No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/18/03 PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 18,2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Teak J. Simonton 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 Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on pending negotiations with the Town of Vail concerning Miller Ranch and the terms of an Intergovernmental Agreement and the deed restrictions and guidelines concerning the same as well as for the purpose or receiving legal advice on Berry Creek Well modification. All of which are appropriate under section 24-6-402 (4)(b), CRS. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 8:45 a.m. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:10 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of February 17,2003, subject to review by County Administrator B. Approval of payroll for February 20, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator C. Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for January 28,2003 D. Water Lease between Eagle County and J. Craig and M. Brunilda Butters E. Holy Cross Energy I Contract for electric service at Eagle County Airport Control Towner F. Contract Change Order for EPSDT, Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program G. Agreement for Assignment of shares in the Eagle Park Reservoir Company H. Resolution 2003-022, in the matter of a loan from Eagle County to Mountain Glen Housing Corporation 1. Resolution concerning appointments to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority J. Agreement regarding the provision of professional services with Richard Kesler for the 2003 Eagle County Fair and Rodeo 1 02-18-2003 K. Resolution 2003-026, Private Activity Bond Allocation to Middle Creek Apartments. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, requested that item E, Holy Cross Energy Contract, be pulled from the agenda, and recommended a change to item I, appointments to the Regional Transportation Authority. She stated William Powell will be switched to alternate and Stephen Richards be changed to a regular member. Chairman Gallagher suggested considering item I be considered after the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda pulling items E and item I. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-023, Appointments, Regional Transportation Authority Chairman Gallagher considered Resolution formerly known as item (I) on the Consent Agenda, concerning appointments to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority. Ms. Mauriello stated that Mr. Richards would be the standing member and Mr. Powell would be the alternate. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-023, appointments to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, with the changes as mentioned. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2003-024, to Approve the Zone Change for Lot 5, Mosher Subdivision, Eagle County File Number ZC-00057. The Board considered the Applicant's request on January 14th, 2003. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2003-024, to approve the Zone Change for Lot 5, Mosher Subdivision, Eagle County File Number ZC-00057. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Self Fueling, Eagle County Airport Mark Davidson, Airport Manager, stated the next matter was self fueling at the Eagle County Airport. He stated currently Eagle County Airport has a number of general aviation aircraft based on the north side of the Airport. Currently, the Vail Valley Jet Center has to drive their fuel truck across the perimeter road to service those aircraft. He stated they believe there is a market for self fueling on the north side of the Airport. Self fueling pumps would add a convenience to the based aircraft as well as transients. In conjunction with the Jet Center, a site has been suggested that is clear of obstacles and allows for delivery trucks. This location is not under their lease and an amendment must be executed. The Jet Center is willing to swap another parcel, formerly the North site fuel farm. To insure regulation compliance, Western Solutions, Dan Stanek of Eagle County and Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Department will be consulted. All environmental permits will be complied with. Chairman Gallagher asked how the plan is compatible with the Master Plan recently submitted to the FAA. Mr. Davidson stated that it would be in compliance with this Master Plan. 2 02-18-2003 Chairman Gallagher asked if there was a map showing the location of the proposed self fueling site. He stated he is in favor of the idea of self fueling but would like to review the map. Brian Bums, president of Vail Valley Jet Center, distributed a map showing the locations ofthe proposed site. This map showed the North side of the airport where the former underground tanks were stored, and the other highlighted area shows the proposed new site. Commissioner Stone clarified that this was not a change in the lease, but simply a change of location. Chairman Gallagher asked about compliance with the Master Plan. Mr. Davidson stated that the plan would be reviewed before construction. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board would like to have compliance prior to approval, not prior to construction. Mr. Davidson stated the Master Plan should not be looked at as "set in stone". Commissioner Stone stated that they wanted to make sure that the site would not have to be moved in the future. He stated he would be willing to approve this request based on a condition that Master Plan compliance be guaranteed. Ms. Mauriello indicated that a lease addendum would need to be added to reflect the change. Chairman Gallagher asked for further questions. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the self fueling request contingent upon the proper permits and adherence to the Master Plan. Commissioner Stone moved to second the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Deed Restriction, Miller Ranch Housing Chairman Gallagher stated the next matter was the Deed Restriction Agreement and Guidelines concerning Miller Ranch Housing. Ms. Mauriello requested this item be tabled to February 25, 2003. Commissioner Stone moved to table the Deed Restriction Agreement and Guidelines concerning Miller Ranch Housing to February 25,2003. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Abatement Hearings Jon Harrison, Appraisal Coordinator, presented a petition for abatement for John T. Carlen, schedule number R018l79. The Assessor stated an interior inspection and exterior measurement of the property was performed on June 5, 2002 at the request of the petitioner. Based on this inspection the Assessor's record for the subject property has been updated. This update includes changes to sub area square footage and building attributes. The change in value indicated in this abatement is based on the updated record and sales of similar property in the neighborhood. Pursuant to CRS 39-10-114, this abatement should be granted for over valuation. The Assessor recommended the original assessed value was $290,240 with a tax amount of$19,549.70, with an abatement of$106,330 and a tax amount of $7,162.08, leaving a balance of$183,91O with a tax amount of$12,387.62. 3 02-18-2003 Commissioner Stone moved to approve schedule number R018l79, John T. Carlen, as recommended and stated by the Assessor. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Jon Harrison presented a petition for abatement for William and Cheryl Jensen, schedule number R041269. He stated a new drawing along with an exterior site inspection was performed for this property in September 2001. During this inspection it was determined that a quality change was necessary to equalize this property with the rest of the neighborhood. This change was overlooked and over valuation for the years of 2001 and 2002 occurred. A Notice of Correction has been directed to the Eagle County Treasurer's Office for the 2002 valuation. This abatement serves as the correction for the 2001 evaluation. Pursuant to CRS 39-10-114, the Assessor recommends this abatement be approved. The original assessed value was $252,380 with a tax amount of$10,985.34, with an abatement of $58,430 and a tax amount of$2,543.28, leaving a balance of$193,950 with a tax amount of $8,442.06. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve schedule number R04l269, William and Cheryl Jensen, as recommended by the Assessor. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mark Chapin, Deputy Assessor, presented a petition of abatement for Aspen Valley Hospital District, schedule numbers R050701. He stated this property is known as the Shelton Properties LLC. He stated the Assessor is recommending no abatement for 1999 as there is no record for this owner at that time. For the year 2000, the subject property is a 76,515 square foot parcel ofland described as Mid Valley Center PUD, Lot 2. This property is leased to the Aspen Valley Hospital District. The hospital district as lessee has stated that the leased property should be exempt from taxation. According to CRS 39-3-124, the property can only be considered exempt if the district entered into an agreement to purchase the land. No lease purchase documentation has been submitted to the Assessor from the Hospital. Pursuant to Article X, Colorado Constitution and CRS 39-1-103 (16), the subject property is not expressly exempt and is subject to taxation. The petition for abatement should be denied for 2000. Mark Tribune, Attorney for Aspen Valley Hospital District, stated this is a reverse possessory interest as the property is for a hospital for medical purposes, which are generally exempt. He stated that there is an option in the land lease but it is not for nominal or no consideration. Mr. Tribune quoted Statute regarding the operation of charitable interest except for possessory interest owned by Orthopedic Associates. This operation is a successor to the Mid-Valley Clinic located in Basalt, owned by Aspen Medical Foundation. When the hospital relocated it was with a lease option for purchase. Brian Treu, Assistant County Attorney, clarified the Statute in question was 39-3-124 and according to this Statute they do not meet the condition. Mr. Tribune stated it may be exempt under CRS 39-311 (5). Mr. Chapin stated he had a conversation with the Administrator of the Division of Property Taxation and it is the Administrator's position the use of this property did not qualify this property for exemption. Chairman Gallagher asked about the appeal process and whether or not there were questions or comments. Commissioner Stone moved to deny schedule number R05070 1, Aspen Valley Hospital District, as recommended by the Assessor.. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4 02-18-2003 Mr. Chapin presented a petition for abatement for Aspen Valley Hospital District, scheduled number R050702. He stated the petitioner has requested an abatement for tax year 2000 for 100% of the subject property. The District claims the property owned by an exempt entity should be tax exempt. This portion of the hospital is leased to Orthopedic Association of Aspen and Glenwood Springs and has been leased to this group since 1998. The 2000 value is a possessory interest value and subject to taxation. There are no statutory provisions that would allow the Assessor to consider this possessory interest property to be tax exempt. There is no basis in which to grant an abatement on the entire property. In recent conversations with representatives of Orthopedic Associates it was determined that the leased area is not the entire second floor of 8,856 square feet as originally calculated. The leased area is only 5,200 square feet contained within Unit 201 of the Hospital. This results in a lower value of $985,410 from the original estimated value of$1,532,500. Pursuant to CRS 39-10-114, this abatement should be granted in part for over valuation due to a clerical error. The original assessed value was $444,430 with a tax amount of$29,821.26, with an abatement of$158,660 and a tax amount of $10,646.10, leaving a balance of$285,770 with a tax amount of$19,175.l6. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve schedule number R050702, Aspen Valley Hospital District, as recommended by the Assessor. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mark Chapin presented a petition for abatement for Aspen Valley Hospital District, scheduled number R04593l. He stated the petitioner requested an abatement for tax year 1999 for 100% of the subject property. This schedule is now considered to be exempt from taxation. In 1998 the Hospital entered into a lease agreement with Robert Gilman. It was unknown to the County that this agreement was a lease purchase agreement until 2001. According to CRS 39-3-124, property acquired through a lease purchase agreement by a political subdivision of the State is exempt from taxation. The County was not aware of this agreement until the filing of this abatement. Pursuant to CRS 39-10-114, the Assessor recommended this abatement be approved due to an illegal and erroneous assessment. The original assessed value was $1,114,190 with a tax amount of$77,581.5l with an abatement of $1,114,190 and a tax amount of$77,581.5l, leaving a zero balance. Commissioner Stone moved to approve schedule number R045931, Aspen Valley Hospital District, as recommended by the Assessor. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-025, Commendation / Recognition, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Commissioner Menconi presented Resolution 2003-025, Commendation / Recognition, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team. Chairman Gallagher introduced Natalie Spohrer and JD Lemon, representing the Speech team. Commissioner Menconi read the resolution for the record as follows: "Whereas, The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, (hereinafter "the Board") wishes to commend and recognize the excellence demonstrated by the Battle Mountain High School Speech Team (hereinafter "the Speech Team"); and 5 02-18-2003 Whereas, the Speech Team won more awards than any of the 30 Colorado high schools competing in the Colorado State Speech Festival held in Littleton, January 31 through February 1 ofthis year; and Whereas, among its many awards, the Speech Team garnered three of six state awards for solo acting and three state places for humor; and Whereas, the Speech Team brought home three awards in Impromptu Speaking and a Freshman member of the team took "Best of Event" in impromptu speaking and wowed everyone at the Festival; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Language Arts Teacher and Speech Team Coach, Ms. Suzanne Foster, has received the National Federation of Interscholastic Speech and Debate Award for Outstanding Speech and Debate Education for Region E, including Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Member McClees Stephens broke finals and placed second for Poetry Interpretation; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Chris Atencio placed sixth, Jessie Hansen placed fifth and J.D. Lemon placed second for Solo Acting; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Ellis Hunter placed fifth, Natalie Spohrer placed third, and Josie Sutner earned State Champion for Impromptu Speaking; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Meghan Meehan placed fourth, and Susie Pope placed third for Dramatic Interpretation; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Heather Osborne and Kayla Cheatham earned Excellent ratings in Humor Interpretation; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Member Kelly Lemon earned an Excellent rating for Original Oratory; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Susie Pope and Chris Atencio earned an Excellent rating and the teams of Alex Penwill and Kelsey Abbott placed fifth and J.D. Lemon and Kyle Madison placed fourth for Duet Acting Humor; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Maggie Sheahan and Jessica Havlick earned an Excellent rating and the team of Jenna Tjossem and Kyle Bruntz broke finals and placed fifth in Duet Acting Drama; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Kayla Cheatham and Aaron Quintana earned Excellent ratings and Meghan Meehan earned a Superior rating in Creative Storytelling; and Whereas, Battle Mountain High School Speech Team Members Harrison Gillis and Bri Schafer earned Superior ratings, Stephanie Rice broke finals and placed fifth and Natalie Spohrer broke finals and placed third in Debate; and Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, State of Colorado: That, the Board recognizes the talent and hard work exhibited by the Speech Team; and That, the Board appreciates the honor the Battle Mountain High School Speech Team has brought to the citizens of Eagle County. "Moved, Read and Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this 18th day of February, 2003. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-025, concerning Commendation and Recognition ofthe Battle Mountain High School Speech Team, for outstanding honors received at the 6 02-18-2003 State Speech and Debate Competition. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Selection of Second FBO, Eagle County Airport Mark Davidson, Airport Manager, stated the next item on the agenda was the selection of a second fixed base operator at the Eagle County Airport and direction to staff. He stated the deadline for proposals was extended to December 5, 2002. He stated they received three proposals, Mountain High Aviation, FBO Co, alk/a Millionaire Eagle and Steve's Aviation. He stated staffis now waiting for direction from the Board. Commissioner Menconi asked about the objective. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to choose an FBO today and for staff to proceed with negotiations. Commissioner Menconi questioned the analysis on the different financial wherewithall and marketing. He stated he is also interested in looking at the possibility oftwo FBO's operating at the Airport. He spoke to load capacities. Mr. Davidson stated he took information from all three proposals showing the benefits to the County. He stated he did not create anything new. As far as feasibility, ifthe current FBO is selling over one million, it is feasible to have two FBO's. He stated it will cut into the Jet Centers return but they will do additional marketing. There is a limit. Commissioner Menconi questioned capital improvements. He explained to Chairman Gallagher that he had not made a decision related to this request. Chairman Gallagher stated that he received some additional information from a consultant, Kent Myers, after their last meeting. He asked Mr. Myers to come in and share this information with all present. Mr. Myers stated that his goal was to present facts he believes are relevant to this opportunity. He stated his goal was to increase year round air service to the Airport. He stated he has heard of Mr. Prezel regarding altitude training centers in Montrose and Gunnison. He stated he did not pay much attention to those and would have never put the two together. He stated Mr. Prezel was looking at other Airports at the same time. He stated Mr. Prezel stated he does have influence. Mr. Myers stated Mr. Prezel worked with the department of defense for the last 25 years. The action plan was to encourage the Commissioners to delay the decision. He also suggested that Commissioner Gallagher participate in the planning for this training center. His idea is that the Commissioners don't have a lot to lose other than time. He believes that the Commissioners could better understand the strategies and politics involved. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Myers about Mr. Prezel's involvement with the Department of Defense. Chairman Gallagher asked if there were additional comments. He asked Brian Treu if the background checks had been completed. Mr. Treu stated that Hans G. Prezel of Prestige Aviation had been investigated and that this individual had 39 cases as a defendant; including larceny, contempt of court, a third degree assault and conditional release violation. He stated this individual served five years from 1995 through 2000. He stated the Sheriffs Office received a drivers license photograph of this individual and it appears to be the Hans Presel involved with Prestige Aviation. He stated the applicant had been uncooperative with regards to the background check. 7 02-18-2003 Commissioner Menconi inquired as to the appropriateness of this information. Mr. Treu stated that this is all public information. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, asked about verification that these individuals were one in the same. Mr. Treu stated the picture provided was indeed that of Hans Pretzel. Chairman Gallagher concurred that the photograph he had in hand resembled the individual making the presentation and Commissioner Stone and Menconi agreed. Mr. Ingstad stated that he attempted to get additional information as well. Two individuals were to be present on Friday to discuss this matter. Chairman Gallagher stated he assumed the Board could disqualify this applicant. There are now two proposals under consideration. He requested the Attorneys contact the other airports that this individual is working with related to this information. He asked if the Commissioners were able to make a decision between the other two applicants. Commissioner Menconi stated that he was interested in determining how a second FBO would impact the airport in the future. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board pursued a second FBO because of requests from Aviation and blessings from the FAA. Commissioner Menconi stated that there are people who can evaluate the need and benefit from having a second FBO. He believes there are other issues related to the amount of activity at the Airport. Chairman Gallagher stated the other restrictions are being dealt with in a timely manner. Commissioner Stone expressed surprise about Commissioner Menconi's questions. Eagle County has received FAA monies. He recalled that there was extensive testimony from Tom Moorhead that the County was compelled to allow the second FBO on the airport. He stated this prompted the discussions of minimum standards. The conclusion as he recalls, is that this decision was not left to the Board's discretion. He stated that the RFP's were sent out after it was determined that a second FBO was indicated. He stated that he is ready to make a decision. Commissioner Menconi addressed Commissioner Stone's surprise. He compared this situation to one of the Berry Creek Fifth RFP's. He stated he was simply asking for more time and more information. Chairman Gallagher discussed his position and stated that he is ready to make a decision. Commissioner Menconi asked whether or not it was something that the FAA was requiring the Board to do. Chairman Gallagher clarified that the FAA indicated that a second FBO is due, with the FAA blessing. Considering future funding from the FAA he believes that it is for the good of aviation and for the County to take their direction. He directed the Board to discuss the two applicants in terms of their benefits. Commissioner Stone stated that he believes the areas of consideration included each applicants experience, financial capabilities, improvements and business plan. With regards to Mountain High Aviation he believes that they had presented the best proposal on all of these regards. He stated if a lease was not reasonably negotiated with Mountain High Aviation he would like to refuse the balance of the proposals. Chairman Gallagher stated that he was unimpressed with the Millionaire folks. Their graphics and photographs were very Motel 6. He has not received the minimum standards even after requesting them. He stated that Eagle County has done well by going first class and spending the extra nickel. He believes that Mountain High would continue that tradition. He requested financial backing according to 8 02-18-2003 recommendations from the Attorney's Office. He agreed that if it is not possible to negotiate with Mountain High, the Commissioners go back to the drawing board. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Ingstad about concerns he had previously voiced. Mr. Ingstad stated he still has the same concerns. He also stated it really depends on how well the negotiations go. He believes that it is important that the County choose a firm that has the ability to withstand periods of little or no profit. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Brian Bums, Vail Valley Jet Center, stated it comes to developing and growing the airport, they had several FBO's come and visit the Airport and refused to bid because of the economic picture it painted. This picture and provided could be detrimental to the success of the Airport. Other firms neglected to offer a proposal because they did not believe they could make money. His opinion is that the growth of the Airport is restricted based on lack of radar. He feels that all ofthe current providers would be fighting for a limited number of customers and predatory pricing will prevail. He asked that the Board consider delaying the decision to truly analyze the economic impact. He stated that the FAA promotes competition but he asked at what cost. He asked the Commissioners to consider the impact on existing providers at the Airport. He suggested that the Commissioners look at Mountain High's experience and how that experience would play out in the process. Chairman Gallagher stated that the last budget that was passed included money for radar for Eagle County. He hopes to see radar on the ground in the next three or four years. He asked for additional public input. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Stone moved the Board commence negotiations with Mountain High Aviation and if those negotiations fail that no other applicant would be considered. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Commissioners Stone and Gallagher voting aye, Commissioner Menconi voting no. PDS-00032, Siloam Springs Cliff Simonton presented fie number PDS-00032, Siloam Springs. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to March 25,2003. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number PDS-00032, Siloam Springs to March 25, 2003, at the applicants request. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0044 Adams Rib SSA-13, Adams Rib Ross Easterling, Planner, presented file numbers 1041-0044 and SSA-13, Adams Rib. Mr. Easterling presented an overview of the application. He stated that at this time all of the findings of the 1041 process are positive. He reviewed several of the findings including a water quality monitoring plant. He stated it is a dynamic plan. He stated at some future date it would be desirable to have a flexible plan based on future needs. Mr. Easterling related Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, has suggested, as this plan is not complete at this time, a condition that the Environmental Health Division must approve the Water Quality Monitoring plan prior to the issuance of any grading permit. Another condition is that air qualityiwould not be harmed related to this permit. 9 02-18-2003 Chairman Gallagher stated he understood that 1041 plans are not to be approved conditionally. Mr. Easterling discussed this situation with Mr. Merry this morning who related with the new 1041 requirements this was not necessarily the case. He also explained the water quality monitoring wells, as currently situated, would not give appropriate test results. He stated those may need to be moved closer to the riparian areas. He stated that there are some technical issues related to the water quality monitoring plant. Chairman Gallagher stated he wondered ifthese issues should be resolved prior to preliminary approval. He asked the County Attorney about conditions related to 1041 approvals. Diane Mauriello stated the Board needs to make positive findings related to each of the requirements. She stated it might depend on what the conditions are. She suggested in order to approve the 1041 permit there needed to be positive findings related to all of the requirements. If there are conditions that relate to supplying future permits, as long as that is properly set forth in a resolution setting forth the requirements, that would be appropriate. Chairman Gallagher asked staff about the four proposed conditions. He asked Mr. Easterling to show the site map. Mr. Easterling displayed a slide showing the site. Chairman Gallagher requested a map that would show the water monitoring system and sewer system location. Mr. Easterling showed all the present locations of the water monitoring locations. Chairman Gallagher asked if the purpose of these wells was to verify the base and then there would be dips to compare the quality downstream. Mr. Easterling stated that each house would use an ISDS system. Chairman Gallagher asked about the system for the clubhouse and restaurant. Mr. Easterling stated the clubhouse and the restaurant would also use an ISDS system and not a holding and treatment system. He stated the water service agreement with the town of Eagle prohibits the applicant from creating any special districts. He stated the Town of Eagle is involved in several phases of this proposal. They are involved with the distribution system of potable water which is from the Town of Eagle water treatment plant. Chairman Gallagher asked where the diversion for the irrigation water would be. Randy Cloyd, Adams Rib, pointed out this diversion on the map. Chairman Gallagher asked where the waste returns to the river from the ISDS? Mr. Easterling stated there would be infiltration systems on each site. He also related these ISDS systems will do more to protect the streams than a treatment plant would accomplish. Mr. Cloyd presented some of the background related to this application. He reviewed the progress since 1983. He stated they have been hung up on the water issue with the Town of Eagle. They have been referred to the Town of Eagle several times. About a year ago they were able to make a deal with the Town for several oftheir projects. This agreement represented significant compromises but in the end everyone could live with it He explained the water monitoring plan. He stated it accomplishes several different things. There are many different points of assessment. He stated they agreed to the same system of Red Sky Ranch. There are alarms on septic systems so that there would be no degradation of the stream. He related the state would also be monitoring the clubhouse to conform with environmental standards. He stated they envisioned that the water monitoring plan was a working document. Chairman Gallagher asked for comments from staff and the Commissioners. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Cloyd ifhe had any problem with the conditions on page 27. 10 02-18-2003 Mr. Cloyd stated they have agreed. Commissioner Menconi asked about the Planning Commission concerns with the proposed motion and conditions. He stated there seemed to be a consolidation ofthe Planning Commission's concerns; specifically page 7 and 8 and then page 27 and the three conditions. Mr. Easterling stated there had been some consolidation based on the applicant providing additional evidence regarding hazards or wetlands. They had been able to make the negative findings from the Planning Commission positive. He reviewed each condition and clarified how the staff had dealt with each. He stated that some of the conditions were dropped based on additional evidence. He clarified that the wetlands associated with this project are not definitely identified on the Corps of Engineer's inventory. Staffwas not sure they had jurisdiction. Chairman Gallagher asked if the Board had jurisdiction of the wetlands. Mr. Easterling stated he believed the Board does have jurisdiction. He stated the State of Colorado Geologic Survey has reviewed the application. The most recent letter from the State seemed to indicate that the applicant had met the requirement of the state. He stated the applicant had agreed not to use wood burning fire places and there would be septic systems on each site. Mr. Cloyd clarified the fuel for fireplaces would be gas only. He stated the wetlands would be monitored during the construction stage. Chairman Gallagher asked the Town Manager for Eagle, Willy Powell, to come forward. He asked if there was any domestic diversion. Mr. Powell stated the Town does have plans for a second water treatment plant to be constructed at the confluence of Brush Creek and the Eagle River. He stated they are glad to see the water monitoring system. Chairman Gallagher inquired as to a proposed plan. He is looking for those interested in having water quality downstream from Frost Creek. He wondered if they would be interested in the monitoring. Mr. Powell stated he believed it would require more investigation. He was not ready to say that the Town of Eagle would monitor the water quality downstream. Mr. Easterling clarified the water quality data would be available on the internet. The Homeowner's Association will hire a service to do the monitoring. If this service changes they will inform the Environmental Health Department. He stated that this Homeowner's Association would have responsibilities far beyond home design. He stated that most of the monitoring facilities will allow the repair of private septic systems by the golf course. Mr. Cloyd stated he believes the plan is in it's final form and some additions may be needed. The Town of Eagle has the right to fix septic systems if the developer doesn't address requests for repair. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Annie Egan, Brush Creek Resident, stated she spoke with Mark Gilfillin regarding the jurisdictional determination of wetlands. He related with regards to Adams Rib, they are walking a very fine line and he recommended they re-verify as they are using an older determination. He suggested a qualified wetland scientist be present at all stages. He also related this was the County's responsibility to enforce. Commissioner Menconi asked if this was in writing from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Easterling pointed out the letter and page number. Chairman Gallagher asked about a reference on page 6 of the staff report. He asked about what our regulations require with regards to wetlands determination. Mr. Easterling directed all present to Finding "0". Chairman Gallagher asked how it would be determined unless it was known where the wetlands 11 02-18-2003 are. Mr. Easterling stated the Corps of Engineers recommended that a qualified wetlands scientist be present on site. This condition has been agreed upon by the applicant. He stated that if there was a 404 Wetlands Permit they would not be discussing the scientist on site. Commissioner Menconi asked about a map available with the 404 Permit. Mr. Easterling clarified the 404 inclusions and criteria. Commissioner Menconi asked about the role of the scientist. He asked ifre-verification would result in a 404 Permit. Mr. Easterling stated he was not sure. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Powell ifhe had any comments. Mr. Powell stated that pursuant to the settlement agreement he could not contest the 1041. He related that he could not say anymore. Commissioner Menconi asked about the integration in relationship to the land use file. He asked how he separated out what the Corps of Engineers were stating. He stated it occurred to him that if there were a 404 Permit in place it would sort out many issues. Bob Naracci, Planning Manager, stated the two files are interrelated. The mapping of riparian areas has been done. The Army Corps needs to go through their verification process. Mr. Cloyd responded the wetlands have been studied and they are aware where they are. He clarified the applicant did not want a 404 Permit. He stated they will pay attention to the wetlands. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was a catch 22? Commissioner Menconi clarified that there would be a scientist on hand to verify protection of the wetlands. Rosie Shearwood, Brush Creek resident, stated it has been a puzzle. She stated a lot of the environmental issues have been reduced based on this current administration. She wonders why they do not feel that they need a permit now when they did in the beginning. She does not believe it is reasonable for the County to allow misuse of these sensitive areas. She suggested that Adams Rib's case might be improved based on several years of drought. She clarified that Adam's Rib was directed to re- contact the Corps of Engineers. One of her concerns was the fact that there are ancient pre-historic Indian sites on the golf course. She stated this was not part of the planning application. She pursued it with the State Historical Society. These sites do exist. The Historical Society encourages the research and identification of these sites. Mr. Fetter wrote a letter that Ms. Shearwood read parts of which voiced concerns ofthe density of development on the wetlands. He stated the project could generate 111 separate septic system. Chairman Gallagher stated he wanted to clarify the 1041 process. The 1041 is required because of the wetlands present. He asked the applicant several questions related to the impact on wetlands and the relation to the 404 Permit. In order to eliminate the need for a 404 Permit the applicant would hire a scientist to monitor the project. Mr. Easterling addressed the ADD's related to each house. Commissioner Menconi inquired as to how accessory dwelling units would be dealt with. He asked ifMr. Cloyd had any comments about Ms. Shearwood's comments about the Indian sites. Mr. Cloyd stated three sites were listed. He highlighted the last paragraph of page 12, the letter was from Mr. Metcalfs archaeological report. He stated on the Salt Creek site, there was nothing left on the site to preserve Chairman Gallagher read an excerpt from the Colorado Historical Society relating to subsurface study. He agreed to have his representative run a report to see if there is anything on that site. 12 02-18-2003 Commissioner Menconi asked how the Historical Society keeps track of these sites. He asked if there was any reference to an Indian Burial Ground. Bob Naracci clarified the process in identifying these sites. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Easterling whether he was giving a positive finding. Mr. Easterling responded to the affirmative. Commissioner Menconi asked again about the letter from the Historical Society related to subsurface findings of historical significance. He asked if Mr. Easterling would continue to keep this a positive finding. Mr. Easterling stated the permit authority would have to make this determination. When he wrote the finding he didn't realize there was a problem with this site. Chairman Gallagher asked if Adam's Rib would be willing to investigate the site to identify if there are any historic subsurface value? Talis Tanso, resident of Brush Creek, asked if the applicant had addressed minimum stream flow issues? Mr. Cloyd stated that the applicant would have to curtail their senior rights to maintain a minimum stream flow. Ms. Tanso also suggested that the person to monitor the wetlands and riparian areas be an independent agent and not an employee of Adam's Rib. She suggested several possibilities. Mr. Cloyd stated that Parson's Engineering is the wetlands engineer used by the Corps of Engineers. This is the firm they intend to use. Ms. Tanso stated that she was concerned because she attended the site visit last fall. Chairman Gallagher invited her to look at the water quality plan and provide input. Ms. Mauriello clarified it is not appropriate for the Commissioners to condition a particular finding. She cautioned them with regards to a condition related to the historical site. Commissioner Menconi asked where the irrigation for the golf course would come from. Mr. Cloyd showed the flow on the map and clarified the plan and the time limit and related these are senior water rights. He explained the diversion points. Commissioner Menconi asked what type of considerations the staff looks at when there is a golf course involved. Mr. Easterling stated the 1041 is so diverse there are many considerations. Golf courses typically only water the root zone. There is an integrated pest management plan in the application. Storage of fertilizers and types of drainage are included. They also question the kinds of counter measures. The types of considerations are varied and wide. He explained a bit about the water quality monitoring plan related to golf course management. He believes the County is trying to be as responsible as possible. Chairman Gallagher asked the applicant about the use of water for irrigation. He asked ifthe applicant would have systems in place to eliminate watering during rain storms. Mr. Cloyd stated they would set up a weather station with those types of controls. Chairman Gallagher asked about the Metcalf report. Commissioner Stone stated that there might be a solution concerning the archaeological question. He suggested the area in question be studied by the applicants archaeological consultant prior to any building taking place in that area. Mr. Cloyd stated that they would indeed do this. Commissioner Stone stated the Northwest COGS study found the applicant has made considerable effort to avoid the areas of concern. He also agrees with staff recommendations and positive findings. 13 02-18-2003 Chairman Gallagher concurred. Commissioner Menconi concurred with staff recommendations and related he is favor of moving forward with the 1041. Commissioner Stone moved that the Eagle County Permit Authority approve file 1041-0044, Adams Rib, having found in accordance with Section 6.03.15 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, that all findings are positive; letters "A through T". The Board also has positive findings in accordance with Section 6.04.15 of the Land Use Regulations, lettering "A through T". Furthermore there are positive findings in accordance with Section 6.05.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, lettering "A through I", incorporating staff findings with the following conditions: 1. The leach fields associated with the septic systems be pressure dosed and include de- nitrification in the treatment process. 2. The applicant submit a Fugitive Dust Plan or Dust Suppression Plan for County approval with any grading permit application and in order to continue grading conform to plan. 3. The Environment Health Division approve the water quality monitoring plan prior to the issuance of any grading permit. 4. The area known as Salt Creek, before any construction the applicant will have a study performed to determine any historical sites. 5. All material representations made will be conditions for approval. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of health. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number SSA-0013, Adams Rib, and authorize the Chairman to sign the application for site approval for construction of a new domestic wastewater treatment plant. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as Board of Health and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDSP-00016 Adams Rib ZC-00059, Adams Rib Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file numbers PDSP-00016 and ZC-00059, Adams Rib. He stated Staff recommends approval of both the Sketch/Preliminary Plan and Zone Change applications as conditioned. In a vote of 3 to 2, the Eagle County Planning recommended denial of both the Sketch/Preliminary Plan and Zone Change applications. Cited reasons for denial include: A feeling that the project should be more densely clustered with smaller lots; Impacts to wetlands and riparian areas; The proposed development is not balanced; The proposed development does not diversify economy; 14 02-18-2003 The development is for second home owners, not locals; Building envelopes should be reduced in size; The Salt Creek site should be open space. Mr. Narracci stated the outstanding issues are as follows: Commitments regarding the necessary improvement and maintenance of Brush Creek Road which is necessary due to impacts that would be generated by this development. Please reference the Engineering Department Memorandum dated February 6, 2003. The comments of the Eagle County School District RE 50J must be reconciled. The District indicated that based upon the number of units proposed with this application, the amount of school land dedication required would be 1.61 acres AND that the District will not accept cash in lieu ofland dedication. Further, the District wants land which is adjacent to Eagle Ranch or the land at Highway 6 and Eagle Ranch Road. Please reference their letter dated October 25, 2002. This Sketch/Pre1iminary Plan proposal consists of a private, gated, 18-hole, residential golf course community (inclusive of ancillary golf clubhouse and maintenance facilities) with 60 single- family lots and up to 30 accessory dwelling units (ADD) on the 1106.97 +/- acre Frost Creek property AND 21 additional single-family residential lots on the 520.348 +/- acre Salt Creek property. The Frost and Salt Creek parcels are contiguous to one another and are oriented linearly, north to south, along the Brush Creek Valley. The Salt Creek parcel is located primarily to the east of Brush Creek Road and the Frost Creek parcel to the west. Frost Creek Parcel: Minimum residential lot size for the Frost Creek parcel is proposed at four (4) acres per residence. A one acre building envelope is established within each lot. The maximum habitable square footage for the primary residences is capped at 12,500 square feet per lot. Accessory Dwelling Units are capped at a maximum 1,000 (additional) square feet. The 30 ADU's may be located on any of the 60 residential lots within the Frost Creek portion of the project on a first come, first serve basis. The clubhouse component of the Frost Creek parcel is limited to 30,000 square feet on a 10.245 acre site and is intended to provide typical golf course amenities: restaurants, bars, clubhouse, retail golf pro shop, health and athletic facilities and swimming pools. The golf course maintenance facility parcel is shown on the plan consisting of3.933 acres between Brush Creek and Brush Creek Road. Not including the ADU's, the gross residential density ofthe Frost Creek parcel is one (1) DU per 18.45 acres, or 0.05 DU per acre. The applicant is proposing to create a critical wildlife habitat protection zone for deer and elk winter range on the Frost Creek site. A Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been Developed for both the Frost and Salt Creek properties. Also, a monetary Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund is proposed to offset any impacts to wildlife. Salt Creek Parcel Minimum residential lot size for the Salt Creek parcel is proposed at four (4) acres per residence. A one acre building envelope is established within each lot. The maximum habitable square footage for the residences is capped at 10,000 square feet per lot. The gross residential density ofthe Salt Creek parcel is one (1) DU per 24.78 acres, or 0.04 DU per acre. Gross residential density, not including the ADU's, for the total land area within the Frost and Salt Creek PUD boundaries equates to one (1) DU per 20.09 acres, or 0.049 DU per acre. The applicant is proposing to define Conservation Easements to protect wetland and riparian areas throughout the Salt Creek Parcel. This Conservation Easement is intended to preserve the riparian nesting/production area for small mammals, birds and deer. Again, a Wildlife Mitigation and 15 02-18-2003 Enhancement Plan has been Developed for both the Frost and Salt Creek properties. Also, a monetary Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund is proposed to offset any impacts to wildlife. The PUD boundaries encompass 1174.3 acres of land for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 72 percent of the entire land area of the subject property and may be further broken down as follows: 540.4 acres (33%) of common recreation and open space; 410.4 acres (25%) of hillside and open space, and; 223.5 acres (14%) of golf course. Potable water to serve the entirety of the PUD will be provided by the Town of Eagle. Raw water irrigation will be used for the golf course, common landscaped areas, landscaping on individual lots and the clubhouse grounds. The Town's Water Treatment facility is located south of and adjacent to the Frost Creek parcel. Sewage treatment is proposed via individual sewage disposal systems. These septic systems shall be shared between two or more homes wherever possible. The Salt Creek portion ofthe PUD will be accessed via two separate points of ingress/egress. Three of the 21 Salt Creek lots will be served by the new Salt Creek Road. The remaining 18 lots will be accessed off ofthe Old Salt Creek Road. Both the old and new Salt Creek Roads are county owned but are not county maintained; the Applicant proposes to maintain these roads. The applicant also proposes to install a bicycle path which will begin at the proj ect' s northernmost boundary and meander through the Salt Creek portion of the development heading south to a point where it will cross Brush Creek Road and continue southward along Brush Creek Road to the southern most boundary of the Frost Creek portion of the development. Streets within the development are proposed to be privately owned and maintained. The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report: PD-138-82-S, Sketch Plan approval for 640 acres of the Golf Course site at 140 units and the Ski Area and Village. Since determined to have expired. PD-138-93-S, Golf Course site, 1150 acres, 1034 DU's, 20k ft2 commercial, 27-hole golf course. Planning Commission recommended denial June 1, 1994, withdrawn on December 4, 1994 without hearing by the Board. PD-138-95-S1, Golf Course site, 1687 acres, 937 DU's, residential inn & hotel, 27-holes golf course, Planning Commission recommended denial August 2, 1996, denied by the Board on January 2, 1996. PD-138-95-S2, Ranch Site, 1475 acres, two l8-hole golf courses, 1 public, 1 private, 400 DU's, Planning Commission recommended denial October 4, 1996, subsequently withdrawn without hearing by the Board. PDS-00006, Ski Area and Village, Golf and Ranch sites, 5279 acres, 2323 DU's, submitted April, 1997, withdrawn prior to any review and hearing. PDS-00009, "Ranch Site", 1569 acres, two l8-hole and two 9-hole par three golf courses, 1100 DU's, 125,000 ft2 commercial, Planning Commission recommended approval w/conditions February 4, 1998, Board approved w/conditions April 13, 1998. The Sketch plan has since been withdrawn by the applicant. PDS-00018, "Frost Creek" Sketch Plan, 300 single family lots, 15 accessory units, and a private 18 hole golf course on 1109 acres was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission and approved by the Board on April 17, 2000. 1041-0036 "Frost Creek" withdrawn at applicant's request on September 5, 2002 PDP-00015 "Frost Creek" PUD Preliminary Plan withdrawn at applicant's request on September 5,2002 ZC-00035 "Frost Creek" Zone Change withdrawn at applicant's request on September 5, 2002. 16 02-18-2003 SD-00024 "Frost Creek" Service Plan withdrawn at applicant's request on September 5,2002. Subsequent negotiations and agreements between the developer and the Town of Eagle have resulted in the current proposal. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: The following referral summary depicts both the original referral comments as well as the resubmittal referral comments (if received). Copies of all comments are attached. Ea2:1e County En2:ineer: Initially responded with an extensive list of deficiencies (September 30,2002). In a follow-up memorandum dated December 9,2002 the Engineering Department indicated that with the exception of four items, all of their previously stated concerns have either been adequately addressed or will be further addressed at the time of Final Plat. The applicant has continued to work with the County Engineering Department to resolve their issues. Please reference the memoranda dated January 6,2003, February 5,2003 and February 6,2003 respectively. The February 5th, 2003 memorandum, indicates that all remaining issues, as stated in the original September 30,2002 memorandum, have been satisfactorily addressed. The February 6, 2003 memorandum sets forth recommended conditions of approval that would require the applicant to provide certain improvements on Brush Creek Road, to participate in the funding of a traffic signal at the intersection of Brush Creek Road/Bull Pasture Road and Capitol Street and an agreement to repair any damage to Brush Creek Road caused by increased heavy truck traffic. Ea2:1e County Road and Bridl!e Department: Response indicates disagreement with the plan as it relates to existing roads and their traffic bearing capacity, as well as, proposed improvements and maintenance issues. Please see attached copy of e-mail from Brad Higgins dated September 25, 2002. These concerns are being addressed through the Engineering Department. Eal!le County Address Coordinator: Response provided comment about road names proposed for the Frost and Salt Creek properties. Please refer to the attached memorandum dated September 16, 2002. The road names have been changed accordingly. Eal!le County Rel!ional Transportation Authority - Trails: Response provided several comments regarding the 8 foot wide bicycle/pedestrian trail which is proposed to run the length of the project from north to south. Also, the response requested additional information regarding the proposed trailhead at Trail Gulch. Please refer to the attached memorandum dated October 3,2002. The applicant does not intend to construct a trail connection all the way to the Town at this time as is recommended by ECO Trails. As the land in between the Town and the subject property develops, the connection will eventually be completed. The Trail will be collateralized and will be constructed at the same time as all infrastructure associated with this proposal - this is a single phase project. The Trail will be constructed to the standards set forth in the Land Use Regulations. There are several areas where it will not be possible to maintain a 10 foot separation in between the Trail and the roadway pavement as recommended by ECO Trails. At Final Plat application, the trail crossing of Brush Creek road needs to be presented with more detail to ensure the safest location and design possible. The applicant proposes to dedicate the trail to the County, however, maintenance will remain the responsibility of Homeowner's Association. A public trailhead will be constructed at Trail Gulch at the same time as all infrastructure associated with this proposal. Eal!le County Housinl! Department: Response provided a recommendation that this proposal contain a local resident/employee housing plan. The recommendation is premised on the currently proposed employee linkage and inc1usionary zoning regulations which have not yet been adopted by the county. The proposed breakdown is as follows: Inc1usionary zoning, 16.2 local resident housing units are required; an additional 5.77 units for residential linkage, and; 11.33 units for commercial linkage. In 17 02-18-2003 total, 33.30 local resident housing units would be required. Preliminary discussion with the applicant indicate that the applicant desires to pay fees-in-lieu of constructing the units. The per unit fee would be $32,000, which equates to $1,065,600.00 for all 33.30 units. Please refer to the attached memorandum dated October 3, 2002. Subsequent discussions with Eagle County's Housing Director have led to a recommendation that the applicant be required to adhere to the Housing Regulations currently under consideration by the Board should these regulations be adopted prior to approval of a Final Plat for the Frost and Salt Creek PUD. In the event that the Housing Regulations are not adopted prior to approval of a Final Plat for the Frost and Salt Creek PUD then, a suitable, alternative agreement must be developed. This has been included as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. Colorado State Forest Service: Response indicated concurrence with the wildfire hazard analysis and mitigation plan which was submitted with the application. Overall, the hazard rating for the project is low. The wildfire hazard analysis did identify a few lots which are in an area of moderate or extreme hazard. CSFS recommends that defensible space, pursuant to the State's standards, be created around homes on all lots which fall within the moderate or extreme hazard areas. The developer will be performing vegetation management to remove flammable vegetation, thereby lowering the hazard present on particular lots. This recommendation is consistent with the newly adopted Eagle County Wildfire Regulations. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 3, 2002. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Response indicated that the Town of Eagle does have sufficient water resources to supply this subdivision. It is the opinion ofthe State Division of Water Resources that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 2, 2002. Colorado Division of Wildlife: CDOW recommends that golf course improvements which encroach upon the riparian areas be relocated outside of said areas with a minimum setback of 50' to 75'. These sensitive areas should be offlimits to golfers searching for errant tee shots. It is further recommended that any construction that must occur in the creek itself should take place between July 15 and October 15 so that spawning fish and recently hatched fish will be the least impacted. The CD OW response also delineates several recommendations with regard to building envelope placement, pet management, bears and public trail access. CDOW recommends that a comprehensive education program be instituted for all new residents. During the course of the Planning Commission hearing process, the applicant worked cooperatively with the CDOW and, as stated above, has reached agreement on a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for this PUD proposal. Also, the applicant has agreed to create a critical wildlife habitat protection zone for deer and elk winter range on the Frost Creek site and to define Conservation Easements to protect wetland and riparian areas throughout the Salt Creek Parcel. This Conservation Easement is intended to preserve the riparian nesting/production area for small mammals, birds and deer. The applicant has also agreed to a wildlife impact fee. This proposed arrangement is similar to those in place for Red Sky Ranch and Cordillera. Colorado Geolo2:ical Survey: Response provides recommendations with regard to site specific soils and foundation investigations, slope stability, debris flow, ground water, erosion and sediment control. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 2, 2002. In a second follow-up letter, dated December 5, 2002, the Colorado Geological Survey provided additional comments and recommendations based upon the revised plans, as follows: The preliminary plans should be revised to remove building envelopes from steep areas and setbacks, as recommended in the applicant's November 6,2002 geotechnical report, for Lots 17,23,25 and 43. These steep areas and recommended setbacks should be shown as 'Areas that cannot be disturbed', on the preliminary plan. In a follow-up report dated February 7, 2003, HP. Geotech further 18 02-18-2003 analyzed the referenced lots. As a result, Lot 17 has been relocated to an area not impacted by steep slopes. Based upon field reconnaissance, the building envelopes on Lots 23, 25 and 43 have been modified to comply with the intent of the setbacks. This recommendation has been adequately addressed. Grading plans for the golf course should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for conformance with grading recommendations and criteria prior to plan approval. In their February 7, 2003 report, HP. Geotech has evaluated the golf course grading plans, prepared by Johnson, Kunkle and Associates, and found them to be in conformance with HP. 's prior recommendations. With application for the Final Plat, additional geotechnical studies should be conducted along the roads, in the golf course and at the lake and sediment pond locations where cuts and fills will be deeper than 15 feet. This recommendation will be incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the settlement and collapse potential to adjacent roads and homes as a result of moisture increases from sediment and detention ponds. Specifically, such ponds are located near Frost Creek Lots 7, 13,18,47,49,50,55,58,59 and Salt Creek Lots 6 and 7. Pursuant to the HP. Geotech February 7, 2003 report, the evaluation of the of the settlement and collapse potential to roads and home sites in close proximity to these water features will depend on site specific subsurface conditions at the proposed water feature sites. It is recommended that the water features be further evaluated and mitigation designs, if needed, be developed as part of the Final Plat or during site specific studies for design of specific features. This recommendation will be incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. The pond located on the Slat Creek property, which is located above Lots 6, 7 and 8 must include storage volume for the sediment-laden flows that have historically been generated from the basin. Pursuant to a letter from Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc. dated February 7, 2003, their observation of site conditions has yielded insignificant siltation events over the previous 30 years. To adversely impact the lots below, a siltation event would have to exceed the capacity of a sink hole which is located uphill of the proposed lots plus the six times larger detention pond which will be constructed in between the sink hole and the proposed lots. To design for such a cataclysmic and infrequent event far exceeds the current standard of practice in my (James Kunkel, PE) opinion, and is not justified. The appropriated design water and sediment volumes for all of the sediment ponds will be incorporated in the pond designs as part of the Final Plat application. CGS recommends that Salt Creek Lots 6, 7 and 8 not receive preliminary plan approval until additional detailed rockfall, sinkhole and sediment yield studies and mitigation plans have been provided. Also, the sediment basin and water tank: should not receive approval in the absence of detailed slope stability, debris flow, sediment yield and rockfall studies and mitigation plans. Pursuant to the HP. Geotech February 7, 2003 report, the referenced lots are not in the potential rockfall area. In HP. 's opinion, Lots 6, 7 and 8 do not have a potential sinkhole risk greater than the risk of all other lots in the PUD that are underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The sinkhole potential on lots underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite should be evaluated by individual lot owners when the specific building type and location are known. With the Final Plat application, the additional detailed rockfall, slope stability and sediment yield studies and the development of appropriate mitigation design for Salt Creek Lots 6 and 7, as well as, the sediment basin and water tank will be provided. The developer should provide criteria of when each sediment and debris flow basin must be cleaned and maintained; With the Final Plat application, the applicant's hydrologist will provide the necessary criteria. This has been incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. The applicant's geologic report indicates that Salt Creek Lots 2,3,4,5,6,8,9, 10, the water tank: 19 02-18-2003 and Frost Creek Lots 3, 4 and 5 are located in debris flow areas. The November 6,2002 HP Geotech, Inc. report indicates that detailed debris flow analysis mitigation plans should be the responsibility of individual lot owners. However, the report indicates that it may be easiest to design mitigation for groups of lots. CGS concurs that detailed debris flow mitigation plans should be provided by the developer prior to preliminary plan approval. Piecemeal mitigation efforts may have unintended consequences and may actually aggravate the situation. Responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the mitigation structures should be addressed by the applicant. With the Final Plat application, the applicant's hydrologist will prepare debris flow mitigation plans and mitigation structure maintenance procedures for Salt Creek Lots 2, 3, 4,5,6,8,9, 10, the water tank and Frost Creek Lots 3, 4, and 5. Debris flow mitigation will not be the responsibility of the individual lot and facility owners. This recommendation has been incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. With the Final Plat application, additional drainage analysis and design needs to be done to ensure that flows from culverts don't impact building sites. Frost Creek Lots 17, 18, 19,20,45,47,48,50,58 and 60 have been identified as lots which may be subject to sediment-laden flooding. As such, CGS recommends that these areas either be avoided or site specific grading should be designed to convey flows around building sites, roads and the golf course. With the Final Plat application, interceptor ditch details should include calculations on volumes, flow velocities, shear stress and sediment yields to each ditch and lot. Lot specific geologic analyses prior to building permit issuance should include an evaluation for sinkholes. This recommendation applies to all lots except for Frost Creek Lots 23, 26 thru 33 and 42. Because portions of both Frost and Salt Creek properties contain shallow ground water that may affect below grade construction, CGS recommends that a soils and foundation investigation be submitted with each building permit, which includes a test boring indicating the depth to ground water. Ground water levels should be taken when the ground water table is normally at its highest level and basements should be prohibited within four feet of seasonally high ground water levels. Prior to construction, detailed grading plans for each lot and other project facilities should be evaluated for slope stability by a geotechnical engineer. Town of Ealde: Response dated September 30, 2002 indicates that, "The Salt Creek and Frost Creek project is generally in conformance with the Water Service Agreement between the Town and Adam's Rib. The only area that needs to be further addressed is the requirement for vehicular access to, and construction of, a public parking area to the east of lots 6 and 7 at the Salt Creek parcel. Additionally, there needs to be a non-motorized access easement from the parking area to the BLM lands to the north and east along the existing Trail Gulch Road". Please refer to the attached letter of response dated September 30,2002. The Town provided an additional response dated October 4, 2002. This letter seems to reiterate this proposal's conformance with the agreements entered into by the Town and the Applicant. The Town, however, still does not believe that this proposal fully meets the spirit and intent of the Eagle Area Community Plan. Namely, the Town feels that development of the subject property at this time is out of sequence. The Town feels that development should progress outward from the Town and comply with the growth boundaries recommended by the Eagle Area Community Plan. Sequential development from the Town's boundaries outward, would allow the Brush Creek Valley to retain its historical nature until such time the growth boundaries are moved out in the future. The Town feels that the build/no build zones set forth in the Agreement, do not fully restrict development on the subject property. The Town believes there are still a few areas which are not appropriate for development. These two areas include the riparian eco system existing between Salt 20 02-18-2003 Creek and Brush Creek and the close proximity of lots and building envelopes to Brush Creek within the Frost Creek subdivision. If approved, we believe the plan could be greatly enhanced if all development were placed on the upper bench at Frost Creek and a more creative plan avoiding riparian systems was provided for a Salt Creek. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments: Response indicates that the proposal is in compliance with the policies and recommendations of the 208 Plan and that this version of the project is considerably more protective of wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas than previous versions reviewed by NWCCOG. The response does set-forth 10 recommendations regarding grading, drainage, erosion control and water quality. Please refer to the attached letter dated September 26, 2002. The recommendations set forth by NWCCOG overlap with comments made by the Engineering Department and are more related to the companion 1041 application. Greater Ea2le Fire Protection District: Response provided comments with regard to emergency vehicle access and fire hydrant placement. Please refer to the attached letter dated September 26, 2002. In a follow-up letter dated December 6,2002, the Greater Eagle FPD indicated that all of their previously stated concerns had been resolved with the exception of choosing a different name for Upper Frost Creek Lane. This change is requested to avoid duplication of road names. This change has been completed. Armv Corp of En2ineers: The Corp provided written comment in a letter dated October 16, 2002. The response indicated that the Corp cannot determine that the wetlands identified by Johnson & Kunkel and Associates and Walsh Environmental, have been verified. As proposed, the Corp has concerns with the specific placement of building envelopes and identification of any vegetative buffers for the 81 residential lots. It is unclear if there are associated impacts to waters of the United States with the course or with the adjacent water features. The PUD does not clearly indicate whether the road crossings and bike paths within this project are culverted or clear spans where intersecting or crossing waters of the United States. In a second letter dated January 7,2003, the Army Corp indicated that the Corp has not verified whether or not wetlands on the subject property are 'jurisdictional' or not. Without verification, the applicant bears the burden of proof for avoidance as well as any potential future violations of the Clean Water Act. The Corp determined that the proj ect may not require a Department of the Army permit as proposed but, recommends that a qualified wetland scientist or ecologist be present during all phases of the project to assist in preventing potential violations of the Clean Water Act. At the time of this writing, staff was trying to obtain clarification from the Corp regarding the term '.... during all phases of the project...'. It is unclear if the intent is for an expert to be present only for infrastructure installation or for individual home construction, as well. It may be prudent to specify that the expert be present only for infrastructure improvements OR, that the wetland areas be accurately demarcated in the field prior to infrastructure improvements. This recommendation has been incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. Ea2le County School District RE 50J: The District indicated in their letter dated October 25, 2002, that based upon the number of units proposed with this application (111) the amount of school land dedication required would be 1.61 acres AND that the District will not accept cash in lieu ofland dedication. Further, the District wants land which is adjacent to Eagle Ranch or the land at Highway 6 and Eagle Ranch Road. The land dedication formula utilized by the District is incorrect and the actual amount ofland dedication, pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulation is actually 1.676 acres. Prior to Preliminary Plan approval, this issue should be resolved. 21 02-18-2003 Colorado Historical Society: In a letter received January 26,2003 the Colorado Historical Society identified nine sites located within the area of potential effect for this project. Out ofthe nine sites, three are mentioned in the correspondence as sites which should be avoided. The applicant has committed to preserving an historic cabin associated with one of the three sites. Another of the three sites was identified as not being eligible for preservation by Carl Spath of Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. in a report prepared in the early 1980's for the 'Adam's Rib Ski Area and Development '. The third site identified by the Historical Society was not covered in the Metcalf report, however, it no longer exists. There are no structures left to preserve. Preservation of the historic cabin has been incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. Eaele Valley Land Trust: ill a letter dated December 16, 2002, the EVL T outlines three concerns: 1) The proposed Trail Gulch trailhead and trail run into private property owned by Cordillera and Diamond S Ranch. A small strip of land between Brush Creek and these privately owned ridges is BLM property. The proposed trail and trailhead will have little public recreation value because only the small strips of BLM land will be usable by the public. This trailhead and trail are part of the requirements set forth in the agreement that the applicant and the Town of Eagle have entered into. 2) Some areas designated as open space are either unbuildable or would be extremely difficult/expensive on which to build. Getting credit for setting aside problematic lands as open space is questionable...even bogus. Setting aside buildable acreage and permanently protecting these lands with a conservation easement is truly proof of any developer's commitment open space and willingness to keep it that way permanently. As proposed, including both 'open space' and recreational areas, 72% of the subject property would remain unbuilt. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations set forth a recommendation that 25% open space be provided. Further, if the subject property, including the problematic lands, were to be sold offin 35 acre pieces, no public benefit would be realized and there would be no protection of any sensitive areas. 3) Wetlands, riparian areas and blue heron on Salt Creek parcel. The wetlands are significant as are the riparian areas. Blue heron frequent this area, an undisputable fact because I (Cindy Cohagen) personally see them on the site during my morning runs along Salt Creek Road. The EVL T believes that this parcel has conservation values that development may ultimately destroy. Again, this proposal potentially represents a public benefit in that sensitive areas will be preserved and livestock will no longer be permitted to compromise the wetland areas. Additionally, four letters of concern have been received from individual property owners living in the Brush Creek Valley: Rosie Shearwood of9081 Brush Creek Road: Expressed concerns about Frost Creek lot configuration and preservation of the wetland/riparian areas on the Salt Creek parcel. Also expressed grave concerns regarding the availability of water during natural drought cycles. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 7, 2002. Ray and Shirley Zupancic of 5608 Brush Creek Road: Expressed concern about Brush Creek Road and that it should be the developer's responsibility to straighten the road and align it with the Town of Eagle water line. The curve in the road by their home is a spot of repeated accidents and their driveway does not have good line of sight to oncoming traffic. The Zupancic's also object to the entrance of a cul-de-sac which is proposed directly in front of their property. Please refer to the attached, undated letter. Annie Egan resident of the Brush Creek Valley: Expressed concern about the Salt Creek property and that nothing should ever be built there due to the wetlands, riparian area and necessity to preserve these lands for wildlife. Further, believes that the Frost Creek site is still being over developed. Lastly, indicates that the proposal does not mee any of the goals set forth in the Eagle Area Community 22 02-18-2003 Plan. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 8, 2002. Kenneth and Patricia Norman residents of the Brush Creek Valley: Expressed concern about vehicular speeds on Brush Creek Road and that due to the windiness of the road, the speed limit should be lower. Specifically, they suggest that the road between mile markers 5 and 6 is exceptionally dangerous and should be widened with a protected lane for bikes and joggers. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 7, 2002. Staff findings are as shown on staffreport and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Preliminary PUD: Following is the list of applicable "standards" that will need to be met for this proposal to be approved. STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The entire site is owned in fee simple by one (1) corporate entity. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, 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. Proposed uses in the PUD include: Private 18 hole golf course inclusive of ancillary clubhouse and maintenance/golf cart storage facilities. The clubhouse is anticipated to house a variety of 'commercial' uses commonly associated with private golf clubhouse facilities; Retail uses including: Real estate sales, gift shop, barber and beauty shops, athletic club, spa, health club facilities, restaurants, bars, golf pro shop and meeting rooms; Athletic facilities may include: Swimming pools, sports courts, locker rooms/showers and maintenance facilities; ice skating; Civic uses; Firehouse and security operations; Ambulance operations; Postal facilities; Recycling and Garbage facilities; 81 Single family and up to 30 accessory dwelling units; 23 02-18-2003 Passive and active Open Space. The subject property is currently zoned Resource (R) which allows general agricultural and limited residential use with basic dimensional limitations such as building height and setback requirements. The Resource Zone District does not contemplate the majority ofthe proposed commercial uses, and thus, does not specify dimensional limitations for commercial uses. This proposal does meet or exceed all other dimensional limitations of the Resource Zone District with the exception of minimum lot size. A minimum lot size of four (4) acres has been requested where the current Resource zone designation requires a minimum lot size of 35 acres. As such, the Board must authorize both dimensional and land use "variations" based on specific criteria as outlined in the Land Use Regulations. The basis for the Board granting these variations are as follows: Obtain Desired Design Qualities By allowing the variation, an integration of mixed uses and a variety in the design and layout of the buildings will be achieved. Structures are designed to be compatible, in terms of height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration, with other units in the PUD and the surrounding area, yet avoids uniformity of design. A mix of uses promotes a more efficient land use pattern and increased open space within the project. Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards The proposed PUD recognizes the natural resources found on the property. Protection and/or mitigation of environmental impacts associated with the development are being incorporated into the PUD and associated documents. Large areas of open space are being proposed on the sensitive land areas (steep slopes, floodplains, etc.). Water Augmentation A plan for augmentation is not required to be provided by the applicant in this circumstance where municipal water service will be provided by the Town of Eagle pursuant to the Town's Commitment. Trails A public trail is proposed to be constructed by the applicant throughout the length of the subject property and generally parallels Brush Creek Road with the exception of a detour around the Salt Creek portion of the development. Other internal trails and paths are being proposed to accommodate pedestrian circulation. Affordable Housing As of this writing, the applicant has not yet agreed to the attached Housing Department memorandum dated October 3, 2002. Public Facilities The PUD proposes the construction of public facilities (Brush Creek trail) which would assist in meeting the demands not only of proj ect residents, but also of other residents of and visitors to Eagle County. Given the aforementioned discussion, staff makes overall favorable findings for the two sets of standards. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT generally 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" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations of these use designations ARE authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. 24 02-18-2003 [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] All of the dimensional limitations proposed with this PUD ARE NOT consistent with those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the Resource zone district designation. Variations ARE, however, authorized pursuant to Section 5-240F.3.f., Variations Authorized STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkin!! and Loadin!! Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that 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 Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadin!! Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The applicant has provided a limited amount of information regarding parking in the vicinity of the clubhouse area, however, the PUD does specify a parking ratio of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. ofleasable floor area for the clubhouse/commercial areas. Further, the PUD specifies a minimum of 3 off street parking spaces per residence and an additional two parking spaces per Accessory Dwelling Unit. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] 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 STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The landscape concept supplied with the application is intended to achieve unity and a "common thread" throughout the development. The existing vegetation of the Brush Creek Valley dictates the philosophy of the proposed landscape plan. Presently within the Brush Creek Valley on the northern exposure alpine hillsides there are Aspen and Spruce and on the southern exposure alpine hillsides: Rocky Mountain Juniper, Gambel Oak and Serviceberry. It is the applicant's intent to follow this same natural theme within the golf course and community landscape. Essentially four 'landscape zones' have been defined: Northern Exposure Alpine Hillsides; Southern Exposure Alpine Hillsides; Meadows, and; Stream sides. Provision of landscaping on individual lots will be through the restrictive covenant enforced by the Homeowners Association - not the County. A landscape plan has been submitted for the common areas and streetscape. Lighting and illumination are discussed in the PUD application and are designed to eliminate glare and light shining on adjacent sites and to maintain a low level of atmospheric light pollution to preserve the visibility of the night sky. A weed control plan has been developed and is proposed to be implemented and enforced through the Homeowner's Association. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] 25 02-18-2003 Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sifln Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit DevelolJment (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. The provision for signs, as stated in the PUD Guide, will comply with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Since this is predominately a residential/golf community, minimal signage is necessary, however it is anticipated that each residence will be required to have one entry/identification sign of at least one square foot in size and located at the driveway or entrance to the residence. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, fugn Regulations or have been modified in the PUD to meet the intent of providing appropriate signage for the PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - 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. [+] Potable water sUlJplv - Potable water is proposed to be provided by the Town of Eagle pursuant to an agreement with the Town. The Office ofthe State Engineer indicates in their referral letter that the Town of Eagle does have sufficient water resources to supply this subdivision. It is the opinion of the State Division of Water Resources that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 2, 2002. Non-potable water will be used for irrigation on the golf course, common landscaped areas and on the residential lots. The companion 1041 application, Eagle County File No. 1041-0042, is being recommended for approval by staff and received a unanimous recommendation of approval from the Eagle County Planning Commission. [ +] Sewa,g-e disposal - Wastewater treatment is proposed to be provided by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. These systems will be shared by two or more lots wherever possible. Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the systems will be performed by the Homeowner's Association. The companion 1041 application, Eagle County File No. 1041-0042, is being recommended for approval by staff and received a unanimous recommendation of approval from the Eagle County Planning Commission. [ +] Solid waste disposal - Solid waste disposal will be contracted per the application and will occur at the County Landfill. [ +] Electrical sUlJplv - The Applicant has provided a letter from Holy Cross Energy indicating that it has adequate resources to provide electrical service to the development. [ +] Fire lJrotection - The proposal will be served by the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District. All homes and the clubhouse will have automated sprinkler systems and appropriately spaced fire hydrants occur throughout the site. The Colorado State Forest Service concurs with the wildfire hazard analysis and mitigation plan 26 02-18-2003 which was submitted with the application. Overall, the hazard rating for the project is low. The wildfire hazard analysis did identify a few lots which are in an area of moderate or extreme hazard. CSFS recommends that defensible space, pursuant to the State's standards, be created around homes on all lots which fall within the moderate or extreme hazard areas. The developer will the performing vegetation management to remove flammable vegetation, thereby lowering the hazard present on particular lots. This recommendation is consistent with the currently proposed Eagle County Wildfire Regulations. Please refer to the attached letter dated October 3,2002. The application includes a Wildfire Hazard Analysis and Mitigation Plan for the Frost and Salt Creek properties. The plan sets forth specific wildfire mitigation measures which will be incorporated, by way of Exhibit, into the PUD Guide and PUD Agreement and at Final Plat into the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. [ +/ -] Roads - Access to both the Salt and Frost Creek portions of the site are to be via Brush Creek Road which connects to Highway 6 through the Town of Eagle. Eagle County Engineering Department has expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts on Brush Creek Road resulting from the increased number of vehicle trips and construction traffic. Engineering has set forth recommended conditions of approval that would require the applicant to provide certain improvements on Brush Creek Road, to participate in the funding of a traffic signal at the intersection of Brush Creek Road/Bull Pasture Road and Capitol Street and an agreement to repair any damage to Brush Creek Road caused by increased heavy truck traffic. All roads in the Frost Creek portion of the development are proposed to be privately owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. Applicant intends to maintain Salt Creek Road, even though it is owned by the County. All other roads associated with the Salt Creek portion of the development will also be privately owned and maintained. Construction plans have been submitted for Preliminary Plan level of review. More detail of road plans, intersection plans, drainage plans, street lighting plans, and trails and sidewalk plans is necessary at the time of Final Plat. [+] Proximitv to schools - No school site is proposed within this development. The nearest public schools are located in Eagle and Gypsum. As of this writing, the School District had not yet responded to this proposal. Given the distance from any existing and/or proposed school facilities, the students would have to be transported to school. An existing school bus route currently runs adjacent to the proposal. [ +] Proximity to Police, Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services - The Eagle County Sheriffs office will be the provider of police protection and Western Eagle County Ambulance District will provide emergency service. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for electrical supply, solid waste disposal, fire protection, schools, and police and emergency provisions; but HAS NOT demonstrated adequate roads. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements 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 27 02-18-2003 access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-oi-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (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. [+/-] Safe. Efficient Access - The internal private road system will provide access to all development within the proposal._ Engineering has set forth recommended conditions of approval that would require the applicant to provide certain improvements on Brush Creek Road, to participate in the funding of a traffic signal at the intersection of Brush Creek Road/Bull Pasture Road and Capitol Street and an agreement to repair any damage to Brush Creek Road caused by increased heavy truck traffic; [ +] Internal Pathways - A concept trails plan has been included in the application. ECO requests that the trail be connected all the way to the Town of Eagle. The applicant proposes with this application to construct an 8 foot wide trail for the entire north to south length of the project. As the applicant's land located north of the subject property develops, the trail will eventually be connected to the Town. ECO desires the trail to be constructed per the ECLUR and be collateralized. ECO requests that the trail be separated at least 10 feet from all roadways. Details of ownership and maintenance of the trail need to be resolved. The county does not accept 'spur' trails for maintenance and in fact has a very minimal program of trails maintenance involving only the Eagle Valley Core Trail. A public parking lot and access to Trail Gulch will be provided by the applicant on the Salt Creek site. [+] Emergencv Vehicles - As long as roads and driveways are designed and constructed to County Standards, emergency vehicles should be able to traverse the project. Also, the applicant is proposing to provide secondary emergency points of ingress/egress for both the Frost and Salt Creek portions of the development. [ +] Principle Access Points - One access point is proposed to connect the Frost Creek property to Brush Creek Road. As mentioned previously, access to the Salt Creek property will be gained via both old and new Salt Creek Roads. [+] Snow Storage - The applicant anticipates snow storage on individual lots and common areas throughout the entirety of the PUD in order to avoid transporting plowed snow elsewhere. [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the 28 02-18-2003 development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (b) Emergency Vehicles (c) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. This application represents a substantial departure from the previously approved, but no longer valid, Sketch Plan proposal for 300 single family lots with up to 90 accessory dwelling units on the Frost Creek property only. The applicant has radically reduced the proposed density thereby allowing this application to fit more favorably within existing land use patterns. Although the minimum allowed lot size contemplated with this application is four acres, the gross density proposed for the Frost and Salt Creek properties at one dwelling unit per 20 acres far exceeds the minimum 10 acre Agricultural Residential zoning which is present to the east and west of the subject property. Further, several of the Resource zoned parcels in the immediate vicinity do not meet the minimum required lot size of 35 acres. As such, the densities proposed with this application are compatible with existing and allowed land uses in this vicinity of the Brush Creek valley. The proposed golf course is also in character with the Eagle Ranch golf course facility located north of the subject property in the Brush Creek valley. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental OpenSpacel Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation HOUsing Services Conformance x x x x x x Non x Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable 29 02-18-2003 Open Space / Recreation The applicant is proposing a variety of approaches to preserving land as open space and active recreation facilities. Development This proposal, if approved, will increase and diversify the economic base, including: Tourism, recreation, and retirement, and promote its further diversification. This proposal also manages growth while striking a balance between protection of natural environmental assets, enhancement of the quality oflife for residents and visitors and economic development. Development ofthe subject property, as is currently proposed, was a key part of the 'Water Service Agreement' for the Frost Creek Property that the applicant and the Town entered into. The proposed development of the Salt Creek Property also conforms with a separate 'Water Service Agreement' for the Brush Creek Property that the Town and the applicant entered into. Further, based upon the total acreage of this proposed development (1627.318 acres), there currently exists the potential for the creation of 46 lots, each 35 acres in size. Upon each of these 35 acre lots, a home of unlimited size, an accessory dwelling unit up to 1,800 square feet and a variety of agricultural out-buildings could be located without any type of County review or approval other than building permits. In total, there could be 92 'by-right' residential units on the subject property and none of the land would be preserved as open space or improved as recreational area. This proposal for a total of 111 units (81 primary residences and up to 30 accessory dwelling units) represents a density 'bonus' of 19 residential dwelling units in trade for 72% of the overall land area remaining as open space and recreation area. As a direct result, sensitive areas will be better protected in perpetuity. Affordable Housing: This proposal lacks integration of "affordable" housing within the community. The applicant, however, has proposed to comply with the letter of the pending Housing Regulations currently under consideration by the Board of County Commissioners should they be adopted. Based upon discussions with the Housing Department, Staff suggests that in the event that the Housing Regulations do not get adopted, or are not adopted prior to the approval of the Frost and Salt Creek PUD Final Plat, then the application should comply with an alternative affordable housing plan, which is acceptable to the County. As per the Eagle County Planning Commission's request, Staff has provided the following two possible options should an alternative form of compliance become necessary: Arrowhead Formula: Please refer to the attached Requirement Under the "Arrowhead Formula ". lnlusionary Zoning, Commercial Linkage and Residential Linkage at 15%: Please refer to the attached Requirement Under the Proposed Local Resident Housing Regulations. Please note, that the Housing Department has suggested that a 1% Transfer Fee should be inlcuded additionally. Community Services. This proposal contemplates fire and ambulance facilities on the 'Clubhouse' parcel. Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed development is in general conformance to the Future Land Use Map. Most of the development area is in an area on the FLUM with a maximum density indicated of 1 dwelling unit per 35 acres plus a caretakers unit. It is anticipated that the applicant, who owns a substantial amount ofland between the Town and the subject property, will continue to develop the Brush Creek Valley, southward from the Town thereby eventually closing the gap between. The FLUM does specifically 30 02-18-2003 identify the Frost Creek site with a star designating a 'resort' community. EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Community Open Space & Environment Economic Affordable Circulatibn& FLUP Size & Recreation & Sensitive Development Housing T ral1sportation Map Character Areas Conformance X x x x x x Non x Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Community Size & Character Development of the subject property, as is currently proposed, was a key part of the 'Water Service Agreement' for the Frost Creek Property that the applicant and the Town entered into. The proposed development ofthe Salt Creek Property also conforms with a separate 'Water Service Agreement' for the Brush Creek Property that the Town and the applicant entered into. The same discussion as set forth above under 'Development' for the Master Plan evaluation is again applicable here. The Town has not remained static over the six years since the Eagle Area Community Plan was completed. Reasonable people with differing perspectives may quantify and reconcile differently terms in the Guiding Policies such as "small town, non-resort atmosphere", "community's vision of its destiny and its character" and "size and current pace of growth". Some might even suggest that the Eagle Ranch PUD, which was approved subsequent to the adoption of the Eagle Area Community Plan by the Town and which will effectively double the size of the Town, contradicts that portion of Guiding Policy 1 which would "maintain [the Town's] size and current pace of growth" that existed at the time the Eagle Area Community Plan was adopted in September 1996. Oven Space & Recreation This proposed development would serve to protect the Brush Creek Valley area from being broken up into small development parcels. As mentioned previously, the proposed PUD boundaries encompass 1174.3 acres ofland for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 72 percent of the entire land area of the subject property and may be further broken down as follows: 540.4 acres (33%) of common recreation and open space; 410.4 acres (25%) of hillside and open space, and; 223.5 acres (14%) of golf course. Environment & Sensitive Areas. CDOW recommends that golf course improvements which encroach upon the riparian areas be relocated outside of said areas with a minimum setback of 50' to 75'. These sensitive areas should be off limits to golfers searching for errant tee shots. It is further recommended that any construction that must occur in the creek itself should take place between July 15 and October 15 so that spawning fish and recently hatched fish will be the least impacted. The CDOW response also delineates several recommendations with regard to building envelope placement, pet management, bears and public trail access. CDOW recommends that a comprehensive education program be instituted for all new residents. 31 02-18-2003 During the course of the Planning Commission hearing process, the applicant worked cooperatively with the CDOW and, as stated above, has reached agreement on a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for this PUD proposal. Also, the applicant has agreed to create a critical wildlife habitat protection zone for deer and elk winter range on the Frost Creek site and to define Conservation Easements to protect wetland and riparian areas throughout the Salt Creek Parcel. This Conservation Easement is intended to preserve the riparian nesting/production area for small mammals, birds and deer. The applicant has also agreed to a wildlife impact fee. This proposed arrangement is similar to those in place for Red Sky Ranch and Cordillera. The applicant has prepared and submitted a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan. This plan sets forth requirements for: Controlling dogs and the enforcement mechanism for non-compliance. The plan includes standards for fencing which is consistent with CDOW's recommendations. Livestock and horses are to be expressly prohibited anywhere within the PUD. Requirements for Bear and Mountain Lions/Trash RemovallNuisance Wildlife are included and enforcement mechanism. The plan addresses management of the RiparianlWetlands areas and indicates that riparian areas along Frost and Brush Creek will be enhanced, thereby improving wildlife potential, non-game and fishery values. Permanent impacts to wetlands will be avoided. Permanent impacts to riparian areas will also be avoided except for impacts due to proposed roadway, golf crossings and development where impacts will be minimized. Golf education and appropriate signage will be in place to inform golfers of the rules and regulations on avoiding wetlands and sensitive areas. The plan indemnifies the Colorado Division of Wildlife against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage within the PUD. The plan discusses procedures for Golf Course and/or Open Space Management including, wildlife protection measures, as well as, practical means to protect sensitive golf course improvements from wildlife. Best Management Practices will be incorporated into a Management Plan for the Golf Course Maintenance and Operations. These BMP's shall be developed prior to approval ofthe Final Plat for this proposal. It is proposed that the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement be incorporated by reference into the Master Homeowners Association's Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the PUD. If this proposal is approved, the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement will be incorporated into the PUD Guide by way of Exhibit. The plan proposes that new homeowner's be educated about the wildlife mitigation measures via a booklet and/or brochures to be presented to all new homeowners. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be duly promulgated and enforced by the Master Homeowners Association and Board of Directors. The plan sets forth extensive enforcement and penalty procedures to be enforced by the Master Homeowners Association. The Army Corps indicated that the Corp has not verified whether or not wetlands on the subject property are 'jurisdictional' or not. Without verification, the applicant bears the burden of proof for avoidance as well as any potential future violations of the Clean Water Act. The Corp determined that the project may not require a Department ofthe Army permit as proposed but, recommends that a qualified wetland scientist or ecologist be present during all phases ofthe project to assist in preventing potential violations of the Clean Water Act. A condition of approval has been recommended to satisfy this concern. 32 02-18-2003 Economic Develovment Contributing to conformance is diversification of the local economy. Affordable Housinf!: Please see the discussion with regard to Affordable Housing above. Circulation& Transportation Contributing to conformance is the inclusion of a proposed bike/pedestrian trail the length of the subject property. Future Land Use Plan Mav The FLUP identifies the subject property as appropriate for Residential development at one dwelling unit per 35 acres plus a caretakers unit. The FLUP does further state that, "Density is 1 du/35+ acres except where higher density zoning exists or where open space conservation /incentives/techniques may yield a higher density". In this instance, the overall proposed gross residential density, not including the ADU's, for the total land area within the Frost and Salt Creek PUD boundaries equates to one (1) DU per 20.09 acres, or 0.049 DU per acre. Further, the PUD boundaries encompass 1174.3 acres of land for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 72 percent of the entire land area of the subject property and may be further broken down as follows: 540.4 acres (33%) of common recreation and open space; 410.4 acres (25%) of hillside and open space, and; 223.5 acres (14%) of golf course. Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x x Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Oven Svace Provision Contributing to conformance are [1] providing open space and recreation land and [2] preserving areas along streams in a natural condition to the greatest extent practicable while still meeting the applicant's development goals. Development Patterns This proposal, if approved, will increase and diversify the economic base. Development of the subject property, as is currently proposed, was a key part of the 'Water Service Agreement' for the Frost Creek Property that the applicant and the Town entered into. The proposed development of the Salt Creek Property also conforms with a separate 'Water Service Agreement' for the Brush Creek Property that the Town and the applicant entered into. In terms of conformance with the Plan, it appears as though the Town has already negotiated acceptable uses and development density with the applicant, neither of which completely satisfy the Plan's literal recommendations. Wildlife Reasonable protection of sensitive wildlife habitats is being proposed. As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not yet provided comment. 33 02-18-2003 EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Quantity Conformance x X x x X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the County Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to x develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in X collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and x workers in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on x line. Some.. . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage iob 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is x primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased x employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existina community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to x community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 34 02-18-2003 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents x from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency reauirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue x While the proposed development may not fully conform in all respects to the letter of the Eagle County Master Plan, it does satisfy many of the stated policies. Morever, Master Plans in general attempt to recommend an overall pattern for development within areas that such plans are concerned with. Given the Water Service Agreements which were entered into by the Town of Eagle and the applicant, as well as the fact that the applicant had previously received Sketch Plan approval for a significantly more intensive development on only the Frost Creek portion of the site, this proposed development and land use pattern appears to generally satisfy the spirit and intent of the Eagle County Master Plan and subordinate documents. A condition proposed with regard to 'Affordable Housing' will make this PUD proposal consistent with tthe Master Plan and ancillary documents. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] As conditioned, the proposed PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - 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 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. A phasing plan is not necessary for this proposal, as the applicant intends to improve the entire project in one-step. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT NECESSARY for this development STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. 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. 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. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible 35 02-18-2003 from all occupied structures within the PUD. 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 establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. 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. 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. The PUD boundaries encompass 1174.3 acres of land for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 72 percent of the entire land area of the subj ect property and may be further broken down as follows: 540.4 acres (33%) of common recreation and open space; 410.4 acres (25%) of hillside and open space, and; 223.5 acres (14%) of golf course. The application proposes a private golf course. During the shoulder seasons (prior to June 1 st and after September 15th) Adam's Rib will reserve four tee times for a total of sixteen golfers, Monday through Thursday, for local residents to play. The cost of play for Eagle County residents will be discounted 40% from the members fees in place at the time of play. Adam's Rib will make the course available for one charity tournament prior to June 1 st and one charity tournament after September l5t\ holidays and weekends excluded. There will be no charge for the use of the course, golf carts or golf course staff, however, Adam's Rib reserves the right to select the charity groups, tournament format, tournament dates and times. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: Minimum area; Improvements required; Continuing use and maintenance; or Organization STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. It appears the Applicant has generally considered the recommendations and comments of the analysis documents, technical reports, and referral agency comments. ill addition, the proposal has been modified to incorporate a variety of natural resource protection measures such as lot Conservation Easements and Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone, avoidance of 100 year floodplains and building envelope avoidance of wildlife/winter habitat, wetland and riparian areas. The PUD Guide specifies a minimum 75 foot setback from the high water mark of Brush and Salt Creeks and avoidance of the 100 year floodplain for all structures (bridges, paths, and utilities may encroach). The 50 foot stream setback for the golf course will be complied with. NWCCOG's response indicates that the proposal is in compliance with the policies and 36 02-18- 2003 recommendations of the 208 Plan and that this version ofthe project is considerably more protective of wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas than previous versions reviewed by NWCCOG. The response does set-forth 10 recommendations regarding grading, drainage, erosion control and water quality which have been incorporated as conditions of approval. Please refer to the attached letter dated September 26, 2002. The applicant worked cooperatively with the CD OW and, as stated above, has reached agreement on a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for this PUD proposal. Also, the applicant has agreed to create a critical wildlife habitat protection zone for deer and elk winter range on the Frost Creek site and to define Conservation Easements to protect wetland and riparian areas throughout the Salt Creek Parcel. This Conservation Easement is intended to preserve the riparian nesting/production area for small mammals, birds and deer. The applicant has also agreed to a wildlife impact fee. The Army Corp indicated that the Corp has not verified whether or not wetlands on the subject property are 'jurisdictional' or not. Without verification, the applicant bears the burden of proof for avoidance as well as any potential future violations of the Clean Water Act. The Corp determined that the proj ect may not require a Department of the Army permit as proposed but, recommends that a qualified wetland scientist or ecologist be present during all phases of the project to assist in preventing potential violations of the Clean Water Act. This recommendation has been incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD does incorporate many elements designed to protect natural resources, however, the proposal requires slight modification pursuant to the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. All referral responses and studies submitted by the applicant HAVE NOT been fully considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed Subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The proposed PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - 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 Develovment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts The proposed development is a PUD and as such is consistent with the standards as setforth in the PUD Guide. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) See discussion above in PUD standards, Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.eA] [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) See discussion above in PUD standards, Landscaping and Illumination. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.5] [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) See discussion above in PUD standards, Sign Regulations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.6] [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The Applicant has submitted the required Wildlife Analysis and a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan as part ofthe Environmental Impact Report. While 37 02-18-2003 wildlife impacts will occur, it has been determined that mitigation of such impacts through the approval of the Mitigation and Enhancement Plan will address the impacts. Please see the above discussion regarding the Colorado Division of Wildlife referral response. Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Applicant has provided all required geologic information. Based on the report and the referral response from the Colorado Geological Survey, it is believed that this development can be successfully rendered as proposed with little or no geology related problems so long as sound engineering practice and proper grading and drainage are employed. Please refer to the above discussion concerning the follow-up referral response from the Colorado Geological Survey. CGS set forth several recommendations which have been incorporated as conditions of approval for this PUD Sketch/Preliminary Plan. Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) indicates this Project generally falls within the "low" hazard categorization. However, there are portions of the site that are rated moderate hazard and as such the CSFS suggests some mitigation measures such as defensible space and provision of adequate road and driveway access throughout the site. In addition, CSFS suggests fire resistant roofing materials be used in building construction. The application indicates specific wildfire mitigation measures will be included in the PUD Guide. The wildfire mitigation plan will be made part of the PUD Guide and PUD Agreement by way of Exhibit. At Final Plat, the wildfire mitigation plan will be incorporated into the Subdivision hnprovement Agreement. Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The Applicant is proposing to conform to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations regarding wood burning devices, except for the allowance of an open hearth wood burning fireplace in the Clubhouse. The applicant has committed to not allowing any wood burningfireplaces anywhere within the PUD boundaries. Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The site is not located in an area identified for protection on the Ridgeline Protection Map referred to in the Land Use Regulation. Consequently, this Section is not applicable to this application. Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The required components of the Environmental Impact Report for this application provide the information required in the Land Use Regulations. Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) - The primary element of the application associated with this standard is the golf course maintenance facility. All applicable standards of Division 4-5, Eagle County Land Use Regulations will apply. Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - The internal private road system will provide access to all development within the proposal. The February 5th, 2003 memorandum, indicates that all remaining issues, as stated in their original September 30,2002 memorandum, have been satisfactorily addressed. The February 6,2003 memorandum sets forth recommended conditions of approval that would require the applicant to provide certain improvements on Brush Creek Road, to participate in the funding of a traffic signal at the intersection of Brush Creek Road/Bull Pasture Road and Capitol Street and an agreement to repair any damage to Brush Creek Road caused by increased heavy truck traffic. Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - A concept trails plan has been included in the application. All comments set forth in ECO Trails referral response dated October 3, 2002 must be adequately addressed prior to Preliminary Plan approval. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - Irrigation is proposed to be used throughout the development including the golf course and certain residential lots. Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Preliminary drainage plans and a drainage analysis have 38 02-18-2003 been submitted to the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department referral memo dated December 9, 2002, indicates that additional drainage design must be provided by the applicant with the Final Plat application. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - Grading information was provided by the applicant. CGS and NWCCOG both set forth recommendations which have been incorporated as conditions of approval. Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The PUD does address utilities and lighting, however, Engineering has requested additional information regarding lighting of the roadway network. The Engineering Department referral memo dated December 9, 2002, indicates that a detailed lighting plan may be submitted with the Final Plat application. Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) See discussion above in PUD standards, Adequate Facilities [Section 5-240.F.3.e. Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) See discussion above in PUD standards, Adequate Facilities [Section 5-240.F.3.e.7] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) This development will be assessed road impact fees at the time of building permit. In addition either school land dedication or fees-in-lieu will be required for this project. The RE-50J School District indicated that based upon the number of units proposed with this application (111) the amount of school land dedication required would be 1.61 acres AND that the District will not accept cash in lieu of land dedication. Further, the District wants land which is adjacent to Eagle Ranch or the land at Highway 6 and Eagle Ranch Road. The land dedication formula utilized by the District is incorrect and the actual amount of land dedication, pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulation is actually 1.676 acres. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] As conditioned, this application WILL fully demonstrate 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. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - 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 Eaflle County Road Capital 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. All public infrastructure necessary to serve the subject property already exists in the Brush Creek Valley immediately adjacent to the site. The 1041 review utilizing the applicable standards within Chapter 6 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations has resulted in a unanimous recommendation of approval from the Eagle County Planning Commission. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] Based on previous BOCC Sketch Plan approval, the proposed subdivision IS located and 39 02-18-2003 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. The companion 1041 application is being recommend for approval by staff. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - 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. Most of that portion of the site on which development is to occur appears to be buildable. There appears to be no natural or manmade hazards that cannot be successfully avoided or mitigated by the developer, which would substantially affect the development of the property. The various referral agencies indicate development is feasible if appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. Please reference the above discussion pertaining to the Colorado Geological Survey. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS 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. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - 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. This application represents a substantial departure from the previously approved Sketch Plan proposal for 300 single family lots with up to 90 accessory dwelling units on the Frost Creek property only. The applicant has radically reduced the proposed density thereby allowing this application to fit more favorably within existing land use patterns. Although the minimum allowed lot size contemplated with this application is four acres, the gross density proposed for the Frost and Salt Creek properties at one dwelling unit per 20 acres far exceeds the minimum 10 acre Agricultural Residential zoning which is present to the east and west ofthe subject property. Further, several of the Resource zoned parcels in the immediate vicinity do not meet the minimum required lot size of 35 acres. As such, the densities proposed with this application are compatible with existing and allowed land uses in this vicinity of the Brush Creek valley. The proposed golf course is also in character with the Eagle Ranch golf course facility located north ofthe subject property in the Brush Creek valley. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses Requirements for a Zone ChaDl~e In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the. . . Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion ofthe Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor." Based on the above analysis and other available information, and with the recommended conditions, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this section of the Land Use Regulations: [+]Consistency With Master Plan. The proposed PUD IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan. [ + ] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment to the zone district map IS compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land. It IS an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards ofthe proposed zone district. [+]Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity. 40 02-18-2003 [+ ]Effeet on natural environment. The proposed amendment DOES NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. [+]Community need. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. [+ ]Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning and DOES provide the necessary public facilities and services. [ + ]Publie interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAS changed or IS changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Bob Naracci summarized the application including the number of residents and, accessory dwelling units, golf course clubhouse for Frost Creek and Salt Creek. He discussed the outstanding Issues: 1. Improvements to Brush Creek Road 2. The Eagle County School District will not accept fees in lieu ofland Mr. Narracci stated staff recommends approval with conditions as outlined in the staff report. Commisioner Menconi asked about the open space and the total size ofthe project. He inquired as to the relation of the open space. Is it truly open space. Mr. Naracci stated it would a visual open space for recreational facilities. Commissioner Menconi asked about area between building envelopes. Mr. Narracci stated it would all be common area. Chairman Gallagher asked about the current zoning allowed. Mr. Naracci stated one dwelling unit per 35 acre parcel. Mr. Cloyd reviewed a data summary of the project. He highlighted the composition of the open space and recreation space. He then presented the vicinity map and reviewed the land the applicant owns. He stated the request reflects 1 unit per 20 acres which is one step down from 1 unit per 35 acres. He displayed a color coded map that reflected the density of development surrounding the applicant's land. He stated he believed they were within the growth patterns that had already been established. Mr. Cloyd explained their process in determining the number of lots for Frost Creek. In the process several lots were adjusted. He explained they followed the same procedure with Salt Creek. He explained part of the agreement with the Town of Eagle regarding wildlife, wetlands and riparian setbacks. They have worked with Bill Heicher to replace a small wildlife area with another area. Mr. Cloyd exhibited the wildlife plan for Frost Creek and Salt Creek. He reviewed the access restrictions based on wildlife needs during the year. He showed the area that was agreed upon for a conservation easement. He showed the agreed upon bike path. He stated they have met the trails committee's requirements as much as possible. Mr. Cloyd showed the trailhead and stated that the Town of Eagle wants to hook the bike path all the way into town. The applicant has agreed the path will be completed as they develop all of their property. He exhibited a map of the landscape plan. The only areas that will be irrigated will be the homesites and the golf course. The rest of the areas will be replanted with native grasses. He stated a drip system would be needed outside of the one acre building envelope for each home site. Mr. Cloyd showed the Salt Creek landscape plan and confirmed that the same restrictions would apply for watering these lots. Additional benefits for the town of Eagle include several parcels of land for water treatment plants. They also have stream management agreement with the town to insure minimum flows. Commissioner Stone asked the applicant about the 17 conditions listed on the staff report. Mr. Cloyd responded he would like to speak to conditions B, C, D, and would like to adjust the 41 02-18-2003 wording on condition F, adding "as necessary," and discuss numbers 11, 13 & 14 under F. Commissioner Stone asked about the conditions not listed by Mr. Cloyd and ifhe is in agreement with those. Mr. Cloyd answered yes. Chairman Gallagher asked a question about the riparian easement. Mr. Cloyd stated that there is no easement on Frost Creek. He stated the conservation easement is only on Salt Creek. Willy Powell, Town Manager of Eagle, stated he concurred the Town of Eagle and Adam's Rib have entered into a settlement agreement covering many areas of concern. The Town believes it is a good agreement but has two concerns. He stated the density of the Salt Creek development are not appropriate. He requested some elimination of density in this area. The same applies to the density on the Brush Creek corridor. The Town's preference would be to move the densities up to the upper bench and away from the Brush Creek Riparian areas. They also believe the subdivision could be a little more creative when it comes to the location of lots related to the wetlands. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Powell how long he has lived in Eagle. Mr. Powell responded "since 1979, and has been Town Manager since 1984." He is glad for the settlement agreement. They believe it is appropriate for the Commissioners to add some refinements to the proposal. Commissioner Menconi addressed the history and contentiousness of this file. Mr. Powell summarized his feelings about the project. He stated that it has been a long standing belief by the Town of Eagle and the people in Town that it would be desirable to grow from the inside out and not have major densities up Brush Creek. He believes the environment is too sensitive. At one time was a major ski area proposed. There have been many contentious hearings at the Federal, County and Town level. Over the course oftime what has developed is a sale ofland in East and West Brush Creek to the public. The land in the main stem of Brush Creek is what is left. The current settlement really ratchets down the densities of the proposed developments. He stated there has been a lot of progress made in terms of impact and densities. The nature and character of the subdivision is not necessarily what one would like to see; agricultural; horse properties. He stated that Eagle is growing fast. The Town of Eagle is reviewing plats like crazy. There are still subdividers coming in with requests. He stated the demand is here and the money is here. Annie Egan, Brush Creek resident, spoke to the Board. She spoke to about water and the potential lack thereof related to the drought. She read a letter related to the water needs of current residents and her belief that new development should be put on hold because of this. She believes another independent study of the water situation is warranted. She agreed that this plan is less dense than previous plans. She stated it does not represent diversification of the economy. She spoke to the number of homes for sale in Cordillera. She also stated there is no affordable housing element. She encourages smart decisions. She believes the developer should consider cluster developments. She also believes there are certain lots on sensitive areas that could quite nicely serve cluster developments. She highlighted several lots that were completely in critical wildlife habitat. She suggested creative possibilities which would allow a high end product that would be a bit more affordable and be compatible with the Mosher development. She requested compliance with the Eagle River Watershed Plan. Regarding Salt Creek - she expressed that every member of the Planning Commission expressed reservation about development on Salt Creek. She asked the Board consider conserving a section of land on Salt Creek. She wondered if the Eagle Valley Land Trust should look into buying the Salt Creek property. She asked the conservation easement be in writing. She related some additional comments from the Planning Commission regarding their hesitation about his project. She requested the bike path connection be part of the requirements for approval. She asked whether Eagle County should have total 42 02-18-2003 urban sprawl. Commissioner Menconi asked when Ms. Egan moved to this area. Ms. Egan stated she moved here 10 years ago. Commissioner Menconi asked about her experience with this project. She stated she has followed the project quite closely for 6 to 7 years. Commissioner Menconi asked her what she felt was working with the project. Ms. Egan replied she felt the zoning was much better, but the density, according to Master Plan, is still above plan. Commissioner Menconi asked her about the golf course and her preference. She stated she is not in favor of the golf course because we have plenty in the valley. Commissioner Menconi asked if they removed the Salt Creek development and golf course would she be in favor of the project? Ms. Egan stated that she would also like to see clustering. Commissioner Menconi inquired as to the comments she mentioned that Bill Reicher had made. She expressed the written comments from Bill Reicher were different from what she had represented. She stated Mr. Reicher was doing a negotiation as opposed to expressing a personal opinion. She could not respond as to why Mr. Reicher was not at the meeting. Commissioner Menconi asked her what she would recommend in terms of affordable housing. Ms. Egan stated that with other projects going through the County there has been an affordable housing component. She didn't have a specific recommendation. Arlene Quinen, Brush Creek resident and dedicated citizen, related there have been improvements to the plan. Related to the traffic on Brush Creek road, during the summer there are a lot of vehicles and there will be additional amenities added to the park. With the addition of 1000 vehicles it will be unmanageable. She related the impact to Wadsworth Blvd in Denver when rated a "D" was deadlocked. She feels there must be a total development plan for Brush Creek. She will not give any of her front yard to widening Brush Creek. She inquired as to the traffic study with levels of "D" and "F" ratings on the road and intersection respectively. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Quinen about her solution to the traffic issue. Ms. Quinen stated there should be a logical progression of development up Brush Creek Road. She compared Valley Road in Gypsum. She stated when you leapfrog the development that is when you create the problems. She lives closer to Town. She considers this to be leapfrog development, 6 miles up the road from Town. She does not believe that this development complies with the Master Plan. She believes it is premature. Commissioner Menconi asked about the wildlife corridors or riparian areas. Ms. Quinen spoke to the diminishing wetlands in the community. She is concerned they are not emphasizing the value of wetlands to the total water picture. Rosie Shearwood stated she concurred with Ms. Quinen about her traffic concerns. She has lived on upper Brush Creek since 1969. There are historical bad comers on the road. She stated the location from the Ranch headquarters upstream to Salt Creek which includes four very tight comers. She would appreciate Adam's Rib developers working more on Brush Creek Road. She stated that Beavers could impact the golf course in terms of flooding. She believes this proj ect does not comply with the Master Plan. She quoted from the Master Plan related to rural and agricultural encouraged developments. She stated the Future Land Map should be studied in relation to this proposal. She addressed comments from the staff related to the need for this development in light of the glut in the market of high end homes. She feels very strongly that the Salt Creek development should not be allowed. She recommended purchase of the Salt Creek parcel with the new open state tax dollars. She asked Commissioner Stone to renew his commitment to the beautiful places in this valley. She requested that Commissioner Gallagher adhere to his prior planning background and standards. To Commissioner Menconi she stated she had 43 02-18-2003 confidence in his judgment related to this matter. Chairman Gallagher asked Ms. Shearwood about the wetlands comments that were made. She addressed the building situation related to the golf course. Commissioner Menconi asked for her vision related to the property. Ms. Shearwood responded the phasing, timing and placement of the proposal is the worst part. If they were developing their property closer to town she would not have issues. Her thought would be concentric circles of growth and she suggests that an equestrian development be considered. Talis Tanso, resident of Brush Creek, spoke for herself and her family. They are against the development because of the leapfrog development and incompatibility with the Brush Creek rural atmosphere. She believes there are other creative solutions for the property and would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. She doesn't believe this proposal adequately considers wildlife concerns. She also asked about the trail head and the wisdom of this trail. She addressed light and visual pollution. She requested re-visitation of the clubhouse and maintenance facility to curb this type of pollution. She inquired about fire management concerns related to the project. Chairman Gallagher stated that the fire plan would have to comply with Fire Regulations. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. He asked the Town of Eagle whether a commitment to serve water was about average yield or firm yield. Mr. Cloyd stated he did not know. Commissioner Stone was concerned about the traffic issues and lighting standards. Commissioner Menconi was concerned about the Salt Creek riparian area, statements with regards to wildlife lots, lighting issues, xeroscaping requirements, community contribution, affordable housing, timing of development, golf course choice. He believes that the project has gotten better but asked what has fallen off the table. Chairman Gallagher was concerned about the Salt Creek Development, wildlife areas, riparian areas and would like to re-visit the site. He is also very concerned about water. This is why he wonders about the firm yield vs. the average yield. He would like staff and applicant to respond to the public's comments at next meeting. Commissioner Menconi asked for an additional presentation from staff related to the Master Plan. Commissioner Stone moved to table file numbers PDSP-00018 and ZC-00059, Adam's Rib to March 18,2003. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until February 25, 2003. Attest. Clerk to the 44 02-18-2003