Eaele County File No. ZS-0058). Commissioner Phillips suggested it would be helpful to have the date the file was heard and approved be part of the record. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-124, approval of the Special Use Permit for Voice Stream PCS, file number ZS-00058 previously heard on August 14,2000. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-125. to Approve a Zone District Amendment for the Willits Family Homestead (Eaele County File No. ZC-00034). Mr. Gennett stated this file was heard and approve on July 31, 2000. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-125, approval of a Zone District Amendment for the Willits Family Homestead, file number ZC-00034 approved by the Board of County Commissioners July 31, 2000. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-126. to Approve a Consolidated Service Plan For Red Sky Ranch Metropolitan District and Holland Creek Metropolitan District. As Amended. Mr. Gennett stated the Board of County Commissioners heard this on August 21,2000. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-126, approval of a consolidated Service Plan for Red Sky Ranch Metropolitan District and Holland Creek Metropolitan District which was heard and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 21,2000. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0032, Mid Valley Metropolitan District Ross Easterling, Planner, presented file number 1041-0032, Mid-Valley Metropolitan District, completeness hearing. He stated the action that will be requested from the Board on August 28, 2000 is to determine completeness of a 1041 Permit application and to estimate associated processing fees. Mid Valley Metropolitan District (District) proposes to build a new tertiary wastewater plant to 4 08-28-2000 replace the existing Facultative Aerated Lagoon wastewater plant. The district is operating under an existing 1041 permit that was approved by the permit authority in 1983 (Resolution No. 83-67.) The resolution included several exception parcels within the boundary of the District. A land use application (the McCune Subdivision) on one of the exception parcels triggered the need for a new 1041 permit. In the interest of prudence, the District is applying for one 1041 to include the exception parcels, rather than pursue a 1041 for each small inclusion. At this same time the District wastewater treatment plant is close to capacity and an expansion is required. Staff has reviewed the above referenced application and has found it to be complete. Staff tentatively scheduled the hearings for the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and Permit Authority on October 19,2000 and October 30, 2000, respectively. Estimated fees for the above referenced 1041 Permit application are as follows: Community Development Staff 12 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 510.00 Engineering Staff 8 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 340.00 Attorney Staff 8 Hrs @ $75.00 = $ 600.00 TOTAL = $1,450.00 Chairman Stone noted this is not to approve the application but to find the application complete. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board accept the application submitted by Mid Valley Metropolitan District for site selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage treatment systems; the major extension of a domestic water treatment system and the efficient utilization of the municipal water projects as complete. The estimated fee to process this application is $1,450.00 and may be altered to cover the actual cost of review and public hearings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve the applicant's request for waiver of the special use permit requirement as allowed in section 3-310-1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution Approving the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds Renee Black suggested that this item is not quite ready and that the Board should not open this file and ask it be continued to next week. David Carter, Housing Director, stated he has been told that they should be receiving the information any day. The Board concurred to not open the file. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) Terrance S. Marcum dba/Shop & Hop #3 This establishment is located on the corner of Eagle Vail Road and Highway 6, in Eagle Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for August 28, 5 08-28-2000 2000, as presented. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce Earlene Roach presented an application for a special use permit for the Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce. She stated this file has been withdrawn by the applicant. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Executive Session Chairman Stone called for a motion to return to "Executive Session" to continue the discussion on the School District Ballot Question. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into "Executive Session" to discuss the School District Ballot Question. The time was noted at 11 :40 a.m. Chairman Stone announced they had returned from "Executive Session" and asked for a motion to reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn from "Executive Session" and reconvene and the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 12:08 p.m. Resolution, File SD-0018, Roaring Fork Open Space Park & Recreation District Service Plan Keith Montag stated they do not have the resolution to present today and have been asked by the applicant to table this to September 12,2000 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Phillips moved to continue file SD-0018 to September 12,2000 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution, Eagle County's Interpretation of Responsible Growth Initiative. Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated the Resolution still needs a little work and time needs to be allowed for public input. Chuck Crist, a local property owner and candidate for County Commissioner, asked what they are intending to do. Chairman Stone stated there are a number of undefined issues in Amendment 24 and one that leaves the door open for various interpretations, one being "a complete application". He stated they are also looking at other ways to reduce the explosive amount of litigation because it is so ill defined. Mr. Crist stated he has read the initiative and it is very vague and has many cautions. He urged the Board to vote against it. He stated he believes it is an assault on private property rights and agriculture. Peter Jamar, Jamar and Associates, stated he is not real clear on what the Board is intending to do. Chairman Stone stated they are considering a resolution that will help them to define some of the terms of the amendment. 6 08-28-2000 Mr. Jamar stated he thinks the resolution looks good but it doesn't go as far as other jurisdictions have gone. Chairman Stone asked for more information. Mr. Jamar suggested the short form that other jurisdictions have adopted may provide more information. He stated it may be difficult for anyone who is trying to get a complete application in line. He spoke to a special use permit at the Vail Christian High School and them having difficulty getting through the process before and this may have some repercussions. He suggested that non-profit projects will likely be killed. He spoke to other Counties and Towns in the State that have come out adamantly against it. He stated the short form application does allow you to regain the control from those on the front range. He referred to Summit County and Routt County who are asking as a ballot question to not be included based on their population. He suggested the Board should try to regain the control locally. Chairman Stone stated his concern about offering some sort of short form is there are not a lot of people out there that know what will be caused by this. He spoke to the Eagle County Cattlemen's meeting last night and doesn't know that the Eagle County ranchers know enough or have enough time to come in and fill out a short form. He stated he is not exactly sure what to do. Commissioner Phillips stated she has attended a couple of workshops on this matter to try and obtain the facts. She stated CCI and CML worked very hard to get a bill passed to help the homeowners and the utility companies and now those two groups are against Amendment 24. She stated they were told if you wanted your children to live with you for the rest of your life then vote for this amendment. Because it will be almost impossible to build homes if this bill passes. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has reviewed the proposed amendment and does not believe it is a good idea and hopes it is defeated. He stated it does not belong in the Constitution. It is fraught will all kinds of land mines and tank traps for someone who wants to do something on their property. He stated he will wait and see what the Resolution states. Chairman Stone stated the monies come from the Sierra Club and California, who are trying to tell us what to do in Eagle County. PDF-00053, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, Filing 2 Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number PDF-00053, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, Filing 2. The intent of this plat is to: subdivide Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, Filing 2; to into 2 duplex lots (Lot 1 and 2), and Parcels A-E which act as parking, open space, trails and (access / utility), easements. Tom Bronn, representing Steve McDonald and Miller's Creek, stated they have no presentation but are happy to answer any questions. Staff findings are found on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: a) This final plat conforms to the ofthe approval ofthe Preliminary Plat for subdivision. b) Required improvements are adequate. c) Areas dedicated for public use and easements are acceptable and; Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e. ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision shall comply 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. a) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall be located and 7 08-28-2000 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. b) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall be required prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Ea~le County Road Capital Improvements Plan. i. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. ii. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. iii. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or man- made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. iv. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number PDF-00053, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, Filing 2, incorporating staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign both the Plat and Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00090, Bear Gulch Subdivision, Filing 1, Lots 4 & 5 Matt Gennett presented file number AFP-00090, Bear Gulch Subdivision, Filing 1, Lots 4 & 5. He stated this was an Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to modify the previously platted building envelopes. Mr. Gennett stated staff findings are as shown on the staff report and as follows: Commissioner Gallagher asked where Travis Road is located. Steve Wujek, Knight Planning, stated it is almost at the top of Bellyache. Chairman Stone asked why the move. Mr. Wujek stated so they can make better use ofthe lot and help preserve vegetation. Pursuant to Section 5-290.Gl of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has considered the following in the review of the Type B Minor Subdivision: a. Access, Water and Sewage. The access, potable water, and sewage on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The Amended Final Plat is in conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. Improvements Agreements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement is not applicable. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. AFP-00090, Bear Gulch Subdivision, Filing 1, Lots 4 & 5 incorporating the findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00091, Edwards Plaza Subdivision, Consolidation of Lots 1 & 2B Matt Gennett presented file number AFP-00091, Edwards Plaza Subdivision, Consolidation of 8 08-28-2000 Lots 1 & 2B. He stated this was an Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to vacate an existing lot line and create a 20' Sewer Line Easement. Mr. Gennett stated staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290.Gl of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has considered the following in the review of the Type B Minor Subdivision: a. Access, Water and Sewage. The access, potable water, and sewage on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The Amended Final Plat is in conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. Improvements Agreements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement is not applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number AFP-00091, Edwards Plaza Subdivision, Consolidation of Lots 1 & 2B, incorporating staff findings. The Chairman shall be authorized to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00028, Two Rivers Village Keith Montag presented file number PDA-00028, Two Rivers Village. He stated the Planning Commission's deliberations focused primarily on the matter of School District options relative to the site north of 1-70. It made minor recommended changes to the Conditions of approval. Staff agrees with all Planning Commission recommended changes except that the minimum lot size be less than 3,049 square feet. He stated to the applicant's credit and staffthere have been a lot of issues that have been worked through and can see from today' s presentation there are just a couple of issues outstanding. He stated they have come a long way. Mr. Loeffler asked if for the record they should open up both files including VIS-0009 Two Rivers Village, Variance From Improvement Standards. Chairman Stone asked the record reflect the consideration of both files simultaneously. Mr. Montag showed the site plan being at 170 and Colorado River Road. He showed the 280 lots of manufactured housing as well as the five estate lots. He stated there are another three lots to the east ofthe river. He spoke to the water treatment plant located to the west ofthe development, the fire station, and school site. He stated they also have a commercial and multi-family area including 126 condominiums. He spoke to the church site and the two park sites. He stated the existing lakes are also part of the development to be used as a recreational amenity. He showed some photographs of the development. He spoke to the school site being north or 170 next to the Frontage Road. He stated this used to be an old tree farm site. Preliminary plan was approved by the Board on October 5, 1998 with extensive conditions, Resolution 98-137. Amendments that have been requested included allowance for multiple phases of development allowing for the filing of at least 2 final plats rather than one. They have asked to move the active park from the west to the east. Convert 40,000 square feet of commercial use to 40 condos/apartments and eliminate 20 employee units. New totals equal 160 DU, 20,000 commercial. They are extending length of day care lot reservation and add daycare to Community Center building and Church Site as a use-by-right in perpetuity. Chairman Stone asked for further explanation. Mr. Montag stated originally they had day care only for a certain amount of time. He went on to state they have reduced the minimum lot size from approximately a little over 3,000 square feet to just over 2,800 square feet. They will be creating 2 separate lots in Parcel C rather than have 1 lot and change the Homeowners' Association voting status from control by owner-occupants to 1 vote/lot (any corporation can own 10% of the lots). 9 08-28-2000 Mr. Montag stated there are only a couple of items needing attention and those are as followed: Minimum Lot Size. [CONDITION 1O.B] County desires minimum lot size be 3,049 square feet per Preliminary Plat text and staff reports. Applicant seeks less per Preliminary Plat drawing. Rationale 1: Sketch Plan range: 4,000-5,000 sf. Rationale 2: Preliminary Plat text and all staff reports indicate minimum lot size: 0.070 acres = 3,049 sf. Rationale 3:Lots are already very small. ECLUR minimum single-wide lot size: 3,800. Road Impact Fee. [CONDITION 10.D] County requires $480,000. Applicant is seeking a BOARD waiver. Rationale 1: Any new development with 448 dwelling units and 20,000 sf of commercial space will create impacts to County roads regardless of project location Mr. Montag stated the disputed condition are as follows: 10.B. Minimum Lot Sizes: "Two Rivers Village" Manufactured Housing. The minimum lot size shall be 3,049 square feet (0.070 acre)feet except that Lot 29 Block 5 mav be 2.985 square feet. Lot 30 Block 5 mav be 2.874 square feet. Lot 31 Block 5 mav be 2.942 square feet. and Lot 32 Block 5 may be 3.011 square feet [Preliminary Plat). Staff does not concur with added Planning Commission language.. 10.D. Impact Fees. The sum of $480,000.00 shall be submitted with submittal ofthe revised Final Plat/s (File Nos. PDF-00043 and PDF-00044) for this project. Mr. Montag stated the applicant has agreed to all but the following: Minimum Lot Size: the applicant desires that the minimum lot size be 3,049 square feet. Applicant stated dimensions on approved preliminary plat equals 2,800 square feet. Chairman Stone asked how many lots. Mr. Montag stated four lots. He stated at sketch plan the lots were shown at 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Preliminary plat text and all staff reports state minimum lot of3,049. Lots are already very small. ECLUR minimum single-wide lot size is 3,800 square feet. Chairman Stone asked if there is a difference between the old regulation and new. Mr. Montag stated they view a manufactured home as they do a single family residence. Chairman Stone asked what the minimum recommended square footage is for a single family home. Mr. Montag stated he would provide that information. He stated another condition the applicant would like consideration on is the road impact fees in the amount of $445,000. He stated staff is of the opinion any new development will create impacts and should be included as a developer cost. He stated as conditioned, all staff findings are positive. Referral responses were as follows: Colorado Division of Water Resources. Based on information provided, with adequate storage capacity well should provide adequate supply for proposed use. If the Two Rivers Metro District is formed and operates according to its augmentation plan, the proposed water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: 1. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.e Standards. The Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall comply with the following standards: Section 5-240.F.3.e (1). Unified ownership or control. 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e 0) Findin~ [+] Unified ownership or control. Title to all land IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) 10 08-28-2000 person; HOWEVER THAT all land owners have agreed and consented to this application. Section 5-240.F.3.e (2). Uses. 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 ofthese use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5- 240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. Section 5-240.F.3.e (2) Findin(: [+] Uses. The reference to Table 3-300 and Table 3-320 as stated is inappropriate for this application since no new land addition is proposed. Subject property is currently zoned PUD and the residential and commercial uses proposed ARE uses that are allowed in the PUD. Section 5-240.F.3.e (3). Dimensional Limitations. 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (3) Findin(:s: [+] Dimensional Limitations. The reference to Table 3-340 and Table 3-320 as stated is inappropriate for these applications since dimensional limitations are governed by the PUD Guide. Variations of the dimensional limitations set forth in the PUD Guide 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. In determining whether a Variation to create front setbacks in the commercial/residential area should be granted. the following is found: (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. Structures shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration, with other units in the PUD and the surrounding area, yet shall avoid uniformity of design. Residential and non- residential uses may be mixed together. Various types of residential uses may also be combined within the PUD, to promote more efficient land use patterns and increased open space. The Board of County Commissioners may require minimum yard setbacks, lot widths, and space between buildings of such dimensions as they are determined to be necessary to provide adequate access and fire protection; to ensure proper ventilation, light, air, and snowmelt between buildings; and to minimize the effects of transmission of noise between units and between buildings. As a general guide, twenty (20) feet between buildings shall be considered the minimum appropriate spacing. Section 5-240.F.3.e (4) Off-Street Parking and Loading. 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 ofthe 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 11 08-28-2000 passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Section 5-240.F.3.e (4) Finding [+] Off Street Parking and Loading. By virtue of prior Preliminary Plan approval, it HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided north ofl-70 and in the manufactured housing component of Two Rivers Village can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. As conditioned, Applicant's reduction in parking in the "Village Center" for Shared Parking and/or Actual Needs IS acceptable. Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Landscaping. 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Findings [+] [+] Landscaping. By virtue of prior Preliminary Plan approval, it HAS been demonstrated that landscaping provided in the proposed PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Section 5-240.F.3.e (6) Signs. 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. Section 5-240.F .3.e (5) Findin~ [+] Signs. By virtue of prior Preliminary Plan approval, it has been shown that a comprehensive sign plan suitable for the Two Rivers PUD EXISTS with the Two Rivers PUD Guide. Section 5-240.F.3.e (7) Adequate Facilities. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (7) Findin~s [+] Adequate Facilities. As conditioned, it HAS been demonstrated that the proposed development will provide adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, or fire protection. Same HAVE previously been demonstrated to be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Section 5-240.F.3.e (8) Improvements. The improvements 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. 12 08-28-2000 (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Section 5-240.F.3.e (8) Findin~s [+] Improvements. As conditioned, it CAN be demonstrated that all of the improvements standards applicable to the proposed development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, PROVIDED that the Board of Eagle County Commissioners approves a Variation from Improvement Standards (File No. VIS-00009). Section 5-240.F.3.e (9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Section 5-240.F.3.e (9) Findine [+] Compatibility with surrounding land uses. By virtue of its prior PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change approvals, the Two Rivers project has already been determined by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners to be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The changes to the Preliminary Plan proposed by this PUD Amendment, File No. PDA-00028, do not substantively alter the findings of these prior approvals. Section 5-240.F.3.e (10) Consistency with Master Plan. The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Section 5-240.F.3.e (10) Findings [+] Consistency with Master Plan. By virtue of its prior PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change approvals, the Two Rivers project has already been determined by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners to be consistent with Eagle County's master plans. The changes to the Preliminary Plan proposed by this PUD Amendment, File No. PDA-00028, do not substantively alter the findings ofthese prior approvals. Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) Phasing The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a 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 and desirable for residents ofthe project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) Findin~ [+] Phasing. As conditioned, the proposed PUD Amendment DOES include an adequate phasing plan for the development, and guarantees WILL BE provided with the Final Plat and as otherwise established in the PUD Agreement for those public improvements and amenities necessary 13 08-28-2000 and 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, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Section 5-240.F.3.e (12) Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% 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 Master Plan. i) 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. ii) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, 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. iii) 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. iv) 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. v) 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (12) Finding [+] Common Recreation and Open Space. By virtue of prior Preliminary Plan approval, the PUD HAS ALREADY BEEN shown to comply with the common recreation and open space standards above. Relocation of the park from the west end of the PUD to the east end of the PUD does not substantially alter this finding. Over 25% ofthe total PUD area IS devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public, and the PUD DOES provide a minimum often (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are to be residents of the PUD. The Improvements Required, Continuing Use and Maintenance, and Organization Standards required SHALL BE met by or before approval of any Pinal Plat for this project. Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) Natural Resource Protection. 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. 14 08-28-2000 Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) Findinl: [+] Natural Resource Protection. It is assumed that the proposed PUD HAS considered 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. 2. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision shall comply with the following standards: Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) Findin~ [+] Consistency with Master Plan. By virtue of its prior PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change approvals, the Two Rivers project HAS ALREADY BEEN determined by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners to be consistent with Eagle County's master plans. The changes to the Preliminary Plan proposed by this PUD Amendment, File No. PDA-00028, do not substantively alter the findings of these prior approvals. Section 5-280.B.3.e (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision shall comply 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. Section 5-280.B.3.e (2) Findin~ [+] Consistent with Land Use Regulations. As conditioned, the proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and PROVIDED a Variance from Improvement Standards (File No. VIS-00009) is approved by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners. Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall be 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 Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Ca{lital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall 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. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) Finding [+] Spatial Pattern Shall be Efficient. By virtue of its prior PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change approvals, the Two Rivers project HAS ALREADY BEEN determined by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners to be spatially efficient. The changes to the Preliminary Plan proposed by this PUD Amendment, File No. PDA-00028, do not substantively alter the findings of these prior approvals. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service 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. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 15 08-28-2000 Section 5-280.B.3.e (4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Section 5-280.B.3.e (4) Findin~ [+] Suitability for Development. By virtue of its prior PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change approvals, the property HAS ALREADY BEEN determined by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners to be suitable for development considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. The changes to the Preliminary Plan proposed by this PUD Amendment, File No. PDA-00028, do not substantively alter the findings of these prior approvals. Section 5-280.B.3.e (5) Compatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Section 5-280.B.3.e (5) Findinl: [+] Compatible With Surrounding Uses. By virtue of its prior PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change approvals, the Two Rivers project HAS ALREADY BEEN determined by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners to be compatible with surrounding land uses and not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The changes to the Preliminary Plan proposed by this PUD Amendment, File No. PDA-00028, do not substantively alter the findings of these prior approvals. 3. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: Section 5-240.F.3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan/or PUD. 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 24-67-104(1)( e) Colorado Revised Statutes that the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, 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 is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Section 5-240.F.3.m. Findin~ (1) (+) Is consistent. As conditioned, the proposed PUD Amendment to, among other things, (a) allow multiple phases of development with incremental lot sales; (b) submit two final plats; (c) relocate the "active" park from the easterly end of Two Rivers Village to the western end; (d) convert 40,000 square feet of commercial space to 40 condominium/apartment units and parking garages; (e) allow day care in the Community Center building and amend day care time restrictions on certain lots in the manufactured housing portion of the project; (f) change conditions for fulfilling school land dedication requirements; and (g) otherwise amend or remove certain conditions of Preliminary Plan approval as set forth in Resolution 98-137 of the Board of Eagle County Commissioners, IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) (+) Does not affect in a substantially adverse manner. As conditioned, 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. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, introduced Bill and Analiese Stephens, owner of the project, Jim Krutz, Ken Kriez, Rick Poffenberger, and William Cohen, Engineer working on the school site and George Gonzales, Johnson Kunkel Associates. 16 08-28-2000 Mr. Isom again showed the location of the project. He stated part of the original approvals on the project anticipated they would look at moving the park to a more central location. He stated they also always envisioned the commercial to be in the same location. He referred to the character sketches and reviewed those for the Board. He spoke to the commercial and office area and the desire of the Sheriff to have space there. He stated the other item was the phasing. He explained their plan for phasing from the east to the west. He showed the changes that they had made to the map in red. He showed the road access to the BLM and access in and around the lakes. He stated they have also moved the storage site next to the fire station. He stated they also have included the potential for having garages. Mr. Isom spoke to the school site and a discussion he had with Gerald Gallegos a few years ago. He spoke of their conversation with the School District and Karen Strakbein who indicated the School District would not be interested in a school in that location. He spoke to the Board then asking that there be a school site located there. He spoke to the site visit and the amenities needed to have a school there. Mr. Isom stated about a month ago Jean Garren discovered the formula for site configuration may have been figured wrong as this is not a mobile home park but rather a single family development. They amended their application to show 4.5 acres needed for the school. He spoke to an analysis of the site and the need to maintain the site. He handed out the site survey. Chairman Stone asked to address the item individually. He referred to the first page of the executive summary. The first item he asked they address is: allow multiple phases of development and incremental lot sales rather than one phase of development followed by lot sales. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the time limit on the phasing. Mr. Isom responded as part of the SIA at final plat they would be collateralizing each area and submit a time frame for the phasing. Chairman Stone stated the next item is the filing of at least 2 final plats rather than one. Chairman Stone asked what is the purpose of that. Mr. Isom stated the north side is owned by Bill and Analiese Stephens and the south side is owned by Two Rivers Village. Chairman Stone asked if that presents any issues or problems. Mr. Montag answered no. Mr. Loeffler stated the representations of the original preliminary plan approval suggested there would be a single final plat. There doesn't seem to be a reason to not have two. Commissioner Phillips suggested it would be simpler to have two plats rather than one. Chairman Stone stated the next item is moving the "more active" park from the west end to the east end. Mr. Isom stated the Sheriffs Office indicated they would prefer to have the park more of the town center to be better monitored. They have a 1 lIz acre extra park. Commissioner Phillips questioned the Sheriff giving input on this project and not on others they have looked at. Commissioner Gallagher asked about filling the corner of the lake. Mr. Isom explained it is only three feet deep. Commissioner Gallagher questioned if the islands were a part of the property. Mr. Isom stated the one in the middle is not. Chairman Stone suggested they would talk about the school site last. Next is convert 40,000 square feet of commercial space to 40 condo/apartment units, eliminating 20 employee housing units. Mr. Isom stated the employee housing units were above the commercial and those will now be a part of the 160 units. He stated they see all of the 160 units as employee housing. The original clients wanted more commercial space. Chairman Stone asked if there are any restrictions on the deeds and how employee housing is defined. Mr. Montag stated the general approach is it is affordable housing. He stated there are no deed 17 08-28-2000 restrictions being proposed. Mr. Loeffler stated based on Arrowhead Standard, it was understood that you should generate so much employee housing with commercial development. Ken Kriez stated the original proposal was for 100 condo units and 20 employee housing units and 60,000 square feet of commercial. That is being converted from 60,000 square feet of commercial to 40 condo units making the employee housing units into condo units, making a total of 160. Commissioner Phillips stated she likes the reduction in commercial development. She stated she is not sure of the trade off for the condominiums. Mr. Isom stated the extra 40,000 square feet will be incorporated into 40 additional units. Commissioner Gallagher stated it makes sense to reduce the commercial. Chairman Stone stated the next item is extending the length of daycare lot reservations and add daycare to community center building and church site as use-by-right in perpetuity. Mr. Isom stated they want the church facility to be able to accommodate day care as well. Chairman Stone stated he appreciates the changes. Chairman Stone stated the next item is to reduce the minimum lot size from 3,049 to 2,875 square feet. He asked what is the change they are requesting and is it for the entire development or for just the specific home sites. Mr. Isom explained they would restrict it to just those specific home sites. He stated they only have four lots with the minimum being 35 x 80. Mr. Montag stated within the zone districts, the smallest lot size would be 4,000 square feet on a single family home site within the RSM zoning. Chairman Stone asked what is the smallest available for a mobile home. Mr. Montag responded 3,800. Chairman Stone asked for the Board's rational. Commissioner Phillips asked why the Planning Commission agreed to the smaller units. She spoke to the various lot sizes and that nothing is uniform. Mr. Montag stated they are concerned that 2800 square feet is small for a single family lots. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the standards of the home construction, if they were HUD Standards or UBC Standards. Mr. Isom stated they are built to both. The UBC is on a permanent foundation. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the difference. Mr. Montag stated the titling of the home is different as well. Mr. Isom stated these will all be built to UBC Standards but it is up to the owners if they want a permanent foundation or not. Chairman Stone asked what the developers intent is. Ken Kriez stated they intend on building these all as UBC. They do intend to sell many of the lots but others they will rent. They are a titled unit so whoever finances them holds title to the unit. Chairman Stone asked for anything in the original approval regarding ownership and/or leasing. Mr. Isom stated the original plan was for 50% ownership. Mr. Montag concurred. Mr. Kriez stated it was his understanding that if they didn't have all the units sold within a year that they could convert those to rental units. Chairman Stone asked that be confirmed. He asked if the Commissioners agree or disagree with the Planning Commission conditions which is to keep the lots at the larger size. Commissioner Gallagher asked if staff agrees to this or not. Chairman Stone read from the disputed conditions: Minimum Lot Sizes: "Two Rivers Village' Manufactured Housing. The minimum lot size shall be 3,049 square feet (0.070 acre) feet that Lot 29 Block 5 may be 2,985 square feet, Lot 30 Block 5 may be 2,874 square feet, Lot 31, Block 5 may be 2,942 square feet, and Lot 32 Block 5 may be 3,011 square feet. 18 08-28-2000 Commissioner Phillips stated she believes the three lots can all be of different sizes as they are almost 3,000 square feet. Chairman Stone stated he would agree to go ahead with the Planning Commission language. He stated next is creating 2 separate lots in Parcel C rather than have 1 lot. Mr. Isom stated they overlooked this initially and there are two distinct functions on these lots, one will be storage and single family residential and the other is for Mr. Stephens to extend the nursery and it makes better sense to create two separate lots. Chairman Stone asked for comments or questions. Mr. Montag stated staff is in concurrence. Commissioner Phillips asked about the size of the lot. Mr. Isom stated the northern one is a little over an acre and the southern one is 2.2 acres. Mr. Isom stated they are only changing the Homeowner's Association voting status from control by owner-occupants to 1 vote/lot (any corporation can own 10% of the lots). Mr. Isom stated this is a request to put it back the way it was. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the 10% ownership would apply to the condominiums as well. Mr. Isom stated it probably would not. Chairman Stone asked about the variation of improvement standards. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated there are a total of 14 variances. She stated when this plan was originally approved it was done so to standards that are not applicable today. She stated they have worked together regarding safety and construction of the road. She stated some of the variances were approved when the plan was approved. She spoke to the secondary access which will be the road surrounding the lakes. There was a lot of give and take and anything that had to do with safety the applicant willingly took care of. She stated all of the improvements were approved at preliminary plan. Chairman Stone asked the applicant to explain the hardship in order for them to grant the varIances. Mr. Isom stated this project has always been designed for employee use and to be able to reach the type of density that will make the project affordable they must make some reasonable restrictions. He stated they are trying to keep this as affordable. Chairman Stone stated the applicant stated in order to keep this development in an affordable range they are requesting these variances. Chairman Stone asked Ms. Migchelbrink if she is satisfied this does not modify or give up any health, safety or welfare concerns. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that is correct. Chairman Stone asked for public comment on any of the issues but stated they will still talk about the school site and the impact fees. Mike Cacioppo stated he objects because he hasn't had the ability to hear what they have to say about the school site. Chairman Stone agreed to allow the school site and the impact fees to be discussed. Mr. Isom stated the impact fee has always been a final plat item. They do not believe that this will be an impact on the County. Chairman Stone asked why they are talking about it now if it is a final plat item. Mr. Loeffler stated the Subdivision Improvements Agreement which includes the Off Site Road Impact Agreement is done at the final plat. Chairman Stone reviewed the three options being not talk about it now, talk about it at final plat or talk about it now and not make a decision until final plat. Mr. Isom stated they really didn't figure on this in this project as they don't believe they are impacting the County roads. He suggested affordable housing should outweigh the requirement. Chairman Stone asked about road impact fees. 19 08-28-2000 Helen Migchelbrink stated for at least 18 years they have assessed road impact fees at the rate of $1000 per residential unit. She stated the bottom line is they are not done on a site specific basis. The whole idea is the impact is felt County wide. The rational is it is a shared cost over the whole County. Chairman Stone suggested it is more of an affordability issue. Mr. Isom stated $1000 per unit will result in a $10.00 per month increase in rent forever. Chairman Stone stated it is always said that development should pay for itself. He asked who pays for the impacts to County roads. Mr. Isom spoke to some of the roads in West Vail. Jim Krutz, representing the applicant stated the genesis of this came out of Larimer County where they built a road to the development. He stated the genesis is important because it really doesn't bear on County roads. He suggested that this development is unique in nature because it is right on 1-70. He stated the roads have a road tax. The second reason they are asking for a waiver is their desire to hold the cost down. It is an add on cost to that person trying to buy affordable housing. Chairman Stone suggested that the buyers set the price and the developer will charge whatever the market will bear. There are no guarantees from the developer that they will charge less per unit. He stated he won't ask for the guarantee, but at some point in time the savings increase the developers potential earnings. Mr. Krutz stated he went on record relating to affordability and they could not guarantee the price. Logic dictates you can only build a certain kind of home on this project. At what point it becomes unaffordable he doesn't know. It is passed on to the consumer at some extent. Ken Kriez stated the original plan that he looked at did not include the impact fees. He spoke to his experience in Garfield County. He suggested until they get into final construction costs they won't know what the prices will be. They hope to have HUD financing available. He mentioned deed restrictions and that they would like to do that on all for sale units but will they be marketable. His intent is to have deed restrictions on all the lots including multi-family. Chairman Stone asked if the County has ever waived the impact fees. Mr. Montag stated not that he recalls. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the SOO units and the occupancy of a couple thousand people. He spoke to use of Colorado River Road, Cottonwood Pass, etc and he is not interested in reducing the fees. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the affordability but agrees with Commissioner Gallagher that they need to have the fees to support Eagle County. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it is in the scope of their provisions to allow for payments. Mr. Isom stated at Sopris View Apartments they did it at time of building permit. Chairman Stone suggested it could be by phase. Helen Migchelbrink stated they want to phase the construction but plat all the lots. Mr. Isom stated they will have a separate Subdivision Improvements Agreement for each phase and they could do this in conjunction with the SIA. Chairman Stone suggested they should work on the details of how that can happen as they have until final plat. Mr. Isom stated the school is part ofthe site to the north. Bill Cohen, from Grand Junction, introduced himself and reviewed his credentials. He stated there are three types of slope failure, plain failure where rocks come down a plain of weakness, toppling, where it topples over and circular failure which means a landslide. He stated they have collected specimens of both weathered and unweathered rocks for classifications. He stated rock mass is where the emphasis is. Rock in that condition doesn't fail because of a fracture. You have to be able to evaluate it as a whole. He stated the slope as designed will be stable. The other issue is rock fall. He spoke to a computer program used to model the trajectory of the rock. Based on this and a 200 foot high slope he believes minor mitigation will be needed to provide a safe location. 20 08-28-2000 Chairman Stone suggested they just addressed slope failure and rock fall. He asked about debris flow. Mr. Cohen stated they did hike the area and the rock flow fields. He stated the debris flows in their opinion will have to go through the rock flow interceptor. He stated it will fill it up. They measure the rock fall field from the trench out 66 feet. Chairman Stone asked if they looked at any kind of special hydro logic loading. Mr. Cohen stated ground water is a major issue and drainage may be a requirement. He stated the ditch while intended for rock fall interception will also be used as the drain. He doesn't consider ground water to be a concern. Chairman Stone asked if there will be any additional factors he might want to consider. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the rock wall. Mr. Cohen explained it consisted of a trench eight feet wide at the bottom. For the other side because it would take up too much space, they are proposing the outer wall will be sloped nearly vertical with a crest width of eight feet with a security fence on top of the crest and an out slope of 1 and ~ to 1. Commissioner Gallagher asked how deep it would be. Mr. Cohen responded four feet. Commissioner Gallagher asked who would keep the ditch clean. Mr. Isom stated that would be the Metropolitan District. Commissioner Gallagher asked when was the drilling done. Mr. Cohen stated mid February, 2000. He stated this is ground water not surface water. He stated the characteristics is non-aquifer. Commissioner Phillips asked Mr. Cohen if he considers this lot safe for building a school. Mr. Cohen stated in his opinion it is. Mr. Loeffler asked between the two sites if there is a difference between the developable land. Mr. Cohen stated in the first site it is 6.6 acres and in the smaller part 4.5 acres. He spoke to a dedicated slope for rock fall as a mitigation measure. Chairman Stone asked what they are trying to do, get an amendment to the original plan. Mr. Isom stated they are and are asking for the 4.5 acres for the school. Chairman Stone asked why they are doing this. Mr. Isom stated it is less money for them to develop a 4.5 acres site than a 6.67 site. They have to have a bigger buffer and they have to buy the site. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Loeffler about the legal ramifications. He asked about the money in lieu of and what that means to the School District. Mr. Loeffler stated State laws and regulations require a developer to dedicate a site for a school in a development based on a formula to predict the number of students that will be generated from that development. Some developments are too small to produce a useable site in which case they are allowed to pay a fee in lieu of the land dedication. When dedicated the site must be a useable site that will allow for building. The regulations have formulas based on the type of housing. The applicant originally accepted as a condition the dedication of the 6.7 acres. When they were told the school wasn't sure it was a safe site, they looked at what was required and applied the formula for single family homes which yields a site of 4.5 acres. The original condition was based on the formula for mobile homes. Chairman Stone asked who came up with the original figure. Mr. Isom stated the School District and no one questioned it. Chairman Stone asked about additional conditions. Mr. Loeffler spoke to condition #6 and the acceptance of the school land was contingent on slope, soils investigation, and stability. He stated the condition was adopted with the preliminary plan. Tom Braun, representing the School District, stated discussion began back in 1997 and was presented to the Board in April of 1997 when they asked for useable building land. He stated when evaluated, they rejected the site. They then asked the site be surveyed and a letter was written from the 21 08-28-2000 Colorado Geological Survey rejecting the site. He spoke to the commitments made by Mr. Isom. The School District then accepted the site conditionally. He stated this was two years ago and they were not approached again until this spring. With the site shrinking in size it changes the viability of the site. He stated they wrote a letter in June of this year, met with the project team and received the reports addressing geological issues. He stated they sent that to Colorado Geological Survey who recommends they not take the site. He stated they have gone to independent Engineers and still don't feel the information is viable enough. He spoke to the letter they wrote to the County accordingly. He stated days before the Planning Commission hearing they found out that the site was lessened in size. He stated they are confused. He stated they have not gotten the most recent report. They just don't know and won't until the site is cut. He stated they have seen no commitments for mitigation and who is going to maintain it. He suggested that mitigation could be very expensive and how that will work, who is going to do the work and are the public improvements going to be included. He stated because of the reduction in size they will have to revisit it in the Board meeting. In looking at the situation one of the more curious factors is they haven't seen the documentation to confirm. Road improvements will be an issue. He suggested since it is so safe, perhaps they should move some of the housing to this location and the school to a location within the project. He stated it has been 2 ~ years since they have been in discussion about this and the timing has not been such to allow him to provide an opportunity to comment. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the formula used to come up with this acreage. Mr. Braun stated that is what was used. Chairman Stone spoke to the changes which triggered other changes, one being the village center parking. Mr. Montag stated some of the major changes that have occurred have triggered other changes but those have been addressed by the PUD Guide. He spoke to the square footage in the commercial which will change the square footage to multi-family ratio. He stated they are using the applicable ratios to accommodate it as part of the PUD Guide. Mr. Montag stated there was a request by the applicant to reenact the ordinance for them to get a grading permit. Mr. Isom stated in the previous preliminary plan approval there was a resolution allowing them to start construction and move dirt. He asked if they are approving this plan they would like the Board to reenact the ordinance. Chairman Stone asked for public comment and explained the purpose for such. Michael Cacioppo stated in regards to the School District, Mr. Braun failed to review the decision to build three new schools that will open with far less than the number of students needed. He reviewed the numbers and stated he recalls 325 students being needed in a school that will hold 600 and run efficiently at 450. He stated the projections are far below what is needed to break even. He questions whether they need a school here if they are 1000 square foot units at about 450 units. That's about 900 adults and probably no more than two kids. He reviewed other projections of the School District getting at the fact they might not even need a school here. There was an opportunity to build and an elementary school at this location. He stated they have put the taxpayers in a terrible position. Chairman Stone asked what the recommendation is. Mr. Cacioppo suggested they pay the $62,000 in lieu of fee. He stated the next issue is the size of the lots and this being 75% below an acceptable level. He stated the lots are just too small, they are difficult to live in. He understands the need for profit but he thinks the numbers have to be adjusted. Chairman Stone stated without the amendment they could move forward which would have a number of home sites under the 3,800 square foot limit. Mr. Cacioppo stated 2,800 is too small. He then spoke to the tunnel under 1-70. He questioned the cost of building a tunnel under 1-70. Mr. Isom stated Colorado Division of Transportation will not let them build a tunnel. He stated 22 08-28-2000 they would have to put in a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Cacioppo asked about the cost of the tunnel. Mr. Isom suggested about $200,000. Mr. Cacioppo brought this home with discussion of the Edwards interchange and a tunnel in lieu of the roundabout. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is anything in the School Finance Act that says they have to build a school. Mr. Loeffler stated they can elect not to build a school. Rick Poffenberger, representing Ken Kriez, stated the Statute requires the dedication to the County. If found it is not needed for building, the developer has first right of refusal at the dedicated rate. He stated they are dedicating it to the County not the School District and it can be rejected, but they can't compel them to provide another site if it has been found useable. Chairman Stone asked who has the ultimate decision making ability whether it is acceptance of the site or acceptance of the money. If there is a useable site, what is the decision making process. What influence does the School District have in this decision making process. Mr. Loeffler stated in a sense it is a shared decision. It has to be useable by the District for the purpose of the school. The school is bound to be reasonable and the Board is not to bind itself in arbitrary action. In the context here, it is a matter of safety. That judgement ultimately has to be the School District's as they are the ones that have to deal with the rules and regulations. He believes the School has to make that decision as long as they are acting within reason. Chairman Stone asked if the Board can make the determination to have money in lieu of land. Mr. Loeffler stated that is not the Board's call. If the formula produces a piece of ground that is usable, that is the School Districts decision. Chairman Stone suggested their options are reduced to making sure there is an appropriate amount of land that is safe. He asked if the Board disagrees with the School District and they decide this piece of land is safe, what happens if the school district disagrees? Mr. Loeffler suggested unless they have very strong evidence he would recommend strongly that the as long as the school is acting with rational, that they would defer to the School District. Chairman Stone asked at this time for this requested amendment that they could say the applicant only has to dedicate 4 ~ acres as they use a different mathematical equation. Mr. Loeffler stated they did not file a preliminary plan amendment asking for a reduction to 4.5 acres. Their request came about because the school was waffling on the acceptability of the site. Mr. Cacioppo referred to the "reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and the proposed residents thereof' and that it really isn't needed. He asked what is different about this project than Ute Creek and the buyers not owning the land. He suggested they learned from Mr. Kriez about this being month to month. He stated if they don't own the land, they may have to move their homes. What is different about this project than the one the Board turned down at Ute Creek. Chairman Stone stated he thinks that on this school land dedication site doesn't have a solution. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the original formula was 100% mobile home park. He spoke to the three lot plans. He suggested there needs to be plenty worked out between the school and the developer. Mr. Isom stated they have met all the concerns addressed in the July 7, 1998 letter. Chairman Stone stated the developers prospective is they have a difference of opinion. Mr. Isom stated ifthey made the error, they would have to fix it. Mr. Loeffler asked ifthis were to be tabled until after the 13th, Mr. Braun may be able to tell them what the School District thinks. Chairman Stone asked the other Board members if there is anything other than the school site about which they have disagreement. Commissioners Gallagher and Phillips agreed they only have that one issue to resolve and with 23 08-28-2000 further discussions they can table this. He suggested this is not a solution to reduce the size and they don't have a solution to this problem. Mr. Isom asked if they can get approval on everything else. Chairman Stone stated they can let the record show that they are in agreement with everything else and the only item remaining to be resolved is the School District issue. Mr. Loeffler stated the alternative is approving it without changing the School District issue. Chairman Stone stated they can either make a decision today and leave the school site as it is or they can table this to September 18,2000. Rick Poffenberger stated the problem they have is it provides no tie breaker. Even with having submitted the plans they are still in an awkward position. Chairman Stone suggested if they have more time to look at solutions maybe they could come up with something else. Mr. Isom asked about the resolution for the grading permit. Mr. Loeffler suggested that could be heard on the 18th as well as the requested variance from the Improvement Standards. Mr. Poffenberger asked there be a time limit placed on the School District. Chairman Stone stated they will make a final decision on the 18th. Mr. Braun asked for the plans showing the site. Mr. Poffenberger stated they have no response from C. T. L. Thompson in Glenwood Springs. Commissioner Phillips moved to table file numbers PDA-00028 and VIS-00009 to September 18th, 2000. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until September 5, 2000. Attest: Clerk to the Bo ~~ Chairman 24 08-28-2000