No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/15/03 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 15, 2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Earlene Roach Chairman Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Tom Stone Commissioner This being a schedule 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 Menconi moved the Board adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on pending contract negotiations concerning lease agreements relating to Air Traffic Control Tower, and further, for the purpose of discussing strategies for negotiations with American Airlines for summer flights and the associated Airplanner Agreement; and finally for the purpose of receiving legal advice on pending litigation in the matter of Steve and Cathy Close v. Eagle County. There are appropriate topics pursuant to c.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a)(b) and (e). Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone would not be present at this hearing. The time was noted at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Ofthe two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 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 April 15, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for April 17, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of March 18, 2003 D) Wright Water Engineers, Inc., Project Agreement E) Remodel/addition of the two new locker rooms F) Contract between Eagle County and Robinson Aviation, Inc., (RV A) for communication systems at the Airport Control Tower G) Holy Cross Energy / Contract for electric service at Eagle County Airport Control Tower H) Agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood Connections I) Contract between Eagle County and Digital Anno Company for production ofthe Eagle County Emergency Services Atlas 1 04-15-2003 J) Bid Award 2003, supply magnesium chloride only, approximately 710,556 gallons from GMCO Corporation, POBox 1480, Rifle, CO 81650. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated there are no revisions or modifications. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Jena Skinner, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00319, The Homestead - Filing 3, A Resubdivision of Lot 42 He stated this was a Final Plat, the purpose of which is to subdivide Lot 42, The Homestead, Filing 3, to create three (3),1/3 triplex lots, Lots 42A, 42B and 42C. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has made the following findings: a. The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversely affect adjacent property owners. b. The Amended Final Plat IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. The Amended Final Plat DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. An Improvements Agreement IS NOT applicable. e. This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00319, The Homestead, Filing 3, are-subdivision of Lot 42. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Consulting Agreement, Airplanners LLC Diane Mauriello presented the Consulting Agreement with Airplanners LLC. She stated terms have been agreed to but she does not have a signed document and would request it be tabled until April 22,2003. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was a possibility they would receive that document today. Ms. Mauriello stated she did not believe so. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated one of the provisions in the Contract is they need permission from the County for expenses more than $100.00. They have requested one oftheir employees travel to Dallas. Would the Board allow him to give the okay for that travel. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was a ceiling on expenses. Ms. Mauriello stated the way the Contract reads, is there is a monthly obligation and then any travel that goes beyond that figure in excess of$100.00 must be approved by the Board. There is no specific sum. Mr. Ingstad stated he believes it is impractical to get the Board's permission to travel for expenses over $100.00. He requested the Board authorize staff to okay expenses up to $2,000.00. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board would ask Mr. Ingstad to assume that role. Commissioner Menconi asked about the next item on the agenda, the Consultant Selection Ms. Mauriello stated those would both be heard on the 22ne of April. Commissioner Menconi moved to table the Consulting Agreement with Airplanners LLC to April 22, 2003. 2 04-15-2003 Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Consultant Selection, Airport Engineering Mark Davidson, Aviation Director, stated the next matter was the Consultant Selection for Airport Engineering. He stated in May 2003 the current agreement with the engineer will expire. He stated they did advertise a request for Engineering Services. They received proposals from the following: Washington Infrastructure URS Carter Burgess Mr. Davidson stated based on the overall average rating of the firms, Carter Burgess was rated the highest by all four committee members. He requested Carter Burgess be the selection and ask the Board to direct staff to move forward with negotiations. Commissioner Menconi moved to authorize staff to move forward with negotiations with Carter Burgess. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Consultant Selection, Environmental Assessment Mark Davidson stated the next matter before the Board was the Consultant Selection for Environmental Assessment for the Eagle County Regional Airport. He stated this is for the runway extension and a stop way. He stated they received five proposals as follows: Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers LLC Entranco Smith Environmental, Inc. SAIC Knight Piesold Mr. Davison stated Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers LLC was the selection and has the most experience. He asked staffbe granted permission to proceed with negotiations. Commissioner Menconi moved to authorize staff to proceed with negotiations with Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers LLC. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-045, Public Safety Telecommunicator Week Brain Treu, Assistant County Attorney, presented Resolution 2003-045, designating the week of April13 - 19,2003 as Public Safety Te1ecommunicator Week. He introduced Paul Smith from the Vail Com Center and Tom Debowski from the 911 Board. Mr. Smith stated they handle all 911 calls and work with 13 agencies. They can provide patient care over the phone before help arrives, they become the lifeline to the police, fire departments and ambulance districts. He stated he started the job with 911 in Eagle County this year but has 20 years of experience in this field and has not seen a more dedicated group of people than in this County. Brian Treu 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") acknowledges that emergencies can occur at anytime that may require police, fire, medical or other emergency services; and 3 04-15-2003 Whereas, the prompt response of emergency service personnel is critical to the protection of life and preservation of property; and Whereas, the effectiveness and safety of emergency service personnel is dependant upon the quality and accuracy of information obtained from citizens who telephone Public Safety Dispatchers; and Whereas, Public Safety Dispatchers are often the first and most critical contact our citizens have with emergency services; and Whereas, Public Safety Dispatchers are a vital link for emergency service personnel by monitoring their activities by radio, providing them information, and insuring their safety; and Whereas, the Public Safety Dispatchers at the Vail Public Safety Communication Center have continued to provide Public Safety Dispatch services to the citizens of Eagle County with a heightened degree of compassion and professionalism; and Whereas, Congress has dedicated April 13th -19th, 2003 as "National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week;" and Whereas, the Board wishes to join the Town of Vail in recognizing the dedicated staff of the Vail Public Safety Communications Center during this week; and Now, Therefore, be it Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners ofthe County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that April 13th to 19th, 2003, shall be designated as "Public Safety Telecommunicator Week" in Eagle County in honor ofthe men and women whose diligence and professionalism help keep our county and citizens safe. That, the board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare ofthe residents ofthe County of Eagle, State of Colorado. Moved, Read and Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 15th day of April, 2003. Commissioner Menconi and Chairman Gallagher thanked those who help this community. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-045, designating the week of April 13 - 19, 2003 as Public Safety Te1ecommunicator Week. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SUP-00006, Vagneur Subdivision Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number SUP-00006, Vagneur Subdivision. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to May 6,2003. He stated the Planning Commission is still considering this file. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number SUP-00006, Vagneur Subdivision, to May 6, 2003 at the applicants request. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0045, Town of Eagle Waterline Ross Easterling, Planner, presented file number 1041-0045, Town of Eagle Waterline. He stated the Town of Eagle (TOE) proposes to install approximately 4,350 feet of24" water main. The segment of mainline will run between the lower Brush Creek water tank (Brush Creek Tank) north to the location where the existing 16" mainline entering Eagle Ranch intersects the existing 12" mainline running into town. This junction is located adjacent to and south of the bridge entering Eagle Ranch, at the intersection of Ouzel Lane and Brush Creek Road. Under current conditions, the existing 12" water main is too small to adequately convey water between the Brush Creek Tank and town. Fire flow requirements are not currently met in the Eagle 4 04-15-2003 Ranch commercial center and school areas. Current hydraulic models show that pressures drop to as low as 10 to 15 psi during peak-demands. The proposed 24" pipe will provide minimum pressures of 40 psi during peak-day demands. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Planning Commission: Staffheld a cursory, informal, discussion with the planning commission on March 19,2003 regarding the proposal. The commissioners asked the following four questions during the discussion: 1. Are all the easements in place? 2. Will the water line routing impact any wetlands? 3. Does the existing water tank have sufficient capacity to serve a 24" water line? 4. Will the line routing require crossing Brush Creek or will the line be suspended under the bridge? The planning commission, in their capacity as a referral agency for the application, concluded the session with a response of "no comment" for the Permit Authority. Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS): The alignment of the water line is situated in the alluvial sediments of Brush Creek and is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite Formation. Occasional sinkholes are found in the bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite which can cause problems during construction. The CGS stated that "It is highly recommended that a geotechnical engineer is on site during all excavation work to provide assistance if sinkholes are encountered." (Letter attached) Eagle County Engineering Department: "A permit to construct in the Public Way will be required." (Memo attached) Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: 6.04.01 Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest. A Permit to conduct a designated activity of state interest or to engage in development in a designated area of state interest shall be approved if the Project complies with the following general criteria and any additional applicable criteria in sections 6.04.02 or 6.04.03. If the Project does not comply with anyone or more of these criteria, the Permit shall be denied or approved with conditions. In determining whether the Project complies with these criteria, or if conditions should be imposed, the Permit Authority may utilize the considerations in Appendix "A." (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are obtained. FINDING (+): Prior to site disturbance the Eagle County Engineer has required a Permit to Construct in the Public Way. The construction company receiving the contract for the project will make this application since liability insurance is required in addition to a traffic control plan and collateralization for any future repairs to Brush Creek Road that may result from the trenching and road crossmgs. The applicant has represented that Kummer Development and Kenneth and Patricia Norman will grant easements to the Town of Eagle for the line segments that pass through their property. Dusty Walls, the Town of Eagle's Public Works Director has submitted a written statement from the Normans stating that they will grant the easement. Randy Cloyd, of Adam's Rib, is out-of-town at the time of this writing and cannot provide a similar statement. The Town of Eagle's Attorney is preparing the formal easement agreements at this time. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others\ FINDING (+): Without formal documentation of the easements between the Town of Eagle, Kummer Development, and the Kenneth and Patricia Norman it cannot be found that the project will not impair the property rights of others. 5 04-15-2003 (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. FINDING (+): The project is consistent with the Town of Eagle Water System Master Plan as well as the Eagle Area Community Plan. The land use decisions, and developments that the proposed infrastructure serves are the purview ofthe Town of Eagle. The proposal is consistent with the guiding policies of the Eagle County Master Plan in that the line routing chosen for the project avoids riparian areas and wetlands. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. FINDING (+): The Town of Eagle continually operates and manages their water treatment plant and distribution system in compliance with the State of Colorado's Water Quality Control Divisions requirements for a public drinking water system. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. FINDING (+): The project is technically and financially feasible. The application and engineering drawings have been reviewed by the Eagle County Engineering Department. The "Summary Water Budget Statement" (submitted with the application under tab "S") allows for $2,298,000 in capital expenditures in the year 2003. The estimated cost for this proposal is $955,000. In addition, the operating revenues and tap fees outlined in the "Summary Water Budget Statement" do not indicate a significant increase in the rate structure, tap fees or debt service over years 2001,2002, and 2003. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. FINDING (+): The Colorado Geological Survey pointed out that sinkholes may be found in the Eagle Valley Evaporite and recommended that a geotechnical engineer be on site during all phases of excavation. The applicant represents that a geotechnical engineer will supervise the construction, excavation, and installation of the project. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. FINDING (+): The land use, or development, that the improvements proposed in this application will serve have been approved by the Town of Eagle. The Project will increase water pressures and fire-flow, which benefit the developments and the Town. (S) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. FINDING (+): The project will benefit the Town of Eagle in that it will enable them to improve fire flow and water pressures in their distribution system. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. FINDING (+): The project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents ofthe County. The "Summary Water Budget Statement" (submitted with the application under tab "S") allows for $2,29S,000 in capital expenditures in the year 2003. The estimated cost for this proposal is $955,000. In addition, the operating revenues and tap fees outlined in the "Summary Water Budget Statement" do not indicate a significant increase in the rate structure, tap fees or debt service over years 2001, 2002, and 2003. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. FINDING (+): The Project will benefit the local economy by improving the efficiency (both financially and physically) and effectiveness ofthe Town of Eagle's water system. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. 6 04-15-2003 FINDING (+): The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. Any impacts to public outdoor recreation will be negligible. The line routing follows Brush Creek Road and may temporarily delay travelers en-route to recreational areas. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. FINDING (+): The project reflects principles of resource conservation in that: Water meters are required on all residences. The Town of Eagle plans to re-visit their rate structure to encourage additional conservation. The Town of Eagle implemented voluntary odd/even watering days during Summers 2000,2001, and 2002. Raw water irrigation is encouraged for any new development proposals where feasible. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. FINDING (+): The excavation and installation will have negligible effects on air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. FINDING (+): There may be some temporary visual impacts during the construction phase of the project. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. FINDING (+): Surface water will not be degraded by the Project. The potential for sediment loading will be mitigated through use of best management practices such as straw bales and silt fencing. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. FINDING (+): The Project will not degrade groundwater quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas. FINDING (+): The project will not significantly degrade wetlands. The line routing for this project was chosen to avoid any areas that might have been considered a wetland. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. FINDING (+): The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. Earthwork construction will only involve trenching for the water line installation. The project does not involve any large-scale grading. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. FINDING (+): The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. Earthwork construction will only involve trenching for the water line installation. The project does not involve any large-scale grading. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. FINDING (+): The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. The line routing generally follows an existing road ROW that has been disturbed in the past. (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. FINDING (+): The project will not cause a nuisance. There may be temporary, minor, inconveniences or delays to motorists during construction. (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. FINDING (+): The project routing generally follows the borrow-ditch of Brush Creek road. This area has been previously disturbed. The cultural resource investigation prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants (MAC) concluded that MAC "does not see any significant potential for cultural resource issues that would preclude the construction of the proposed pipeline." 7 04-15-2003 (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. FINDING (+): The project involves the installation of a new water main and does not contemplate the use of any hazardous materials. (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. FINDING (+): This finding is not applicable. The land use decisions that resulted in land use changes from agricultural to the residential and commercial uses associated with Eagle Ranch were made by the Town of Eagle. 6.04.02 Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Proiects. In addition to the general criteria set forth in section 6.04.01, the following additional criteria apply to municipal and industrial water projects: (1) The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. FINDING (+): This "additional" approval criteria applies only to conservation of water. The following conservation policies are part ofthe Town of Eagle's water conservation measures. Water meters are required on all residences. The Town of Eagle plans to re-visit their rate structure to encourage additional conservation. The Town of Eagle implemented voluntary odd/even watering days during Summers 2000, 2001, and 2002. Raw water irrigation is encouraged for any new development proposals where feasible. (2) The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. FINDING (NA): This finding in not applicable since no additional capacity is proposed. (3) The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. FINDING (+): The population ofthe Town of Eagle is expected to increase from 3,032 to 5,014 by the year 2020. The Project is necessary to meet community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development. (4) Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. FINDING (NA): This finding is not applicable. Storm water and sanitation systems are not considered in this application. David Dusbow, DLB Engineering, stated they have no presentation but would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Richard Kessler, area resident, stated it was his understanding that the water line will cross his property going to Easel Lane. He questioned where it would cross his property. Dusty Walls, Town of Eagle, stated the line would not cross Mr. Kessler's property. It will run from the Peterson's property and cross the road just below Mr. Kessler's property, as shown on Exhibit C1 ofthe 1041 application. Chairman Gallagher explained this type of application for those students in the audience. Paul Benecoff, area resident, stated on his property in the easement he has five cottonwoods andiwould like to know what the plans are for those and if they would be replaced. 8 04-15-2003 Mr. Walls, stated the trees are actually within the County right-of-way. He stated they will pull a trench box down and will try very hard not to harm the root structure. Chairman Gallagher stated they will do what they can to protect the trees. Chairman Gallagher asked about the size of the pipe. Mr. Walls stated the existing pipeline is a 12 inch line that serves the Town and the downstream areas. The up-sizing of this pipe to 24 inches takes the Brush Creek water line to full build out. Chairman Gallagher asked about the lines downstream. Mr. Walls stated it includes the Town of Eagle proper and Eagle Ranch. Chairman Gallagher stated they have a 12 inch line from the large tank to the small tank. Mr. Walls stated that is a 14 inch pipe. Chairman Gallagher stated then they go back to 24 inch. He asked if they are going back to 12 inch further down. Mr. Walls stated they will be going from 24 inches and branching at the Bridge 1 connection point, splitting to a 16 inch line that goes to Eagle Ranch, then to a 12 inch line that continues to the Town. He stated there is a 2 million gallon tank sitting at the Brush Creek Water Treatment Plant, and also a 2.2 million gallon capacity tank at the lower end. The hydraulics show that it is all sufficient. Mr. Dusbow stated what Arbor has found is under peak conditions the existing tank near Town will draw down almost completely before the 2 million gallon tank can contribute to the system. Commissioner Menconi moved the Eagle County Permit Authority approve file 1041-0045 and waive the requirement for Special Use Review pursuant to Section 3-310 (1) 2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as such a requirement would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant and serve no further legitimate planning or land use objective. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00042, Two Rivers Village Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDA-00042, Two Rivers Village. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. Their deliberations were as follows: Nature ofthe "duplex" units, and whether they would come from the factory intended to be used as duplex units. Nature of the party wall and the amount oflatitude that would be allowed in setting the units in place. Efficiency (e.g., insulation rating) ofthe manufactured units. Provisions of party wall agreement related to conflict resolution. Location and number of town home units being proposed. Size and affordability of town home units compared to approved condominium and apartment units. Whether landscape plan would be adversely impacted. Whether approved maximum floor area is truly an error. Mr. Forinash stated an amendment to the PUD Guide that would [1] allow town homes on certain multi-family lots, [2] allow 1'2 duplex structures (zero lot lines) on certain adjacent single family lots, [3] correct an error in the PUD Guide regarding maximum lot coverage, [4] reduce the minimum pitch for roofs of garages, carports, and outbuildings, and [5] increase the maximum size of the storage sheds from 10 feet by 10 feet to 12 feet by 12 feet. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1985 - Sketch Plan approved for 387 RV camper spaces, 2,000 square feet of commercial space, a 20,000 square foot recreation building and a 9-hole golf course on 130 acres south ofl-70. The Sketch Plan subsequently expired. 9 04-15-2003 1996 - Sketch Plan approved for 310 RV sites, 100 room motel, 4,000 square feet of commercial space, 8,000 square feet of restaurant, and 5 home sites located north and south ofl-70. 1997 - Sketch Plan approved for 280 manufactured home sites, 20 RV spaces, 5 condominium/apartment structures of20 units each, up to 20 employee units, 60,000 square feet of commercial space and community facilities. 1998 - At various times: Flood Plain Variance Permit approved by BoCC. Service Plan for the Two Rivers Metropolitan District approved by BoCC. FEMA issued a Conditional Letter of Map Revision allowing the Applicant to raise the site out of the floodplain. Preliminary Plan for 280 manufactured housing sites to be 50% owner-occupied, 100 condominium/apartment units, up to 20 employee units, 5 single family lots, 60,000 square feet of commercial space, school site, fire station site, storage site and community facilities approved by BoCC. Flood Plain Development Permit approved by BoCC. Temporary amendment to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations approved by BoCC granting a dated grading permit to the Applicant. Permit subsequently expired without action by the Applicant. 1999 - Two applications for PUD final plats (Two Rivers Village and Two Rivers Estates, respectively), which differed substantially for the approved PUD Preliminary Plan, were received to the Department of Community Development. 2000 - At various times: Applicant appealed a determination by the Director of Community Development that an amendment to the approved Preliminary Plan prior to review of the PPUD final plats. BoCC upheld the Director's determination regarding the need for a PUD amendment. BoCC approved an amendment to the Two Rivers 1041 permit to [1] re-size the water tank and wastewater treatment plant, [2] add the school site to the Two Rivers Metro District, [3] accommodate a shift from commercial to residential and [4] relocate lift stations. BoCC approved a PUD Preliminary Plan Amendment. 2002 - BoCC approved final plats for Two Rivers Village and Two Rivers Estates, respectively. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering No Comment. Other Referrals have been made to Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Attorney, and Gypsum Fire Protection District. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: 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 Applicant has demonstrated that it owns all parcels in Two Rivers Village portion ofthe Two Rivers PUD (south of 1-70). [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. HOWEVER, the Applicant owns all properties within the PUD that would be directly affected by the proposed PUD amendment. 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 10 04-15-2003 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. Certain multi-family residential uses, specifically including condominiums/apartments, are currently permitted uses on certain of the lots in Two Rivers Village. The first provision of the PUD Guide which would be amended is to allow the addition of "town homes" in the mix of permitted multi- family uses on these parcels. This change would allow a greater variety of housing types while not altering the essential nature of the development. In addition, this PUD amendment would permit duplex structures on certain lots currently designated as single-family lots. Under this proposed PUD amendment, each of those lots will still be allowed to have only one dwelling unit. However, by permitting certain zero lot lines, single-family units on adjacent lots will be permitted to share common walls, thereby creating more use able yard areas. This proposed change is discussed more fully below under Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (3)]. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] All of the proposed additional uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. However, variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, 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 ofthe application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The other changes in this proposed PUD amendment involve changes in dimensional limitations. The first dimensional change would reduce the side-yard setbacks on those adjacent lots on which duplex units would be placed. The existing setbacks for residential units on single-family lots are as follows: Front yard 5 feet Side yard 10 feet Rear yard 10 feet From 1-70 25 feet From Colorado River Road 25 feet From Colorado River 50 feet The existing setbacks for garages on single-family lots are as follows: Front 5 feet Side of carport 1 foot Side for enclosed garage 3 feet Rear 10 feet These setbacks would remain unchanged for lots for "stand alone" single-family lots. However, for those lots on which duplex units would be built, the proposed setbacks are as follows: Residential Units on Duplex Lots Front yard Common side yard 5 feet o feet 11 04-15-2003 Useable side yard Rear yard From 1-70 From Colorado River Road From Colorado River Garages on Duplex Lots Front 5 feet Common side yard 0 feet Useable side yard of carport 1 foot Useable side of garage 3 feet Rear 10 feet For both the residential units and the carports/garages, the setbacks would remain unchanged, except for the zero (0) foot setback along the common-wall side ofthe "duplex lots". There are several considerations raised by the changes in the dimensional limitations which would permit "duplex units". One has to do with the coordination of zero lot line setbacks (duplex) vs. stand alone residences on adjoining lots. For example, it would be undesirable for one lot owner to take advantage zero lot line setbacks on his/her lot when owners of both adjacent lots are observing the setbacks for stand alone residences. The Applicant intends to address this issue by permitting the duplex (zero lot line setback) approach only when the same individual or party owns the adjoining lots. This provides the necessary coordination. However, the wording of the provision in the proposed amended PUD Guide could be clarified. As proposed, the circumstance that permits duplexes on adjacent lots is that the same individual or party initially owns both lots. It is more important that this common ownership exist at the time the residences are placed on the adjacent lots. As a condition of approval, the PUD Guide should be revised to reflect that the identified adjoining lots in Blocks 1-10 in Two Rivers Village have the option to have a duplex placed on the two lots where both lots are owned by the same individual or company at the time the residences are placed on the two lots. [Condition # 1] Another consideration relates to how a duplex residential unit would be re-built or replaced in the event of a fire or other similar event. As proposed, although it is not explicit, once a pair of adjoining lots is designated and developed as duplex lots, that arrangement would necessarily continue in perpetuity even if one or both of the residential units were destroyed by fire or other event, unless two adjacent "duplex" lots were owned by the same person or company at the time they were re-built or replaced. While this provision is acceptable to Planning Staff, it is worth noting. Another consideration has to do with the nature of the common walls between duplex units and the related party wall agreements. The Applicant confirms that duplex party wall requirements of the Uniform Building Code will met. In addition, a party wall agreement will be recorded at the time the building permit application is submitted. The Applicant will be responsible for situating the duplex units' party walls precisely on existing lot lines. The Applicant has agreed that improvement location certificates will be provided to confirm that common walls are properly set on common lot lines. The Land Use Regulations currently provide that the Director of Community Development may require location surveys in these situations. The Applicant has provided that in the event that a common wall has not been properly set with respect to a common lot line, that procedures provided in Section 5-2700, Correction Plat, of the Land Use Regulations be used to adjust the lot line. This may not be an appropriate use of the correction plat provisions of the Land Use Regulations. More appropriate would be to establish in the PUD Guide an administrative process for an amended final plat that could follow the procedures of Section 5-290, Minor Subdivision, of the Land Use Regulations, specifically as it relates to Type B Minor Subdivisions. Similar provisions exist in PUD Guides for adjusting building envelopes for other developments, for 12 04-15-2003 10 feet 10 feet 25 feet 25 feet 50 feet example, Cordillera PUD, Colorado River Ranch PUD, Red Sky Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, a provision should be added to the PUD Guide as follows: Amendments to Common Lot Lines on Duplex Units. Amendments may occur upon approval of one of the following two processes: 1. Administrative Process for Adjusting a Common Lot Line on Duplex Lots - If it has been demonstrated that [1] owners of all property adjacent to the lots in which the common lot line adjustment is being proposed have approved in writing the proposed Lot Line Adjustment, such an application may be processed in accordance with Section 5-290, Minor Subdivision, ofthe Land Use Regulations, as a Type B Subdivision. In addition to other standards provided in Section 5-290, the Director of Community Development shall also be required to determine that the proposed amendment [ a] will not result in a substantial change in the configuration of the lots; [b] is consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan; and [c] does not represent an alteration of a restrictive plat note. 2. Public Process for Adjusting a Common Lot Line on Duplex Lots - An application for an adjustment of a common lot line on duplex lots which does not qualify for the Administrative Process shall be processed in accordance with Section 5-290, Minor Subdivision, of the Land Use Regulations, as an Amended Final Plat. In addition to other standards provided in Section 5-290, the Director of Community Development shall also be required to determine that the proposed amendment [a] will not result in a substantial change in the configuration of the lots; [b] is consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan; and [c] does not represent an alteration of a restrictive plat note.[Condition # 2] Lastly, the final plat for Two Rivers Village shows setbacks that would no longer be consistent with the provisions of the PUD Guide as amended, specifically as it relates to the zero lot line setbacks on the duplex lots. An amended final plat for all or portions of Blocks 1-10 of Two Rivers Village will be required prior to being able to take advantage of the reduced setbacks included in this proposed PUD amendment. The Applicant has acknowledged the necessity of an amended final plat. The second dimensional change would correct a discrepancy between the approved Preliminary Plan and the previously approved PUD Guide with respect to Maximum Lot Coverage. Total coverage of buildings (residence, garage and carport) would be increased from 25% of developable land to 60%. Coverage of All Impervious Material would be limited to a maximum of75% of net developable land, compared to the current limit of 60%. The current PUD Guide contains "typically" site plans for single, double and triple wide modular units which clearly did not satisfy the stated maximum lot coverage and impervious area figures. The third dimensional change has to do with the minimum pitch of outbuildings, carports and garages. As initially proposed by this amendment, the minimum roof pitch would have been 2.5 in 12. The Applicant has subsequently revised the proposed minimum pitch to 2.0 in 12 in order to better accommodate the parking of vehicles. An additional dimensional change which has been submitted separately from the initial application is to increase the maximum size ofthe storage sheds from 10 feet by 10 feet to 12 feet by 12 feet, to allow the widths of the concrete slabs for the storage sheds to be the same as that for the carports (setbacks for the storage sheds would remain unchanged). [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. However, variations of these dimensional limitations MAY BE authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.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 Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that 13 04-15-2003 (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadinf! 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 proposed amendment will not adversely affect the adequacy of off-street parking and loading. 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 streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the landscaping within the PUD. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved PUD Preliminary Plan HAS been determined to have complied with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT impact existing landscaping nor require additional landscaping. 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, Sifm RefIUlations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on sign other than those already provided in the Amended and Restated Guide to the Planned Unit Development Plan, currently in effect for Arrowhead at Vail. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in the comprehensive sign plan approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan. The proposed amendment does NOT alter these sign standards. 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, nor will it affect the location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 14 04-15-2003 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, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely affect the adequacy of these improvements nor warrant additional improvements. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: (a) safe, efficient access, (b) internal pathways, (c) emergency vehicles, (d) principal access points, and ( e) snow storage. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed amended PUD will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD HAS been determined to be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect this compatibility. 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). It has previously been found that the PUD is in conformance with the Master Plan. The proposed PUD Amendment is not sufficiently different in character or magnitude to alter conformance with the 15 04-15-2003 Master Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map, and makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. (Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] It has previously been determined that the PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Master Plan. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor 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. Phasing is not affected by this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. 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. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (i) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space (ii) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year 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 from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminwy 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. (d) 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate common recreation and open space were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy ofthese amenities. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] 16 04-15-2003 It has previously been determined that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD with respect to (a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing use and maintenance; or (d) 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate protection of natural resources were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on natural resources. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch 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, -onsistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] 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 Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is also consistent with the provisions of Article 3, Zone Districts, ofthe current Land Use Regulations. Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan was approved, it had been demonstrated that applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the earlier finding. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect compliance with these 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 Countv 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. @ 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would result in an efficient spatial pattern. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] 17 04-15-2003 It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely effect the spatial patterns in the area. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the area was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely affect the compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the compatibility ofthe resulting development with surrounding uses. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: -roposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." A draft amended Planned Unit Development Guide has been provided. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that incorporates revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment The requirements of this Section can be fully met. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The proposed PUD Amendment satisfies the requirements of this Standard. [+] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F. 3.m . ] The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment ofland abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Chairman Gallagher asked about the map shown and if there will be one or two units. Mr. Forinash stated there will be two lots and there will be no more than two dwelling units on those two lots. The duplexes will be set on the property up against each other. Commissioner Menconi asked about the duplex lots and if it was going to be an increase in the number of units. Mr. Forinash answered no. The intent was to provide more yard space. Chairman Gallagher asked about the minimum lot size. 18 04-15-2003 Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, stated they have a minimum of 3,800, however there were a couple of exceptional lots at 3,300. They have 3,600 lots and up to 5,500 for double wide manufactured homes. Commissioner Menconi asked why this selection is being asked for. MI. Isom stated when they laid out the plat with the old owner, it was 60% double wide manufactured housing, 5% singlewide and 5% triple wide. It was also bothersome that they would end up with so many single wides on the north end of the property. Instead of having twenty separate units they would have ten which would increase the streetscapes. Commissioner Menconi asked if doing it this way will help reduce the pricing. Mr. Isom stated the common wall allows them to stay with the initial pricing. Ken Kriz, applicant, stated they can also have a 7-12 pitch on the roof rather than a 3-12 pitch on a single unit. He stated it also gives them the ability to go with a nine foot ceiling on the interior which creates more openness to the floor plan. Commissioner Menconi asked about conflict resolution. MI. Forinash stated there was a condition dealing with arbitration and mitigation. Mr. Isom stated in their party wall agreement they did not include comments on mitigation and arbitration. They will now do so. MI. Isom stated they forwarded a request to staff to be allowed to put in one or two model units before final plat. It would be understood it would be at their own risk. He stated the other item he would like to discuss is the wiring. He stated they have signed an agreement to San Isabel Telecom to supply their project. They had a call from Centurytel indicating they would be over wiring the project. He stated they would like a clause on the plat that all utilities would have to be approved by the Metropolitan District. Chairman Gallagher asked about over wiring. Mr. Isom stated they have already installed conduits for all utilities. Over wiring is when someone comes in and puts cable over the top of previously laid cable to provide alternate service. He stated if some of the residents in the subdivision want to be serviced by Centurytel, they would be given a loop from San Isabel Telecom for that service. Commissioner Menconi stated there is a recent FCC Regulation making it more difficult for DSL High Speed Internet connections to operate with local phone line companies. He stated Centurytel is trying to not incur the expense. Is this just a cable line inside the homes. Mr. Isom stated in the beginning they were going to allow Centurytel to serve the project. As it turned out, they did not have the capability for some of the requirements and it was going to cost quite a bit of money. They then went with San Isabel Telecom who came in and wired the project at no cost to the applicant, rates are lower, they provide cable TV and fiber optic to the house. This does allow the DSL service. Commissioner Menconi asked about the hindrance to the applicant. Mr. Isom stated they do not have the space for additional cables. Chairman Gallagher asked about the town homes. Mr. Isom stated they had nine buildings shown on the plat as multifamily buildings. It became obvious they could help the streetscapes to do town homes. He pointed out the buildings that would be changed and spoke to having garages Chairman Gallagher asked about duplex lots. Mr. Kriz stated there were 89 single wide units. They will retain 17 of those and the balance will become available for duplexes. Mr. Forinash stated that was his understanding. What is being proposed is a blanket change in the maximum lot coverage. Mr. Isom stated there was an error in the PUD Guide, in that they were only allowed 25% floor area ratio and it was always presented as 60% floor area ratio. Chairman Gallagher spoke to roof pitch. 19 04-15-2003 Mr. Isom stated they would like to have a steeper roof pitch in order to make the project look better. He stated they will now be able to have 15 inches between the house and the garage. In order to accomplish that and have the project look good, they will go to 7 - 12 roof pitch. Chairman Gallagher asked about the increase in storage sheds. Mr. Isom stated the garages are 12 feet wide and they want the carports the same size. Chairman Gallagher asked about making them 12 x 8. Mr. Isom stated they probably will be. Most of them are 12 x 8 or 12 x 6. Commissioner Menconi asked with the increase in landscaping in the development, how will the applicant handle that aspect and what will be provided. Mr. Forinash stated there will be no change. Mr. Isom stated they have maintained the same amount oflandscaping throughout. There was just an error in the POO Guide. Commissioner Menconi asked about the over wiring. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated this would be a legal question. She stated when they dedicate rights of way to the public, except in the cases of Cordillera and Two Rivers, they become privately maintained. She stated the Attorney will have to answer the question if another utility company can utilize that right of way. Mr. Isom stated with Chatfield Comers and Eagle Ranch, Centurytel is currently trying to over wire their projects. Ms. Mauriello stated utilities are generally granted wide authority to place their utilities in rights of way. The current plat does provide for dedication ofthe easements. She stated she would not recommend a modified or new plat note at this time. Mr. Isom stated had they known they would have specified certain companies Mr. Kriz stated they already have sleeves and pavement and it would have to be tom up and disrupt construction. Ms. Mauriello stated it is up to the Board but again, she stands by her recommendation. Chairman Gallagher stated he remembers a municipality that had rules that stated there would be no disturbances of pavement in three years. He suggested the applicant speak with an attorney. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDA-00042, Two Rivers Village, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. The POO Guide be revised to reflect that the identified adjoining lots in Blocks 1-10 in Two Rivers Village have the option to have a duplex placed on the two lots where both lots are owned by the same individual or company at the time the residences are placed on the two lots. 2. A provision be added to the POO Guide as follows: Amendments to Common Lot Lines on Duplex Units. Amendments may occur upon approval of one of the following two processes: a. Administrative Process for Adjusting a Common Lot Line on Duplex Lots - If it has been demonstrated that [1] owners of all property adjacent to the lots in which the common lot line adjustment is being proposed have approved in writing the proposed Lot Line Adjustment, such an application may be processed in accordance with Section 5-290, Minor Subdivision, ofthe Land Use Regulations, as a-rype B Subdivision. In addition to other standards provided in Section 5-290, the Director of Community Development shall also be required to determine that the proposed amendment [a] will not result in a substantial change in the configuration of the lots; [b] is consistent with the POO Preliminary Plan; and [c] does not represent an alteration of a restrictive plat note. b. Public Process for Adjusting a Common Lot Line on Duplex Lots - An application for an adjustment of a common lot line on duplex lots which does not qualify for the Administrative Process shall be processed in accordance with Section 5-290, Minor Subdivision, ofthe Land Use Regulations, as an Amended Final Plat. In addition to other standards provided in Section 5-290, the Director of Community Development shall also be required to determine that the proposed amendment [ a] will not 20 04-15-2003 result in a substantial change in the configuration of the lots; [b] is consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan; and [c] does not represent an alteration of a restrictive plat note. 3. No more than three of the twelve multi-family residential buildings be built in the form of town homes. 4. Applicable provisions of the Party wall agreement be revised to provide that, in the event of a dispute between adjacent property owners, recourse include mediation and/or arbitration prior to petitioning the Eagle County District Court. 5. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. There was none. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Isom asked if they could build a couple of model units. Chairman Gallagher stated it is his preference to not allow something before the final plat is approved. He asked if the time frame can be trimmed Diane Mauriello stated the Attorney can work with time frames. She cautioned the Board in allowing this before the final plat is approved. VIS-00020, Heritage Park PUD Subdivision, Variance John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number VIS-00020, Heritage Park PUD Subdivision, Variance from Improvements Standards. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to April 22, 2003. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number VIS-00020, Heritage Park PUD Subdivision, Variance, to April 22, 2003, at the applicants request. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until April 22, 2003. Attes Clerk to the Boar 21 04-15-2003