No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/18/03 PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 18,2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Earlene Roach Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Chairman Gallagher stated it was his unfortunate duty to inform those present that Jake Mayne, Landfill Supervisor, has passed away. We, as a family mourn the loss of one of our members. There was a moment of silence. Consent Agenda A) Approval of bill paying for the week of March 17,2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for March 20, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meetings for February 18 and February 25,2003 D) Agreement with Holy Cross Energy for the primary electric overhead relocation / underground conversion for the Cemetery Bridge Replacement E) Colorado Division of Wildlife Impact Assistance Grant F) Agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood Connections G) Application for Federal Assistance - AIP 34 and AIP 35 H) Amendment of Easement, Reservation, Restrictions, Covenants and Rights of Way of Record for Tracts I and J, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development I) Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Through Hazard Rating Mapping, and Educating Memorandum of Understanding J) Agreement for supplying and hauling Riprap to Eagle County Landfill, Wagner Construction. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated item F, agreement with Early Childhood Connections, should be withdrawn and will be brought back on April 15, 2003. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, pulling item F. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. Plat & Resolution Signing Chairman Gallagher stated he has been informed there are no plats or resolutions for the Board's consideration. 1 03-18-2003 Consulting Agreement, Airplanners LLC Mark Davidson, Airport Manager, presented the Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Airplanners LLC. Diane Mauriello requested this matter be tabled to March 25,2003. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Airplanners LLC, as presented. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Intergovernmental Agreement, Town of Vail Diane Mauriello presented an Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Vail, concerning Miller Ranch Housing. She explained the agreement stating this agreement provides administration and governance of the deed restrictions with Eagle County and providing 50% of the units if there is a Town of Vail employee available, they would receive preference for those units. Chairman Gallagher clarified the employee would not have to work for the Town of Vail but work within the Town limits of Vail. Ms. Mauriello answered that was correct. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Vail, concerning Miller Ranch Housing. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Amendment, Intergovernmental Agreement, Town of Vail Diane Mauriello presented an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Vail concerning Miller Ranch Housing. She stated what happened between the Vail Town Council meeting and the agreement being brought before the Board, is in paragraph six and seven of the agreement, the allocation of certain units (10) for the Water and Sanitation District, and they no longer have interest in preserving those ten units. Commissioner Stone asked ifthe agreement only takes out those units. Ms. Mauriello stated it deletes paragraphs six and seven only. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Vail, concerning Miller Ranch Housing. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00033, Eagle River Parcel Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDS-00033, Eagle River Parcel. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to April!, 2003. Commissioner Stone moved to table file number PDS-00033, Eagle River Parcel to April 1, 2003, as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 03-18-2003 ZC-00061 / SMA-00019, Rather Subdivision Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number ZC-00061 and SMA-00019, Rather Subdivision. He stated this matter was tabled from January 14,2003. He stated the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Zone Change. The Rathers currently own a total of 26.408 acres which is bisected, in an east-west direction by the Eagle / Pitkin County line. This proposal is to change the zoning on that portion of the subject property located within Eagle County (13.165 acres) from Resource to Agricultural Limited (5 acre minimum lot size) in order to facilitate a subdivision ofthe site into a 6.706 acre lot and a 5.978 acre lot for single-family residential development and accessory agricultural uses. Both lots will be served by individual wells and sewage disposal systems. Access is proposed via a private, shared driveway easement off of Hooks Spur Road. The remaining 13.243 acres located within Pitkin County is simultaneously being platted as a single parcel of land upon which the Rather's existing residence is located. The subject property and the portion located within Pitkin County, have supported a single family home with irrigated pasture and grazing for many years. As mentioned, the existing single family home site lies in Pitkin County. January 8, 2002: The Board of County Commissioners approved a Subdivision Sketch Plan for four single family residential lots on that portion of the subject site located within Eagle County. This approval included eleven conditions; foremost of which required that the application be revised to include only two lots on that portion of the subject site located within Eagle County. November 12, 2002: The applicant submitted the current, complete applications for Zone Change and Minor Type 'A' Subdivision. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Engineering: In a Memorandum dated October 28, 2002, the Engineering Department indicated that any easements being created with this subdivision plat should be reflective of the intended party or parties who will use the easements. Also, it must be demonstrated that an access driveway can be physically constructed within the easement as depicted on the proposed plat. The applicant has satisfied this concern. In a second Memorandum dated November 13, 2002, the Engineering Department indicated that they have no comment with regard to the proposed zone change. Colorado Geological Survey: The referral response indicated that a drainage plan address how surface drainage will be managed prior to approval. CGS recommends that basement construction not be allowed and that foundation drains should be utilized in all subsurface elements of new construction regardless of groundwater levels to prevent any surface water infiltration or shallow groundwater from adversely affecting subsurface construction. A positive final grade should be established around all structures to allow surface water to flow safely away and minimize infiltration. Basement construction may be problematic and is not recommended. CGS further recommends that Engineered Septic Systems be employed on the two new lots and be designed to accommodate the subsurface geologic and groundwater conditions at the site. Lastly, lot-specific soil evaluations should be done to ensure appropriate foundation designs. Compliance with these recommendations has been made a condition of approval. Colorado State Forest Service: Wildfire hazard on the subject site is low. The CSFS concurs with the wildfire management techniques as set forth in the application package. Town of Basalt: The Town submitted a letter dated December 5,2002 which sets forth seven recommendations: 1. Use environmentally sensitive ranching/agricultural practices including weed control; 3 03-18-2003 2. Require proper safe guards to ensure that the majority ofthe site remains in agriculture or similar open space type uses. By virtue of the proposed zone district standards, this site will maintain an agricultural foundation; 3. Clarify that accessory building envelopes are only for agricultural outbuildings and will not be utilized for commercial activities or vehicular storage that is inconsistent with the character of the development. No use, which is not specifically allowed in the Agricultural Limited zone district will be allowed; 4. Maintain requirements for the use of raw water irrigation. The proposed covenants make this recommendation a requirement; 5. Assure consistency with Eagle County limits for accessory dwelling unit size (850 sq. ft. maximum in the Agricultural Limited zone district. Any ADU's will not exceed the maximum size prescribed by the Agricultural Limited zone district, which is 850 sq. ft.; 6. Review the pattern of the existing zoning in the area to help ensure that this rezoning does not set a precedent that encourages other agricultural lands to be rezoned for suburban type residential development. Staff believes that the precedent has already been set, however, this proposal is for a larger-lot development with actual agricultural capability, which is in keeping with the character of the area; 7. Utilize design guidelines similar to the Town of Basalt Master Plan Typology for Agriculture/Mixed Use Areas to help minimize the impacts of larger structures and help assure compatibility with the agricultural character of the area. The proposed covenants include requirements which will help to ensure the preservation of the area's agricultural character. Colorado Division of Water Resources: In a letter of response dated December 10,2002, the Office of the State Engineer indicated that the applicant has applied for a new well permit pursuant to the Basalt Water Conservancy District's substitute supply plan. Although a well permit may be available under the District's plan, the State cannot guarantee approval until the review process has been completed. As such, the State recommends that final approval be withheld until the well permit has been approved. The response further indicates that the well (existing) does produce sufficient quantity to meet the project water demands ofthe subdivision. The State opined that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate so long as: 1) The District's substitute supply plan is operated according to the approved terms and conditions; and 2) The applicant obtains a new well permit pursuant to the substitute supply plan and the contract with the District. Recently, the State Division of Water Resources issued two individual well permits for each of the two new proposed lots. The larger lot, located on the Pitkin County side of the line is already served by an existing individual well. Additional Referrals were sent to the following with no response received: County Attorney's Office, Department of Environmental Health, Sheriffs Office, Animal Control, Assessor's Office, Housing Division, School District, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, NWCCOG, Colorado Historical Society, Eagle County Historical Society, Roaring Fork Transit Authority, Pitkin County, Crown Mountain Estates HOA, Qwest, Public Service / KN Energy, Holy Cross Electric, Town of Basalt, Basalt & Rural FPD, Basalt H20, Conservancy. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: File SMA-000I9 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-290.G., Standards for the review of a Minor Type 'A' Subdivision: STANDARD.;. Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-290.G.I.a.] The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. 4 03-18-2003 EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environme nta! Quality Open S pace/ Developm ent Afforda ble Housing Conform ance x Recreation X X Non Conform Conform ance Not Applicabl e X X X [ +] Environmental Quality - Through the utilization of Engineered Septic Systems, as conditioned, Guiding Policy No.3 will be satisfied in that ground water quality will be preserved. [ +] Open Space / Recreation - Proposed development is sensitive to open space values. However, no common recreation and open space is proposed. [ +] Development - This proposal endeavors to strike a balance between protection of the County's natural environmental assets and the need to accommodate future growth [+] FLUM - The Future Land Use Map shows this area to be "Countryside" which includes lots of 2 or more acres. The proposed development is consistent with the parameters of that use. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Conforman ce X X X Land Use Cooperatio n Hazards Non Conforman ce Mixed Confolll1an ce Not Applicable X X X [ +] Open Space Provision - Proposed development is sensitive to open space values. [+] Visual Quality - No adverse impacts are anticipated. [ +] Development Patterns - This increase in density is not located in or around an existing community, but it is appropriate as indicated on the Future Land Use Map. [ +] Hazards - No natural or man made hazards have been identified on the site. Hous ing Trans portat ion 5 03-18-2003 Conforma X X nee Non Conforma nee Mixed X X Conforma nee Not X X X X Applieabl [ +] Housing - The Plan encourages agricultural land developers to cluster development on small portions of their land, leaving the majority in agricultural open space. Development must provide 200 foot setbacks to preserve valley wide views. A diversity of housing and lot types and sizes is encouraged. [+/-] Open Space/Environment - The Plan suggests limiting development on agricultural lands and encourages development on non-irrigated lands. This proposal develops irrigated lands. [ +/ - ] El J ebel!Basalt - The Plan identifies the region of the subj ect property as appropriate for low density development with a gross density of 1 dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. The Plan also states that undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels. The Plan, however, allows a 'density bonus' for proposals which include the preservation of agriculture and open space. The proposed project density equates to one dwelling unit per 8.8 acres when the Rather's existing home and property located within Pitkin County are factored in. The gross density for only that portion of the subject property located within Eagle County equates to one dwelling unit per 6.3 acres. This proposal includes building envelopes which satisfy the Plan's recommendation to maintain a minimum 200 foot structural setback from both Hooks Spur Lane and Emma Road. Said building envelopes will contain all site disturbance on each of the two proposed lots. The remaining area within each lot shall remain in its current state as irrigated pastureland thereby preserving the rural character and feeling of Open Space. 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: NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance ofthe proposal in relation to the vision statement) · 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 6 03-18-2003 · 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 The Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan is generally not applicable to this proposed two-lot subdivision. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The proposed Subdivision IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.1.b] The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3. Zone Districts [ +] The uses proposed are not in conformance with the standards of the existinKResource zone district. The proposal does, however, conform to the standards for the Agricultural Limited zone district. All dimensional limitations as specified by the Agricultural Limited zone district will be satisfied by this proposal should the Zone Change be granted. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) The subject property is essentially level with no geographic or topographic constraints. As such, the standard ofthree off-street parking spaces per single family residence on each approximate 6 acre lot is feasible. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The application included Design Guidelines (Covenants) which will prohibit outdoor lighting on the site with the exception of a driveway entrance sign and minimal outdoor fixtures attached to the residences. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Any signs on the subject property shall conform with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+] (Division 4-4) Wildlife Protection The site is mapped as lying within mule deer winter range. The application includes Design Guidelines (Covenants) which specify standards for fencing which will accommodate wildlife movement and yet contain livestock. All domestic pets must be penned or leashed at all time. Domestic agricultural animals will be allowed. Development in areas subject to Geologic Hazards The applicant has had a geologic evaluation and preliminary geotechnical investigation completed for the property by CTL/Thompson, Inc. The report did not identify any geologic conditions or geologic hazards that would prevent development of the site as planned. The Colorado Geological Survey recommends that basement construction not be allowed and that foundation drains should be utilized in all subsurface elements of new construction regardless of groundwater levels to prevent any surface water infiltration or shallow groundwater from adversely affecting subsurface construction. A positive final grade should be established around all structures to allow surface water to flow safely away and minimize infiltration. Basement construction may be problematic and is not recommended. CGS further recommends that Engineered Septic Systems be employed on the two new lots and be designed to accommodate the subsurface geologic and groundwater conditions at the site. Lastly, lot-specific soil evaluations should be done to ensure appropriate foundation designs. Development in areas subject to Wildfire Hazards Wildfire hazard on the subject site is low. The Colorado State Forest Service concurs with the wildfire management techniques as set forth in the application package (Covenants). Wood Burning Controls The Rather Subdivision shall comply with the standards of a new technology device. One new technology device per residence is permitted by the Land Use Regulations. Ridgeline Protection The site is not situated on a ridgeline. 7 03-18-2003 Environmental Impact Report This proposal for a two lot subdivision is not anticipated to have a significant affect on the environment, either during construction or on a continuing basis. [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) No commercial or industrial uses are proposed. [ +] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) Roadway Standards No new roads or road improvements will be necessitated by this proposed zone change and subdivision. The two new lots will be accessed via a common driveway. The application materials, however, specify that the driveway will be constructed within a 40 foot right- of-way with 9 foot land widths in each direction, with a gravel surface and 2 foot gravel shoulder on each side. Sidewalk and Trail Standards No sidewalks or trails are proposed or required. Irrigation System Standards Surface water rights for the Rather Subdivision are 1 c.f./sec. From the Home Supply Ditch. This proposal does not entail any changes to the Home Supply Ditch or any lateral ditches on the Rather Property. The Rathers will continue to flood irrigate pasture from the south along Emma Road up to the Lateral Ditch which cuts across the lower south west portion of Lots 1 and 2 as proposed. The homeowners of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to irrigate the remaining historically irrigated pasture of each lot with a sprinkler system pumped from a water storage pond or vault provided by each home owner from which irrigation water can be drawn. Drainage Standards The application materials state that positive drainage will be required around the foundations of all home sites. Foundation sub-drains will be installed to insure water is cleared from all foundation areas reducing the possibility of structural failure due to standing water. The Colorado Geological Survey recommends that basement construction not be allowed and that foundation drains should be utilized in all subsurface elements of new construction regardless of groundwater levels to prevent any surface water infiltration or shallow groundwater from adversely affecting subsurface construction. A positive final grade should be established around all structures to allow surface water to flow safely away and minimize infiltration. Basement construction may be problematic and is not recommended. This recommendation has been incorporated as a condition of approval for the Minor Type 'A' Subdivision. Excavation and Grading Standards Very little grade change occurs on the subject property, therefore, the need for excessive cuts and fill is not anticipated with the possible exception of foundation excavation. Erosion Control Standards At the time of building permit issuance, each lot owner will be required to submit an erosion control plan. Utility and Lighting Standards No street lighting is proposed or required. Water Supply Standards Potable water supply for the Rather Subdivision will come from an existing well on the property (Permit No. 32456) and shall be operated and administered by the Homeowner's Association. The well will be operated in accordance with the water allotment contract No. 410 with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Pursuant to the letter of response from the Office of the State Engineer and in accord with the substitute supply plan and the contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District, the applicant must obtain a new well permit in order to reclassify the existing well. The applicant has successfully secured two new well permits to serve each of the two new proposed lots. A well pumping test was conducted on the existing well on April 22, 2002. Wright Water Engineers state that based on the small amount of draw-down and rapid recovery observed during the four hour pumping test and their knowledge of the area, they believe the alluvial aquifer is capable of producing adequate water for the potable demands of the project. Wright Water Engineers also performed a water quality analysis and based upon the results, determined that no additional treatment is necessary because it satisfies the minimum standards for drinking water. Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards It is proposed to utilize individual sewage disposal systems to serve each of the two new lots. The Colorado Geological Survey recommends that 8 03-18-2003 Engineered Septic Systems be employed on the two new lots and be designed to accommodate the subsurface geologic and groundwater conditions at the site. [ +] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-6) School Land Dedication Standards As of this writing, the School District had not yet responded to the referral request. However, pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the amount of land dedication which would be necessitated by this proposal equates to 0.0302 acres (2 units X 0.0151). The amount of fees in lieu ofland dedication will be 0.0302 acres at $ 13,300/acre = $401.66 Road Impact Fees Road Impact Fees in the amount of$I,600 per residence will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.1.b] The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Land Use Regulations STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-290.G.1.c] The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or required duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) 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 or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eallie Countv Road Capital Improvements Plan. (l)Service Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area in order to both avoid future land disruption, and the necessity of upgrading undersized lines. The spatial patterns proposed by this development are not anticipated to cause the kind of inefficiencies contemplated by this standard. Development already exists on all sides of the two new proposed lots. As such, necessary utility lines are already present and will not create duplication or premature extension. Again, water and sewer facilities are proposed via a shared well (existing) and engineered septic systems. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-290.G.l.c] The proposed Subdivision WILL result in an efficient spatial pattern. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-290.G.l.d] The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property and existing and probable future improvements to the area. No natural or man made hazards have been identified on the subject property which would preclude development as proposed. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-290.G.1.d] The property upon which this subdivision is proposed IS suitable for development. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-290.G.1.e] 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. The proposed subdivision consists of lots which are approximately twice as large as the majority of the lots located in the subdivision immediately adjacent to the north. Crown Mountain Estates is zoned Rural Residential and consists of six lots which range in size from two acres to 3.59 acres. This proposed subdivision, if approved, would offer a gradual transition in lot size from the smaller Crown Mountain Estates lots to the larger agricultural parcels which exist in the remaining three directions. It is important to note that the balance ofthe Rather's property located in Pitkin County will help to complete the gradual transition. The visual impact of the smaller acreage residentially oriented parcels will be offset by the gradual increase in lot size, as well as, the continuity of agricultural uses from east to west and to the south as well. 9 03-18-2003 [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-290.G.1.e] The proposed Subdivision IS compatible with existing land uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STANDARD: Improvements Agreements. [Section 5-290.G.1.t] The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. [NA] FINDING: Improvements Agreement. [Section 5-290.G.I.f] A Subdivision Improvements Agreement IS NOT NECESSARY for this proposal. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.1.g] Its conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards and guidelines. [+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.l.g] The proposed Subdivision DOES conform with all Final Plat requirements and all other applicable regulations, policies, standards and guidelines. File ZC-00041 Requirements for a Zone Chan2e - Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for Amendment to the Official Zone District Map: STANDARD: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] Whether and extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmen tal Quality Open Space/ Developme nt Afforda ble Housing Transportatio Communi ty Services Conformance x Recreatio n X x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x x x [+] Environmental Quality - Through the utilization of Engineered Septic Systems, as conditioned, Guiding Policy No.3 will be satisfied in that ground water quality will be preserved. [+] Open Space / Recreation - Proposed development is sensitive to open space values. However, no common recreation and open space is proposed. [ +] Development - This proposal endeavors to strike a balance between protection of the County's natural environmental assets and the need to accommodate future growth [ +] FLUM - The Future Land Use Map shows this area to be "Countryside" which includes lots of 2 or more acres. The proposed development is consistent with the parameters of that use. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Open Unique Visual Developme Hazards .. Wildlife Use Space Char. Qualit nt Coopera Provision Preservatio y Patterns tion n Conformance X X X X Non Conformance 10 03-18-2003 x I I I I Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x x [ +] Open Space Provision - Proposed development is sensitive to open space values. However, no common recreation and open space is proposed. [ +] Visual Quality - No adverse impacts are anticipated. [ +] Development Patterns - This increase in density is not located in or around an existing community, but it is appropriate as indicated on the Future Land Use Map. [+] Hazards - No natural hazard areas have been identified on the site. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN Housi ng Transportati on Communi ty Facilities Open Space / Environm ent Conformance x x Non Conformance x x x x x x [+] Housing - The Plan encourages agricultural land developers to cluster development on small portions of their land, leaving the majority in agricultural open space. Development must provide 200 foot setbacks to preserve valley wide views. A diversity of housing and lot types and sizes is encouraged. [ +/ - ] Open Space/Environment - The Plan suggests limiting development on agricultural lands and encourages development on non-irrigated lands. This proposal develops irrigated lands. [+/-] EI Jebel/Basalt - The Plan identifies the region of the subject property as appropriate for low density development with a gross density of 1 dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. The Plan also states that undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels. The Plan, however, allows a 'density bonus' for proposals which include the preservation of agriculture and open space. The proposed project density equates to one dwelling unit per 8.8 acres when the Rather's existing home and property located within Pitkin County are factored in. The gross density for only that portion of the subject property located within Eagle County equates to one dwelling unit per 6.3 acres. This proposal includes building envelopes which satisfy the Plan's recommendation to maintain a minimum 200 foot structural setback from both Hooks Spur Lane and Emma Road. Further, said building envelopes will contain all site disturbance on each of the two proposed lots. The remaining area within each lot shall remain in its current state as irrigated pastureland thereby preserving the rural character and feeling of Open Space.. 11 03-18-2003 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: NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance of the proposal in relation to the vision statement) · 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 The Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan is generally not applicable to this proposed two-lot subdivision. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; The proposed subdivision consists of lots which are more than twice as large as the majority of the lots located in the subdivision immediately adjacent to the north. Crown Mountain Estates is zoned Rural Residential and consists of six lots which range in size from two acres to 3.59 acres. This proposed subdivision, if approved, would offer a gradual transition in lot size from the smaller Crown Mountain Estates lots to the larger agricultural parcels which exist in the remaining three directions. It is important to note that the balance of the Rather's property located in Pitkin County will help to complete the gradual transition. The visual impact of the smaller acreage residentially oriented parcels will be offset by the gradual increase in lot size, as well as, the continuity of agricultural uses from east to west and to the south as well. [+] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The zone amendment IS compatible with the uses that surround the applicant's property, and IS the appropriate zone district for the land. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modifY the use or density/intensity; Based upon historic land use patterns in the vicinity of the subject property, development of has steadily increased in density/intensity. Eagle County established the original Resource zoning on all ofthe land in the immediate vicinity of the subject property on September 16, 1974. Since that time, several noteworthy changes to the zoning of lands in the immediate vicinity, located south of the Roaring Fork River, occurred: September 12, 1977 Zone Change to Rural Residential for the Dreager Subdivision; February 14, 1978 Zone Change to Rural Residential for the Sipido Subdivision; October 10, 1978 Zone Change to Rural Residential for the Crown Mountain Estates Sub; 12 03-18-2003 September 14, 1983 Zone Change to Rural Residential for the Frazier-Perrow Subdivision; May 11, 1991 Zone Change to PUD for the Red Rock Ranch PUD. Each of the subdivisions zoned Rural Residential include lots of two acres. The Red Rock Ranch PUD includes four lots, each less than three acres in area, however, Red Rock Ranch also includes two lots of 20 and 30 acres respectively. Conditions in this vicinity of Eagle County have not remained static over time but rather, have changed to accommodate growth. This need for a variety of residential building sites has become more prevalent as the County's population increases. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the density and intensity. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands; This proposal intends to preserve the natural environment through the use of building envelopes. By setting the new building sites in the most suitable location (considering drainage, amount of vegetation, access etc.) the development minimizes environmental impacts. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA] The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts to the natural environment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; Housing demands in Eagle County are ever-present, and are therefore a community need. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] The proposed amendment DOES address a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; Based upon development patterns to the north, south and west of the subject site, the two lot subdivision resulting from this proposal will be logical and consistent with adjacent properties and will create a gentle transition from higher density residential subdivisions into larger lot agricultural properties. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] The proposed amendment WILL result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] Whether and the extent to which 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. Ifthis zone change is approved, existing agricultural land uses in this vicinity of Eagle County will be preserved, thereby protecting the public's interest. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply HAS changed and continues to change indicates that it is in the public interest to encourage a new density in the area. Doug Pratt, representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated they do not have a presentation but would be happy to answer questions. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Stone moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. ZC-00061, Rather Subdivision, incorporating all Staff findings. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 13 03-18-2003 Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. SMA- 00019, Rather Subdivision, incorporating all Staff findings and the following conditions: 1. Adherence to the recommendations set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey letter dated December 2, 2002. 2. A school land dedication fee of $401.66 be paid prior to recording the subdivision plat. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDSP-00016 / ZC-00059, Adams Rib Bob Narracci presented file numbers PDSP-00016 and ZC-00059, Adams Rib. He stated this matter was tabled from February 4 & 18,2003. Chairman Gallagher asked the Clerk to mark the tape and type the following verbatim. He stated for the record he needed to clarify an issue. Chairman Gallagher: The last time we met, Commissioner Menconi accused myself and Commissioner Stone of conferring with the applicant before the hearing. I told him I would clear it up on the record. He asked me at that time to not do that and put him through it. He said he believed me when I denied it. Then last week, on the occasion of giving a letter to the Commissioner, he again brought up the fact that the applicant and two of the Commissioners had lunch together and he had seen that. Because of that, I would like to get on the record and clarify that I absolutely deny ever having lunch with Randy Cloyd and would ask Commissioner Stone if you had ever had lunch with Randy. Commissioner Stone: I have not had lunch with Randy Cloyd in connection with this project. We have had a prior Frost Creek development where lunch was served. Chairman Gallagher: About how long ago? Commissioner Stone: Two years, three years ago, but that was actually on the record with the Board there. But nothing in the last three years that I can remember. Chairman Gallagher: Then I would ask the applicants representative, Randy Cloyd, if you have had lunch with Tom and I. Mr. Cloyd: I have not had lunch with Tom nor Michael. Chairman Gallagher: Typically it was alleged that you were seen having lunch with us at the Broadway Grill within the last couple of months. Has that happened? Mr. Cloyd: That has not happened. Chairman Gallagher: Nor has ---a---, I also deny it. Commissioner Stone: That has not happened with me either. Chairman Gallagher: Thank you, it is on the record. Commissioner Menconi: If! might ask a few questions. Have you and Tom had lunches together? Chairman Gallagher: Yes we have had lunches together. Commissioner Menconi: Have you had telephone conversations together. Chairman Gallagher: Regarding what? Commissioner Menconi: County business. Chairman Gallagher: Not to my recollection. We have had conversations about the operations of the Board. Commissioner Stone: Correct. Not about this file, not about County business. I conduct all business related to the County in open session. Commissioner Menconi: Are your lunches posted as open meetings? Chairman Gallagher: Since that requirement was made, we are or we don't do it. Commissioner Stone: Correct. Commissioner Menconi: So you are denying that you do not have telephone conversations together or private meetings that are covering the business of the County. 14 03-18-2003 Chairman Gallagher: That is a very broad request. The business of the County is everything from shoveling the sidewalks to how the Commissioners behave. Commissioner Menconi: The Statutes are quite clear on any discussions that are regarding the County business and are considered to be a meeting if two or more Commissioners are gathered. It would require you have a posting done. Chairman Gallagher: Since that requirement was made apparent to me I have not done that. Specifically, your allegation was about you observing the applicant having lunch with these two Commissioners and it is that matter that I wanted to clarify for the record. I would ask the Attorney if she has any comments. Diane Mauriello: I was simply going to indicate that we have opened the file on Adams Rib, and I certainly do not want to interject in the Commissioners business but want to make sure that our comments and conversation move forward with regards to the Adams Rib file. Chairman Gallagher: That said, I would ask the Clerk to go back to the regular minutes. Where are we Bob? Mr. Narracci stated at the last hearing each of the Commissioners had detailed their own concerns for the applicant and staff to address. They had gone through the first round of public comments. He stated they are ready to address those issues. Mr. Narracci stated the first comment was that this proposal does not adequately address affordable housing. He pointed out on page 39, there is a condition that the applicant will comply with any housing regulations adopted by Eagle County prior to approval of final plat. In the event that housing regulations are not adopted, the applicant shall comply to an alternative housing plan prior to final plat approval. Commissioner Stone asked about the million dollar figure. He stated it is on page six. The per unit fee will be $32,000.00 which equates to $1,065, 600.00 for all 33.3 units. Mr. Narracci stated this was the initial response during the referral period. The application has evolved beyond that. Mr. Cloyd stated they agreed when the Regulations are passed they will follow those. If not approved by final plat, they will submit an affordable housing plan. Mr. Narracci stated currently no demand for the type of product proposed. He stated their market analysis will support this proposed type of housing. Commissioner Menconi asked ifthat was the extent of the market analysis. Mr. Cloyd stated he drives up to the Red Sky Ranch project every month. He tracks all sales at that subdivision. Mr. Kummer travels a lot and reviews those type of projects also. They then compare notes and come up with a plan. Commissioner Menconi asked for Mr. Cloyd's background in real estate development. Mr. Cloyd stated he was a track developer in California and then hired by Mr. Kummer. Commissioner Menconi asked how many years Mr. Cloyd had been doing market analysis and if those had ever failed. Mr. Cloyd stated for sixteen years and they have not failed in their market analysis. Mr. Narracci spoke to diversion of economy. He read from the Master Plan for the Board. This proposal may be viewed to help strengthen the economy and will bolster the patronage of existing businesses. It would also help to diversify the down valley economy. Chairman Gallagher asked about public days on the golf course. Mr. Cloyd stated they have not committed to that but volunteered to look into those in the off- season. Commissioner Stone stated Cordillera offers the use of their course at no charge for the non- profit organizations. Mr. Cloyd agreed to do that. Mr. Narracci spoke to more clustering on the Salt Creek property. Policy number six, more development, the ECLUR should encourage a clustering type development to avoid sensitive areas. 15 03-18-2003 Re stated clustering is rarely selected due to the lack of incentives. Rather than using the standard zoning, the PUD process is the one that is favored. Cluster development is defined as a concentration of development in one or more limited areas of an entire ownership, with lots in an underlying zone district. The Salt Creek site is 520 acres, which can be subdivided into 14,35 acre tracts without notification to the County. The balance of the site is to be protected as open space. Building envelopes will include all buildings, except driveways. Wetland and riparian areas are to remain undisturbed. Mr. Cloyd stated they are not in those areas. Mr. Narracci spoke to lots and critical wildlife habitats. Development is a series of compromises. The applicant and the DOW worked cooperatively to minimize impacts upon wildlife. Bill Reicher, DOW, stated there is no documented wildlife migration paths in this location. Re stated there is some movement but no documented paths. Re stated this project was looked at specifically on that ground. Commissioner Menconi asked if that was a personal and professional opinion. Mr. Reicher stated both. Commissioner Menconi stated in the beginning there was disagreement but now it appears everything has been satisfied. Mr. Reicher answered things are not satisfied but they compromised. Re stated overall there are lots that are still inside wildlife migration paths. Most building envelopes have been mitigated. There are still some building envelopes that impact the deer and elk winter range. Re stated there could be some relocation of those building envelopes or golf course realignment. Realistically that will most likely not happen. Commissioner Menconi asked about the building envelopes of concern. Mr. Reicher stated originally, they identified 20 or 25 building envelopes that had significant impacts. They are now down to 6 or 7 that fully impact wildlife, and 6 or 7 that are slightly impacting wildlife. Re stated those lots that are impacting wildlife are 28 and 30,31,33,41 and 42, 60. Those are entirely within wildlife habitats. Those slightly are 46, 47, 48, 49 ,43 & 44, 45. On Salt Creek there are lots 2 & 3. Commissioner Stone asked what kinds of proposals are made for mitigation. Mr. Reicher asked they try to make up for the loss of habitat that is being taken away. Re stated money is put into a trust fund to make existing habitats better elsewhere to support more of a herd. Re stated that is the agreement with the applicant but there is nothing in writing. Mr. Cloyd concurred. Commissioner Menconi stated six of the lots are severely impacting wildlife. Mr. Reicher answered yes. Commissioner Menconi asked what "severely" meant. Mr. Reicher stated those lots are located entirely within critical wildlife habitat. The impact around the residence will have another impact. When you add it up it becomes significant. Commissioner Menconi asked does the habitat move in a different direction or will there be no other place Mr. Reicher stated if the herds move they will move to another area that already has wildlife. You end up with too many animals in more location. Then you lose the herd that moved, the herd that was previously there and then the herds to come. Commissioner Menconi asked about the trust fund to mitigate the circumstances. Mr. Reicher stated it does not mitigate the effects but rather enhances other areas. Commissioner Menconi asked where the money goes. Mr. Reicher stated they spend the interest monies to do such things as applying fertilizer. Re stated the trust fund is better than nothing. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Reicher sat on the Eagle Town Board during the Eagle Ranch project. 16 03-18-2003 Mr. Reicher stated they had the same problems. Re stated they are 80 to 85 percent successful. There are still some lots in critical wildlife habitat. That applicant puts money into a fund every time a house is sold. Commissioner Menconi asked ifhow Mr. Reicher voted on the file. Mr. Reicher stated he voted in favor of the file. Re stated it was the best opportunity for wildlife. Mr. Powell stated real estate tax is 1 %, the wildlife portion of that is .02%. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Town of Eagle has the right to impose a real estate transfer tax. Mr. Reicher stated it was self imposed by the developer, not the town of Eagle. Commissioner Menconi asked about the rest of that 1 %. Mr. Reicher stated it is .02 for Wildlife, .04 for affordable housing and .04 for recreation. Chairman Gallagher asked if Mr. Reicher would rather see the building envelopes moved or the impact fund. Mr. Reicher stated he would rather have the envelopes moved out of the habitat areas. Commissioner Stone asked ifMr. Reicher felt the applicant had done everything they could. Mr. Heicher stated in the last four or five months they worked very hard. Mr. Cloyd stated they worked with Mr. Heicher and came up with a plan which was give and take. Mr. Narracci stated next item was the golf course setbacks of75 feet according to the Eagle River Watershed Plan. This plan recommends that all structures, grading, paving and land disturbance be located outside of the riparian area, 100 year flood plan of live rivers, streams and lakes, or 75 feet horizontally from the high water mark, whichever is greater. The LUR specifies a set back of 50 feet. The golf course as proposed does satisfy the requirement of the 50 foot setback but not the 75 foot setback. Mr. Cloyd stated the golf course is not 75 feet from the high water mark. He stated they have two acres that are in the riparian area. Mr. Narracci stated visibility of the water tank is next. Mr. Cloyd presented a map, applicant exhibit AI, showing the proposed water tank location. He stated the tank is located between lots 41 and 42. It is within the sagebrush areas. It will not be visible. Chairman Gallagher questioned the dimensions of the tank. Mr. Cloyd stated Jim Kunkel worked with the Town of Eagle and he did not know. Chairman Gallagher asked about the capacity. Dusty Walls, Dusty Walls, Director of Public Works for the Town of Eagle, stated the tank will be a 600,000 gallon tank, He spoke to other tanks in the area and the sizes of those. Mr. Narracci stated the bicycle pedestrian trail connection was next. The agreement requires a continuous connection. The applicant should provide a continuous and uninterrupted connection. This connection must occur. The trail may need to be rerouted at the time of the Adams Rib development. Mr. Cloyd stated the bike path will be built from the Town to Frost Creek. Re stated they do not know where it will be on the 660 acres as that property will not be developed at this time. They propose to complete the bike path when the property is developed. Commissioner Menconi asked what ECO Trails is proposing and what the applicant is proposmg. Mr. Cloyd pointed out the proposed bike path on a map. He pointed out two trail heads, and then those will be connected. They proposed to do the bike paths at the time each property is developed. He stated Eagle County wants the bike path now but the applicant does not know how that certain property will be developed. 17 03-18-2003 Commissioner Stone stated the land that is currently owned by Adams Rib mayor may not be developed by Adams Rib. He stated they do not know that the 600 acres will ever be developed. He asked of the land that is being developed now, are they meeting those commitments as proposed. Mr. Cloyd answered yes. Chairman Gallagher asked that appropriate paperwork indicating that bike paths will be built when the property is developed or by a date certain. Mr. Cloyd stated the 660 acres will be annexed to the Town of Eagle. Commissioner Menconi asked about the Town's position on this trail. Willie Powell, Town Manager of Eagle, stated the agreement states they will be developing at certain locations. He stated ifit develops slow, how much of the trail should be done at the initial platting. They know the problems. Brush Creek Road is narrow and does not have shoulders. Their focus, in addition to the requirement, is they have a fairly good bike path in Eagle Ranch and then along Adams Rib, up to the recreation center. He stated the 660 acres are a problem. Commissioner Menconi asked if the applicant would accept a condition that the bike path will be built Mr. Cloyd stated they will agree to the bike path when that property is developed. Mr. Narracci spoke to traffic on Brush Creek Road. Mr. Cloyd requested this item be passed until everything else is heard. The Board concurred. Mr. Narracci spoke to non conformance with the Master Plan. He stated he went through the policies, 13 are not applicable. A reasonable case can be made that the proposal complies with the other 15. This sketch plan in the past was for significantly more units. Sketch plan approval at that time was for 3,799 plus a hotel and a golf course. For the 640 acres of Prost Creek there was to be 200 units and 36 golf holes. Mr. Cloyd read from resolution 2000-057, the Prost Creek approval. Mr. Narracci spoke to non conformance with the Eagle Area Community Plan. The Town incorporated many of the recommendations of the plan. The development also conforms to a separate water agreement with the Town of Eagle. There currently exists the potential to create 46 lots of 35 acres, and upon these lots there could be a home of unlimited size, accessory units of to 1,800 square and a variety of out buildings could be located on each site, without any type of County review. This proposal for a total of 111 units represents a density bonus of 19 residential units and a trade for 72% of the overall land area remaining as open space. The PLUP plan encourages density bonus. In this instance the overall gross density for the total Salt Creek area, represents 1 unit per twenty acres. Further, the PUD boundaries encompass 1,174 acres of land for recreational purposes. Mr. Cloyd stated they are in agreement. Mr. Narracci spoke to phasing and timing ofthe project. The issue was why the Prost Creek Property first. Mr. Cloyd stated it came when they made the agreement with the Town. He spoke to development. To start that project they had to build the golf course. That is one of the reasons they picked Salt Creek. He read what Dan Seible said at the Planning Commission meeting in December, which addressed the leap frog part of this question. Commissioner Menconi asked if Adams Rib develops the 660 acres, would there be memberships for those homeowners to play on the golf course. Mr. Cloyd stated they will be selling 105 memberships Commissioner Menconi asked about cost. Mr. Cloyd stated around $125,000 per membership. Mr. Narracci stated the next item to be addressed by the applicant was an equestrian development. Mr. Cloyd stated he does not believe there is a market need for that type development. 18 03-18-2003 Commissioner Menconi stated they are basing the need on a golf course, yet he has seen people leaving the industry. He asked how is this an approved new golf course. Mr. Cloyd stated Arrowhead, Red Sky and Cordillera have all done well with their golf courses. He stated they believe theirs will also be profitable. Commissioner Menconi asked about an equestrian center. Mr. Cloyd stated Cordillera initially set up an equestrian center and had a lot of trouble with it and it was not profitable. He stated they initially planned for them to own the horses but that was not profitable. Mr. Narracci, spoke to leap frog development. He stated there is a finding that the spatial patterns shall be efficient and not cause duplicate services in utilities and road extensions. They shall be designed to serve the ultimate population. Traffic patterns will need to be further addressed. Mr. Cloyd agreed with the letter from Mr. Seibel. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Town of Eagle believes this to be leap frog development. Mr. Powell stated the intent of the Eagle Area Community Plan is to try and build from the center out. There are various reasons for that; they are esthetic, trail connection, street improvements and wastewater systems. There are a lot of reasons to not develop in a hodgepodge manner. If you go back the agreements are settlement agreements. He stated they were to come up with a water service agreement to serve some of these units. In total, this is the kind of density they would eventually like to see up Brush Creek Commissioner Menconi asked ifthe Town agreed with Mr. Narracci's definition and was it more specific than the Town of Eagle's. Mr. Powell stated theirs also included utilities. Commissioner Menconi asked about the planning comments from the Town of Eagle. Mr. Cloyd pointed out the Town of Eagle's water treatment plant. He stated all ofthe gas & electrical for Cordillera runs through their properties. He stated the utilities are in place for this project. Mr. Narracci spoke to lighting standards for the commercial area. Mr. Cloyd stated they have had discussions with the Planning Commission. They will provide lighting at the clubhouse and the gatehouse. They will use down lighting. They will also have the same lighting around the homes. Mr. Narracci spoke to the Salt Creek riparian areas, and 100 year flood plains. The regulations require 50 foot setbacks and all buildings will satisfy the 75 foot recommendation. The Board may require building envelopes adjacent to riparian areas be further restricted. Chairman Gallagher expressed concern with the setbacks from wetlands and riparian areas. He stated he would like to change that if the Board would agree. He stated he would like the envelopes set back a minimum of 50 feet from wetlands and riparian areas. Commissioner Menconi asked about setbacks to riparian areas. Chairman Gallagher stated they do have setbacks from live streams and lakes but not riparian areas. He stated he would like to see a 50 foot setback from the wetlands and riparian areas. Mr. Narracci stated there are two proposals in the plan, 75 feet measured from the high water mark or 75 feet measured from the high water mark. He stated they meet the recommendations of the Eagle Water Shed Plan. Chairman Gallagher stated he believes they should offer protection to those micro environments. Commissioner Stone asked about page 25 in the summary concerns, it states all buildings within the proposed PUD, are to be outside the wetland and riparian areas and will satisfy the 75 foot recommendation. Chairman Gallagher stated the envelopes already comply with the setback for live streams and lakes. He stated he would like to see a 50 foot setback from wetlands and riparian areas. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant can achieve this recommendation. 19 03-18-2003 Mr. Cloyd stated the lots would not be in circles but believes they can achieve that. Commissioner Menconi asked about the Salt Creek lot being referred to. Mr. Cloyd pointed out the lots they would have to readjust to meet the required setbacks. Chairman Gallagher asked if the applicant would not use the draught definition of wetlands. Commissioner Stone stated there were a number of items in the recommended conditions that the applicant would like to talk about, which were items b, c, 11 under f and 13 & 14. Chairman Gallagher asked what if all the units on Salt Creek would go to Frost Creek and then Salt Creek would be turned into a conservation easement. He stated he realized Mr. Cloyd would have to discuss it with his principal. Mr. Narracci spoke to xeriscaping. He stated in the language of the Land Use Regulations, which relate that all plants used shall be compatible with local climate and soils, drainage and conditions of the site. Whenever possible native varieties should be used. This proposal does address those. Trees and bushes may be planted but will have a drip system. Mr. Cloyd stated they will provide a specific plant mix and will be consistent throughout the PUD. Mr. Narracci spoke to community contribution. Mr. Cloyd stated this land use plan focuses on non sensitive area and is not piecemeal. It does protect wildlife resources. Construction and design controls are in place. There will be stream monitoring provisions which are stated in the Water Service Agreement. Well water irrigation will be used. A bike path will be constructed. The Town received an additional five acres of land adjacent to its water treatment facility. They have agreed on 195 units on 2,600 acres which limits density up Brush Creek. They have agreed to pay money to the Fire District, Ambulance District and the Town of Eagle. When this PUD is approved it locks in one unit per 20 areas and will never change. Chairman Gallagher asked what they were going to do to keep the density. Mr. Cloyd stated that is what the PUD does. Chairman Gallagher stated unless the applicant requests a Pud Amendment and it is approved. Mr. Narracci spoke to water supply and if it was average yield or firm yield. Mr. Cloyd spoke to the water and the Agreement with the Town of Eagle. They do have the physical water to provide for this project. The potable water supply is based on a firm yield. They do have the physical water to supply to this project. Mr. Narracci stated the last item is the traffic. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated the usual person dealing with this project is John Vengrin, who is out ill. She is filling in. Mr. Cloyd explained a section of road, at build out, which will be 2015. He stated a lot ofthe homes will be second homeowners and they will not have much traffic. The Town of Eagle connected some of the road but the other section is not connected. All the Town has to do is instruct Eagle Ranch to connect the second section For them to commit to fix the road, when it will happen by 2015, does not seem pertinent at this time. Lets wait until 2015 when the traffic will be generated. Conditions can change between now and them. He is saying that having them pay for a traffic signal that mayor may not be required at this time is not appropriate. When the project is built out they will then know what traffic will be generated. That is why they paid road impact fees. Chairman Gallagher stated they are telling the applicant to agree to participate in the funding and not do anything at this time. Chairman Gallagher asked where the year 2015 comes from. Mr. Cloyd stated that is when they believe full build out will occur. Mr. Cloyd stated he does not know how to design a plan when he does not know what will be there in that year. Chairman Gallagher suggested the applicant hire an engineer that can facilitate that plan. 20 03-18-2003 Ms. Migchelbrink stated in regard to level of service C, that is in the Land Use Regulations. A development cannot reduce the current rating for the roads. They are merely asking for a plan on how they will deal with their impacts. She stated off-site road impacts fees are to be used where they are needed and not necessarily for this project. They are not necessarily to be used on Brush Creek Road. She stated the applicant believes the fees should be used at this site. Commissioner Stone asked how they identify all the traffic on the road in relation to this development. When the state park gets more utilized they will be contributing to the impacts. He stated it seems a little unfair to ask this applicant to pay for all of that. He stated there needs to be a fair resolution. They worked with Red Sky Ranch. The traffic signal in Edwards, there was an improvements agreement and the Texaco participated but did not pay for it entirely. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that is what the traffic report tries to do. She stated she would like the applicant to come to staff with the proposed numbers and the costs. She stated she believes they could come up with a plan. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant was saying they were not going to pay for anything else or are they willing to look at a cost sharing agreement. Mr. Cloyd stated the Road Impact Fees are paying for the impacts from their development. If the Board would like them to participate in other improvements, they will see what they can do. He stated on number 4, he does not know how to define that. Ms. Migchelbrink stated they have the similar situation at Two Rivers. When they are done hauling dirt they must rebuild Highway 6. Commissioner Stone stated Two Rivers is different as they are the only development that is using the Road. This development is not the only applicant that is using Brush Creek Road. Ms. Migchelbrink stated you cannot put a tag on any particular problem. Commissioner Stone stated it appears they could get approval at this stage with the condition that at final plat there would be an agreement worked out. Mr. Cloyd agreed. Commissioner Menconi stated he does see that there will be heavy truck traffic through the construction of this project. He stated staff is trying to mitigate the problems. He asked about evaluating destruction. Ms. Migchelbrink stated one of their intentions, if they do not come up with mitigation, the County will most likely incur expense due to degradation of the road. If the applicant would agree to some mitigation, i.e., how the road looks before the construction starts and how it looks when that phase is finished, then she would not have a problem. Commissioner Menconi asked if they were speaking to the construction period only. Commissioner Stone stated construction of the infrastructure is one thing. Heavy truck traffic comes from putting a foundation on a home. That could go on longer than two years. He stated the way this condition is written it is not well specified. Chairman Gallagher suggested this be worked out before final plat. Mr. Cloyd stated they want to pay cash in lieu of for the School Land Dedication Fee. He stated the School District has asked for land but providing 1.359 acres is not useful for a school. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the payment in lieu of and has it been upgraded. Ms. Mauriello answered no but it is in the works. A formal amendment to the Land Use Regulations has not occurred. Walt Mathews, Deputy County Attorney, stated it should be done in about a month and a half and will be payable at final plat. Chairman Gallagher asked if the rate could be done in such a way as to not have to be amendments. Commissioner Menconi asked about the two different parcels the School District is looking at. One is adjacent to Eagle Ranch and the other at Highway 6 and Eagle Ranch Road. 21 03-18-2003 Mr. Cloyd stated that is not part of the PUD and they will not provide the School District with land that is not a part ofthe PUD. Mr. Kummer owns property in downtown Chicago too. Should that be given to the School District? Commissioner Stone stated they would have to have approval of that subdivision first. Mr. Mauriello stated her recommendation is this is an item that the applicant can work on prior to final plat. The standards indicate that "the subdivider of land in each residential subdivision or portion of subdivision intended for residential use, shall allocate and convey sites and land areas for schools, when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and the future residents thereof, as determined by Eagle County." She stated she was reading from Section 4-700 of the Land Use Regulations. Subparagraph Breads, :when land is dedicated for the purpose of a school site, it shall be able to be used by that district as determined by the County, and shall be maintained by the School District in a reasonable manner until developed." Commissioner Stone stated if the property was outside the PUD application, they would be carving out land illegally because it would not have been subdivided for that purpose. Commissioner Menconi asked how this came up. Mr. Cloyd pointed out the location of the property for the Board. He stated they did a land change with the Town of Eagle. At that time the School indicated they would like 25 acres for a high school. Now, they are wanting another piece so as to get their foot in the door so as this proposal develops they would have to give them more land adjacent to the current parcel. Chairman Gallagher asked staff to review the Statutes so assure the LUR are saying the same thing as the Statutes. He stated he does not believe they are bound by the lines around the PUD but to property close to it. Commissioner Stone stated it would be an illegal piece of property. Chairman Gallagher stated he does not believe that is true if the applicant can come up with the property in close proximity to Frost Creek. He does not know why the Board could not approve that if it was part of the applicants application. Commissioner Stone stated anything less than 35 acres would be a non conforming piece of land because it did not go through the subdivision property. Chairman Gallagher stated he does not recall exempting anything from the Land Use Regulations. He is merely suggesting identifying the property. Ms. Mauriello stated Mr. Mathews has a case in law that addresses the requirement of a school site within the bounds of the PUD. Commissioner Menconi stated he believes the applicant is saying yes to cash, no to land. Mr. Cloyd answered yes. He spoke to item F and would like to change it to read, "the following checklist of items, be adequately addressed as necessary during the final plat process." Chairman Gallagher stated if they were suggestions they would not be on the list. Mr. Narracci stated he put together this checklist as a list of items for the applicant to work on before final plat application. He stated all items must be addressed. Commissioner Menconi asked if a file gets approved at sketch plan could these be called conditions? Mr. Narracci stated the Board can word it how they wish. Chairman Gallagher stated he is not prepared to lighten the load on condition F. Commissioner Stone stated this gives certainty Mr. Narracci stated number 11 was a condition set forth by the Colorado Geologic Survey. He stated the only way to incorporate it at building permit was to make it a plat note. He stated there is a high water table in this area and the suggestion was based on site specific analogy. Commissioner Stone asked what they were trying to mitigate. He stated he has a crawl space and when the neighbor irrigates too much he does have to pump water from his crawl space. Chaiiman Gallagher stated ground water can make basements float and produce indoor swimming pools. Non of this is beyond mitigation. 22 03-18-2003 Mr. Cloyd stated he does not have a problem with the list, but has a problem with the word prohibit. Commissioner Menconi stated maybe they are trying to protect the wetland area. Mr. Narracci stated there is not a reason given. Chairman Gallagher asked for clarification from the recommending agency. Commissioner Stone stated the applicant would like to remove 13 & 14 as they have already complied with these. Commissioner Menconi asked about the Planning Commissions deliberation and conditions. He asked if these are the findings and conditions listed on page one of the staff report. He stated there were many items that were brought up in clarifying issues that he had last time. He does not believe the concerns have been clarified. There will be concerns with clustering, wetland and riparian areas, wildlife areas and leapfrog development. He would like more discussion on these items and the proposal as to what the community golf course proposal would be, i.e., opening it up for the public. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the 50 foot setback and the fact that a water tank and vegetation may hide it better, the density moving from Salt Creek to Frost Creek and having a conservation easement on the Salt Creek parcel. He is concerned with the parcels in the wildlife area Commissioner Menconi stated this proposal takes away one problem and creates another. He would like public comment at the next meeting. Commissioner Stone moved to table files PDSP-00016 and ZC-00059, Adams Rib, to March 25' 2003, at the applicants request. 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 March 25, 2003. 23 03-18-2003 Attest: Clerk to the B