No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/22/03 PUBLIC HEARING JULY 22, 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: Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of July 21,2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval ofpaYfoll for July 24,2003, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for July 1, 2003 D) Extension of Time between the County of Eagle and the State of Colorado, Department of Military Affairs E) Resolution 2003-083 an Order fixing hearing date, time and place to consider creating the Eagle County Red Table Acres Public Improvement District F) Trust Agreement establishing the Alexander J, Allen Education Trust G) Resolution 2003-084, approving the amendment of Resolution 2003-03, concerning the adoption of the trust agreement establishing the Alexander J. Allen Education Fund H) Modification to Cooperative Road Agreement No. CA 15-00-82-005, between Eagle County and USDA Forest Service. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated there were no changes. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the County Board of Equalization, Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Board of Equalization Debbie Faber, Assistant County Attorney, presented Resolution E-2003-02, regarding petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization. She stated Exhibit A attached hereto, contains the CBOE docket numbers for petitioners who have had their appeals heard before the hearing referees. These referees are appointed by the Board to hold hearings, receive information and make recommendations based upon testimony and evidence submitted by the petitioner. The referees have recommended adjustments in value or no adjustments with respect to those petitions as attached as Exhibit B. 1 07 -22-2003 Chairman Gallagher questioned the referee recommending denial, the adjusted value and improvements showing zero, does that mean the referees are recommending a zero balance. Ms. Faber stated that means there was not adjustments made to the values. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution E-2003-02, regarding petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalizations. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mary Kessler, Assessor's Office, handed out the Assessor's reports to the Board. Joyce Mack, Eagle County Assessor, stated pursuant to C.R.S. 39-8-105(1) and (2), this is the Assessors report regarding the assessed value of all taxable real property, in the amount of $1,995,190,450.00. She stated the assessed value of personal property is $63,704,840.00. She stated the total of real property appeals was 2,865. For the real property they adjusted 1,130 of those appeals, denied 1,708 and 27 petitions were withdrawn. There were 41 personal property appeals and they adjusted 22 and denied 19. She stated this year they are 42% below the appeals filed for 2001. The Board accepted the report and a resolution will come before them next week. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the County Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion, The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: AFP-00152, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 34, Lot 13, Block 5. He stated this was an amended final plat, the purpose of which is to change the shape of the building envelope to accommodate an existing patio and deck. The size of the building envelope is to remain the same. Staff findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards, The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adeQuate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final plat file number AFP-00152, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 34, Lot 13, Block 5, incorporating staff findings, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. National Association of Counties Awards to Eagle County Chairman Gallagher stated they are recognizing award winning teams of innovators. These individuals are winners of five 2003 Achievement Awards from the National Association of Counties, NACO. He asked Debbie Brown, Animal Control Manager, to come forward. He stated the Eagle County Department of Animal Control, through enforcement and surrender philosophies, animal and owner training, and strong health and public information programs, constantly attempts to reduce the 2 07-22-2003 number of euthanized animals to a point unequaled by other government owned and operated agencies. None of the facets of the Eagle County program are new. It is their applied practice in a particular format that gives rise to an environment and customer understanding which underpins greater public responsibility and ownership ethic. Proof of the program's effectiveness lie in results: Since the no-kill program was introduced three years ago, the county has reduced animal euthanasia by 50%. For the last two years only 2.8% of all dogs and cats brought to the shelter have been euthanized. The Eagle County shelter is the only government owned and operated shelter in the State of Colorado that is considered a No Kill Shelter. Through adoption efforts the county has reduced the rate of animal surrenders to the shelter by 50%. Public education that goes in-hand with this program has been instrumental in lowering calls for service by 36% over the past three years. The Board presented the award to Ms. Brown. Chairman Gallagher stated the next award goes to the Eagle County Regional Airport for Colorado Powder ASAP... I Promise. He asked Deborah Churchill to come forward. Ms. Churchill asked Helen Lindow to come forward and related Terry Martinez - Johnson was also very instrumental in this program. Chairman Gallagher stated the decline in the number of airport passengers nationwide, coupled with a decline in airport customer service post September 11, and prompted Eagle County to create an integrated marketing and customer service initiative to address both issues. Colorado Powder ASAP ... I Promise was introduced during the 2002-03 winter season to raise traveler awareness of Eagle County Airport and its proximity to world-class ski resorts AND to inspire every member of the airport team - from skycaps at the curb to crews on the runway - to get passengers to the powder as soon as possible and deliver wow customer service along the way. First-year results have wowed even the skeptics, particularly with customer response. From winter season start-up through the end of March, passengers made the time to complete and submit 390 "I Promise" nominations for outstanding customer service, The County awarded 137 service awards of $100 cash. A sample customer comment follows: "The people at the Eagle County Airport are providing great customer service in very difficult times, in dramatic contrast to every other airport 1 pass through in the nation. 1 was surprised, gratified and inspired by the service and attention provided by all 1 met. .. Thank you for making my visit to the Vail Valley a positive one. It willlead me and thousands of others back time and again. Commissioner Menconi asked Rebecca Leonard, Adam Palmer and Don Cohen to come forward. He stated the Eagle County, Colorado, Profile is a web-based service - www.eagle- county. com/profile - that provides indicator data and other resource information compiled by public and private sources within Eagle County and beyond. It is a clearinghouse for information found within the broad categories of social, environmental and economic. This project was initiated because ofthe growing interest in accurate, timely and accessible data, All taxpayers of Eagle County should be able to quickly access the most up to date information with the use of state ofthe art technology. The Profile offers a new service to county residents and to potential residents and new businesses. It fills gaps in the availability of existing services by offering one centrallocation for easily accessible information people can use. It enhances the level of citizen participation in and the understanding of government programs by providing data necessary to evaluate existing and proposed programs and to making effective policy and business decisions. Finally, the Profile promotes intergovernmental and public-private cooperation and coordination in addressing shared problems by, again, providing a baseline of information in one easily accessible location. Commissioner Menconi stated the next award if for Miller Ranch Road A Community Partnership. He asked Helen Migche1brink and Peter Fralik to come forward. He stated Eagle County was recognized for a NACO Achievement award for the careful planning, thoughtful design and the quality of construction of the Miller Ranch Road. The collaboration of Eagle County and the Eagle 3 07-22-2003 County School District resulted in a project that maximized the use of taxpayer dollars by constructing a road that serves the entire community's needs. The innovative approach that joined the resources of two public entities resulted in an enhanced transportation system while supporting development of recreational, affordable housing and educational opportunities for the citizens of Eagle County. Ms. Migchelbrink stated this represents a technological milestone for Eagle County. She related they used the latest in construction techniques, including traffic counters that are built into the road, and different pavement markings. Commissioner Stone stated the next award was for the State of the County Address, a Celebration of People & Events in Eagle County. He stated the Spirit of Eagle County is an evolving annual community celebration that recognizes the accomplishments of citizens, elected officials and County employees. Using multi-media, including a CD-ROM "Year in Review" and a formal address, the event informs citizens of the County's fiscal condition and policy and capital initiatives, while honoring groups and individuals for their role in making Eagle County simply the best. The celebration was first held in January 2002 and included a State ofthe County address and CD-ROM multi-media review of the accomplishments of2001. In 2003, the County expanded the event to include the Swearing-In of newly elected officials and presentation of County Employee Service Awards. Eagle County measures the success of the program through: Participation. Over 500 citizens participated in the 2003 State ofthe County. This turnout represents a 200% increase over participation in 2002. Usefulness. The media and citizens have expressed appreciation ofthe relevance and usefulness of information shared through the program. County web statistics document that Eagle County web users access both the current and prior year's State of the County addresses. Commissioner Stone asked Becky Gadell to come forward. Ms. Gadell asked Lanie Martin and Carla Budd to come forward. She related there are many many others who should be recognized. The Board presented the award for the State of the County, Appeal Hearing, Two Rivers Village Ray Merry, Environmental Health Director, stated the next matter on the agenda was an appeal hearing by Two Rivers Village of an administrative decision to not allow occupancy of homes until completion of the sewer plant. He stated in January staff started receiving building permit applications for homes in Two Rivers Village. He stated they related to those applying for those permits they could not occupy the premises until the sewer plant was completed. He stated they struggled with some sort of temporary sewer facility to allow those individuals whose homes are complete to move in. One of his larger concerns was what sort of risks that may present to Eagle County in the event the subdivision did not happen. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, stated he is here today with Ken Kriz, Ed Prodolak, and Larry Green, Legal Council. He stated most of the units on the site are models. There have a couple of families who want to move in sometime in August. He stated the sewer plant will be complete in September. He stated the Board was given pictures ofthe progress ofthe sewer plant showing the progress. He handed out a letter from Tom Bennett who is in charge of all discharge permits for the State of Colorado. He stated Jim Churillo had related ifthe flows were less than 2,000 gallons per day it would be fine. He stated the discharge permit would not be violated. He stated nothing goes as planned. There are three families that would like to move in. He stated they are willing to put a limit of eight families who would be allowed to move onto the property. He stated there is a period of time that during which would be going into the basins before there was a discharge system in place. He related the State preferred they pump out of the wet well. He stated they have approval from Eagle River Water and Sanitation District allowing them to haul the waste to them. They also have a contractor ready with two trucks to haul the waste. He stated they provided water for the fire trucks and their operators are in 4 07-22-2003 place. They believe all the checks and balances are in place and they see no health hazards with this proposal. Chairman Gallagher stated it appears the record of decision does appear in a letter to Mr. Isom, showing the reasons for denial. He asked Mr. Isom to address each of the six reasons for denial. Mr, Isom stated he did give the Board the responses to those items, stating they believe this application is not part of the 1041. He stated they have indicated they have a wet well and a lift station and it is appropriate to pump out of the wet well. All of the sludge from the plant gets trucked to the Edwards plant. The sewer plant will be completed no later than December 31, 2003. The applicant will guarantee that. By pumping everyday there is no chance for this to go aromatic. There are also chemicals that can be used to control any aromas. The have already agreed to reduce it to 2,000 gallons per day or eight units. On number 6, Mr. Merry spoke to pumping the waste into one of the main basins. He stated the State recommended they go out of the wet well. Chairman Gallagher questioned where the wet wells were located. Mr. Isom the wet well and lift station are located on blocks 9 and 10. Chairman Gallagher questioned filling the wet well and hauling it every day. Mr. Isom stated it is every day. Chairman Gallagher questioned the float alarm and who would respond. Mr. Isom stated they would set that up to go to the hauler. Commissioner Stone asked what staff thinks about the proposals from the applicant. Mr. Merry stated his biggest concern is the code they follow. The plumbing code states you will not occupy a structure until the infrastructure is complete. He stated he does not feel comfortable with a pump and haul system. Commissioner Stone asked if the Commissioners were to find a way that it would not be setting a precedent, would it be a workable solution. Mr. Merry stated it is as close as it gets. This was the opportunity to have the developer explain the procedure. Commissioner Stone asked ifhe would add anything to the proposed plan, Mr. Merry answered no. Commissioner Menconi asked if the solution was one he would be in favor of. Mr. Merry stated he is not in favor of this proposal. He wants the sewer plant to be complete before there is any occupancy of the homes. Commissioner Menconi asked given all the information heard today, has it changed any of his opinions listed in the letter. Mr. Merry answered no. Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. There was none. Mr. Isom stated there is a contractual obligation from Gould Construction to complete the infrastructure and that is secured by a Letter of Credit. Commissioner Stone stated his major concern is the viability. The applicant wants to run it at the maximum capacity ofthe wet well which leaves very little room for error. His other concern is hauling it every day seven days a week. Chairman Gallagher stated he is also concerned with the pumping and hauling and also about the residences 400 feet down from the wet well. Mr. Isom stated the applicant is willing to reduce the number of units to whatever the Board is comfortable with. Chairman Gallagher asked what level of occupancy would staffbe comfortable with. Mr. Merry answered none until the sewer plant is complete. Commissioner Stone questioned ifthe purpose of the wet well was for a pumping station? It was never intended to be a storage facility, Mr. Merry stated they are designed to be the lowest part of a system. Mr. Isom stated it has a float and when it reaches a certain level it turns the pump on. 5 07-22-2003 Bryan Treu, Assistant County Attorney, stated the appellant rules state all information should be provided to the Board ten days in advance. There are two letters that were provided today. It is appropriate for the Board to consider those as noted for the record. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board will accept the two letters submitted today. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board uphold the decision of Mr. Merry to not allow occupancy of the homes until completion of the sewer plant. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Stone stated if the applicant had individual disposal systems this may have worked. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00043, Elliott Ranch PUD Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDA-00043, Elliott Ranch PUD. He stated the Planning Commission recommends denial based on a lack of sufficient benefit to all property owners within the PUD. Their deliberations included the following: Parking for staff in addition to patrons. Status of contract for fire services with the Town of Vail. Location of nearest fire hydrant.. Events of 90 persons per week, twice a week, are not appropriate. Concern regarding compatibility - 20 patrons would be OK, 50 maximum. Concern regarding expansion of commercial uses and its effect on the neighborhood. Potential problem regarding evacuating this site across narrow bridge while emergency vehicles might be accessing the site. Problem not with the cooking class, but with the larger gatherings. Not within the intent ofthe PUD. Beautiful facilities. From personal experience, parking can be a serious issue. Lodge use is for 12 units, impacts of larger gatherings not anticipated. Letters of support are all for indoor gatherings. Fire issue is a big concern; no further information has been provided from Vail Fire Department. Any gatherings should not exceed the occupancy rating per the Fire Code. Cooking school is a great idea, but there are serious issues regarding gatherings of 90 people throughout the summer. Proposed change is contrary to the PUD Guide. A PUD amendment must benefit all; this one does not. Lack of information provided with this application, e,g., fire protection. Significant difference between family gatherings and commercial gatherings. Mr. Forinash stated this PUD amendment would re-define the "lodge" use on Lot 1. Presently, the lodge is limited to 12 "sleeping units" and "a single kitchen and dining areas and cater to guests of the lodge only". The Applicant is proposing to amend the lodge use to permit up to 25 guests other than lodging guests to be served in a "cooking class", and host up to 90 people in special events such as "Chamber of Commerce business mixers, small corporate or group guest parties, family gatherings and small weddings." The Lodge site is now referred to as the Savory Inn. The chronology ofthe application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1979 - Final plat approved for the Elliott Ranch Subdivision, consisting of five residential lots. Zone change approved from R (Resource) to RSM (Residential Suburban Medium Density). 1989 - PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat approved for Elliott Ranch PUD, consisting of three residentiallots and a lot for a Lodge. Zone change approved from RSM to PUD (Planned Unit Development), 6 07-22-2003 1992 - PUD Guide amended to more specifically define the Lodge lot, Cabin lot and the primary/secondary lots. 1993 - Final plat approved for Lot 3, Elliott Ranch PUD, creating two duplex lots. 2002 - Amended final plat approved which redefined the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineer A portion of the new construction is located in the 100-year flood plain and will require a flood plain permit. Requests a letter from the sanitation district that approves the proposed earth grading and parking in the sewer line easement. Adequate space shall be provided for storage of snow removed from the parking spaces. Adequate snow removal and storage will help to maintain the full depth of each parking space in the winter. Town of Vail Fire Department The load bearing capability of the bridge must be inspected and evaluated to confirm compliance with HS-20 specifications (minimum) and determine capacity. The Black Bear Inn (now known as the Savory Inn) is not within the corporate limits of the Town of Vail and has no contract for fire protection. As such, fire response is subject to availability and per call charges (assuming the bridge is sufficient to carry the loads of fire apparatus). We have no confirmation the kitchen meets minimum standards for commercial application(s). Town of Vail standards would require an approved fire alarm system. Buildings in Vail are currently subject to the fire sprinkler retrofit program. No assessment has been conducted but it appears the building would be required to have a fire sprinkler system installed either retroactively or immediately if it were in the city limits and was subject to a change in use. We did not review the parking configuration to assure adequate fire apparatus access or staging nor for conformance with Town of Vail standards. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federallaw requires that any individual or entity proposing to discharge into waters ofthe United States obtain a Department of the Army permit prior [sic] to commencing such work. Expressed concerns with parking lot impacts within the identified 100-year floodplain as well as any other fill activities conducted within potential waters ofthe United States, including the placement of rip rap in a drainage swale between parking spaces three and four. Other Referrals have been made to Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Ambulance District, and Colorado Department of Transportation. 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)] B 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 does not own all land within the PUD, but does own Lot 1, which is the Lot directly affected by the proposed changes. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. HOWEVER, The Applicant does own Lot 1, which is the Lot directly affected by the proposed changes. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] B The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district 7 07-22-2003 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.3.j., Variations Authorized. A variation to allow the additional uses proposed in this PUD amendment may be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. While it is left to the discretion of the Board to determine when such variations may be appropriate, it may be noted that the proposed mix of commercial and residential uses in close proximity to one another is permitted on only a limited basis in both traditional residential or traditional commercial zone districts. One of the bases for which a variation for a mix of uses in a PUD may be granted is when the Board finds that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD obtains desired design qualities by permitting the integration of mixed uses that allows for greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings. Typically the design of a PUD with such mixed uses is done in a manner in which the various uses enhance one another. Staff finds no such design qualities present in this PUD. As discussed below, a more intensive commercial use in this somewhat constrained PUD may, in fact, be detrimental to the residential property owners. [+/-] 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, a variation of these use designations MAY BE authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] B The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F. 3j, 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, No changes in dimensional limitations are proposed as part ofthis PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensionallimitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] B Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkinf! and Loadinf! Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, O((-Street Parkinf! 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 PUD Guide currently allows a lodge with no more than12 sleeping units, a single kitchen, and common living and dining areas which cater to guests of the lodge only. Twelve parking spaces were provided to accommodate this use. These spaces are arranged so as to require vehicles to back out into Elliott Road, which is private and ends in a cul-de-sac. In addition, the size of the cul-de-sac (35 foot radius) on Elliott Road requires larger delivery vehicles serving the Lodge to be backed away from the Lodge to a location near the bridge to turn around and exit the PUD in forward gear. This parking and traffic arrangement was previously deemed adequate given the limited amount of traffic on this pri vate road. 8 07-22-2003 The Applicant is proposing a much more intensive use ofthe Lodge (now advertised as the Savory Inn) and to add 10 similar parking spaces (for a total of 22 spaces) along the perimeter of Lot 1 up to and into the cul-de-sac. The Land Use Regulations include a standard for a restaurant of 1 parking space per every 4 seats. Larger gatherings of as many as 90 people are contemplated for "Chamber of Commerce business mixers, small corporate or group guest parties, family gatherings and small weddings". Gatherings of more than 50 people are expected to utilize both indoor and outdoor spaces. While the proposed parking essentially meets the strict requirements of Division 4-1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, ofthe Land Use Regulations, being able to accommodate up to 90 guests on this site is highly dependent on guests traveling to the site in groups averaging four per vehicle, or the use of small vans to bring in groups of patrons. Compounding the situation is that the parking standard is based on situations in which all parking is required to be off-street. In this case, all parking is substandard in that departing vehicles must be backed into a narrow road. Consequently, there is a significant potential for conflict related to parking in this constrained, primarily residential neighborhood. [+/-] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The additional parking DOES meet the strict parking requirements of the Land Use Regulations. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] B Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscapinf! and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A site plan that includes landscaping was previously approved for Lot 1 (the Lodge lot), The Site Plan provided with this application depicts additional landscaping improvements beyond what was approved previously, some of which may have already been made by the current and/or a previous owner of the site, However, some of the existing vegetation may need to be removed to provide the additional proposed parking. Some of the existing and proposed improvements are located in the 100-year floodplain. Eagle County Engineering has noted that a flood plain permit would be required for a portion of the new construction proposed in the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has responded with a reminder that certain portions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be applicable on this site, and may require a Department ofthe Army permit prior to commencing such work. The Corps has also expressed concern with parking impacts within the identified 100-year floodplain as well as any other fill activities conducted within potential waters of the United States, including the placement of riprap in a drainage swale between parking spaces 3 and 4. If this PUD amendment were to be approved, the Applicant should be required to demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners [ a] that any necessary permits to construct in the 100-year floodplain have been issued by the Eagle County Engineer; and [b] that any necessary 404 permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, and/or that satisfactory evidence be provided that all previous and proposed improvements on the site have been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. [+] 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. IF the PUD amendment were to be approved, an appropriate condition regarding necessary permits to make improvements in the 100-year floodplain WOULD be necessary. 9 07-22-2003 STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] B The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sifln Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Siflns Allowed in a Planned Unit Develooment (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. No changes in sign standards are being proposed by this PUD amendment. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, fugn Regulations, and in the PUD Control Document currently in effect for Elliott Ranch PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3,e (7)] B 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, or electrical supply, nor will it affect the location in relation to schools, and police protection. However, with the proposed increase in intensity of use -- as many as 90 guests at a time and with referral responses that have called into question the adequacy of fire protection and emergency medical services, and of the bridge providing access to the site, additional attention to these issues is warranted, Vail Fire and Emergency Services has noted that the Savory Inn on the Lodge lot, formerly known as the Black Bear Inn, is not within the corporate limits ofthe Town of Vail and has no contract for fire protection. As such fire response is subject to availability and per call charges. The Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist has conducted a Wildfire Hazard Rating for the site, and has determined the Hazard Rating to be HIGH. Due to the proximity ofthe subject property to an adjacent, heavily timbered, steep hillside, there is little that can be done to help mitigate the wildfire hazard. One possible exception would be for the applicant to work with Vail Fire and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District to determine the optimum location of a water hydrant for fire fighting purposes, and make necessary improvements. Vail Fire has also noted that it has not reviewed the parking configuration to assure adequate fire apparatus access or staging for conformance to Town of Vail standards. In addition, Vail Fire has indicated there may be some question as to whether the bridge providing the only access to the PUD is sufficient to carry the loads of fire apparatus, However, the file for the initial PUD Preliminary Plan in 1989 (File No. PS-281-S/P) contains a letter dated in 1983 from a structural engineer indicating that the bridge was designed to meet the HS-20 type truck loading requirements. Vail Fire would need to determine whether this standard is sufficient for existing equipment. If this PUD amendment were to be approved, the Applicant should be required to demonstrate within 60 days of approval of this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners that a contract for fire service has been executed with the Town of Vail Fire and Emergency Services, and that any required improvements have been or will be made in a timely manner. [+/-] 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 for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, and electrical supply, and roads; and will be conveniently located in relation to schools and police protection, However, IF the PUD amendment were to be approved, an appropriate condition regarding a contract for fire services WOULD be necessary to provide adequate facilities for fire protection and emergency medical services. 10 07-22-2003 STANDARD: Improvements, [Section 5-240,F.3.e (8)] B 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 (J) 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 referral response from Vail Fire and Emergency Services has raised a question regarding the adequacy of the bridge, the only access to the site, to carry the loads of fire apparatus. If this PUD amendment were to be approved, the Applicant should be required to demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners that a contract for fire service has been executed with the Town of Vail Fire and Emergency Services, and that any required improvements have been or will be made in a timely manner. [+] 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 ofthe Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: safe, efficient access; internal pathways; principal access points; and snow storage. IF the PUD amendment were to be approved, an appropriate condition regarding a contract for fire services WOULD be necessary to provide adequate improvements for fire protection and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240,F.3.e (9)] B The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved initially to include four residentiallots and a Lodge with the number of patrons limited to those occupying the guest rooms. It was determined at the time that the development was compatible with other development in the area. An artist studio is permitted as an accessory use on Lot 4, also known as the "Elliott Cabin Lot", if such a use is approved by adjacent property owners of Lots 1,2 and 3. The artist studio is now an existing use on Lot 4. Staff notes that the uses currently allowed in the Lodge are more intensive than would be the case if it were a traditional bed and breakfast. A traditional bed and breakfast is an allowed use by 11 07-22-2003 Special Use Permit in certain traditional residential zone districts, with a number of restrictions including the following: bed and breakfast uses are limited to 6 guest accommodation units and are required to be secondary and incidental to the primary residential use, and the operator must live on premIses. The proposed increase in intensity of use of the Lodge has resulted in concerns raised by adjacent property owners within the PUD, including parking, the presence of an establishment serving alcoholic beverages in a residential neighborhood, increased traffic in a residential neighborhood where children reside or may reside, impacts in the floodplain, deterioration of the road, loss of privacy, and increased noise. Due to the close proximity ofthe adjacent residential lots and potentially significant adverse impacts, the proposed amendment to the PUD would allow uses that are not compatible with the surrounding land uses within the PUD. [-] 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. HOWEVER, the proposed PUD Amendment WILL permit uses that ARE NOT compatible with the character of surrounding land uses within the Planned Unit Development. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] B The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The PUD was previously determined to be consistent with the Master Plan including, but not limited to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The following analysis with respect to the Master PIan and the FLUM applies only to the changes proposed in the PUD Amendment, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Spacel Housing SerVices Recreation Conformance X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN land Use Open Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Space Preservation Quality Patterns Provision Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X X X Applicable 12 07-22-2003 EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation LandiUse Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue. Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master pIan. 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 10cal residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs. POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to X address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by X local residents and workers in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job X 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further X addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units X for local residents 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents X housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where 13 07-22-2003 ITEM YES NO N/A feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are X encouraged 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s X housing stock 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. X Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue 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 Master Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] 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)] B The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the P UD 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 required for 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)] B 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 14 07-22-2003 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 Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (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 of these amenities. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been determined that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval ofthe Preliminary PIan 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)] B The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations ofreferral 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. This proposed PUD amendment has resulted in referral responses indicating that adverse impacts may occur as a result of certain proposed parking and landscaping improvements. Some of the existing and proposed parking and landscape improvements are located in the 100- year floodplain. Eagle County Engineering has noted that a flood plain permit would be required for a portion of the new construction proposed in the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers has responded with a reminder that certain portions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be applicable on this site, and may require a Department ofthe Army permit prior to commencing such work. The Corps has also expressed concern with parking impacts within the identified 100-year floodplain as well as any other fill activities conducted within potential waters of the United States, including the placement of riprap in a drainage swale between parking spaces 3 and 4. If this PUD amendment were to be approved, the Applicant should be required to demonstrate within 60 days of approval of this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners [ a] that any necessary permits to construct in the 100-year floodplain have been issued by the Eagle County Engineer; and [b] that any necessary 404 permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, and/or that satisfactory evidence be provided that all previous and proposed improvements on the site have been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. [+/-] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] 15 07-22-2003 It HAS previously been determined that applicable analysis documents were adequately considered prior to approval ofthe Preliminary Plan for the PUD. IF the PUD amendment were to be approved, an appropriate condition regarding necessary permits to make improvements in the 100- year floodplain WOULD be necessary. 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)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3,e (1)] 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: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] 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 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 consistent with the provisions of Article 3, Zone Districts, of the current Land Use Regulations. Article 4, Site Development Standards Issues have previously been identified with respect to parking [see discussions under Off-Street Parking and Loading, Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)]; construction in the 100- year floodplain [see discussions under Landscaping, Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) and Natural Resource Protection, Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]; fire protection [see discussions under Adequate Facilities, Section 5-240.F.3.e (7), and Improvements, Section 5-240.F.3.e (8), above]. If this PUD amendment were to be approved, appropriate conditions regarding these issues would be necessary. [+] 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. If this PUD amendment were to be approved, appropriate conditions related to certain provisions of Article 4, Site Development Standards, WOULD be necessary. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have 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. 16 07-22-2003 [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] 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 affect the spatial patterns in the area. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B 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 as approved. For the reasons discussed elsewhere in this staff report, it is not suitable for the more intensive commercial uses proposed as part of this PUD Amendment. [-] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been determined that the site was suitable for development. HOWEVER, the property is NOT suitable for the more intensive commercial uses being proposed. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3,e (5)] B 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 Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved initially approved to include four residentiallots and a Lodge with the number of patrons limited to those occupying the guest rooms. It was determined at the time that the development was compatible with other development in the area. An artist studio is permitted as an accessory use on Lot 4, also known as the "Elliott Cabin Lot", if such a use is approved by adjacent property owners of Lots 1,2 and 3. The artist studio is now an existing use on Lot 4. Staff notes that the uses currently allowed in the Lodge are more intensive than would be the case if it were a traditional bed and breakfast. A traditional bed and breakfast is an allowed use by Special Use Permit in certain traditional residential zone districts, with a number of restrictions including the following: bed and breakfast uses are limited to 6 guest accommodation units and are required to be secondary and incidental to the primary residential use, and the operator must live on premises. The proposed increase in intensity of use ofthe Lodge has resulted in concerns raised by adjacent property owners within the PUD, including parking, the presence of an establishment serving alcoholic beverages in a residential neighborhood, increased traffic in a residential neighborhood where children reside or may reside, impacts in the floodplain, deterioration of the road, 10ss of privacy, and increased noise. The constrained nature ofthe PUD, including the nature of Elliott Road, the close proximity of the adjacent residential lots, and limited space to expand parking, the proposed amendments to the PUD would allow uses that are not compatible with the surrounding land uses within the PUD. [-] 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 adversely affect the compatibility ofthe resulting development with surrounding uses within the PUD. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation]: "Applicant shall submit the following: Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions.@ A proposed amended definition of the definition of "Lodge" has been provided as part of the application. This is the only revision proposed to the PUD Guide. The proposed definition for "Lodge" is as follows (striking over deleted words and showing added words in bold): A building designated, intended or used for accommodations of guests, for operation of a cooking school, and for hosting events and functions where the number of attendees shall not exceed 90, all for compensation, and in which no provision shall be made for cooking in individual rooms. The lodge shall have a single kitchen with common living and dining areas and cater to guests of the 10dge, clients of the cooking school, and attendees of such events and functions only. No time-share or fractional fee estates shall be allowed. The maximum floor area of the structure shall not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. (If a caretaker's unit is included, it viill exist in one ofthe tweh'e units.) 17 07-22-2003 If this PUD amendment were to be approved, the phrase "If a caretaker's unit is included, it will exist in one of the twelve units" should be retained as part of the definition of the Lodge. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS NOT submitted a PUD Guide which incorporates the necessary revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment HOWEVER, the requirements of this Section may be fully met by the Applicant providing an appropriately revised PUD Guide. 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.] B 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, For reasons cited above regarding compatibility ofthe proposed uses constituting a full commercial operation in a residential neighborhood, including the presence of a commercial establishment serving alcoholic beverages and increased traffic in a residential neighborhood where children reside or may reside, loss of privacy and increased noise, the proposed modification of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD is not consistent with the preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, nor is it in the public interest to allow such a mix of uses. Further, allowing the more intensive commercial uses on Lot 1, to the detriment of the owners of the residential properties in the immediate vicinity, would confer a special benefit on the owner of Lot 1 without a corresponding benefit to other property owners within the PUD. [-] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS NOT consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES 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 granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Attached (inter alia) is a letter recently received from Knight Planning Services, Inc., with proposed revisions to the PUD amendment, along with a revised site plan that reflects the proposed site changes. Staff provides the following comments: 1. Changes to the Planned Unit Development Control Document The Applicant proposes to reduce the maximum size of the Special Events at the Lodge from 90 to 70 people. The proposed amended definition of the Lodge would limit cooking classes to a maximum of 20 participants, and cooking demonstrations to a maximum of 50 participants. Special events would be limited to two per week, and catering to more than 50 people only be scheduled between 15 June and 15 September, All outside activity would be terminated at 10:00 P.M. Staff notes that as proposed, in addition to the 70 people that would be permitted for special events, occupants ofthe 12 rooms in the Lodge would also have to be accommodated on the site. 2. Improvements to Elliott Ranch Road Certain improvements to Elliott Ranch Road (more properly known as Elliott Road), including paving and speed limit signs, are proposed both north and south of the bridge. It should be noted that the road north ofthe bridge is in the 1-70 right-of-way, and that any improvements and/or signs in that right- of-way would need to be coordinated and approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). If the Board is inclined to approve this PUD Amendment in a form that includes the proposed improvements in the 1-70 right-of-way, Staff suggests that CDOT approval be required before final action by the Board, 3. (sic) Improvements to the Lodge Property 18 07-22-2003 The Applicant proposes to pave all parking spaces and create positive drainage from the parking spaces such that run-off is managed on-site. It has not been clearly demonstrated how run-off from the parking areas and the snow storage areas will be managed to prevent pollutants from entering Gore Creek. Eagle County Engineering has noted that certain information and features have been omitted from the revised site plan, including clarification of responsibility for maintenance of improvements, a drainage swale for parking spaces 13 and 14, and certain drainage detail. In addition, landscaping is proposed along the westerly side of the Lodge site. The revised site pIan does not reflect any additional landscaping in this location. Nor has Staff received an estimate of the cost of any landscape improvements. 4. Management Practices Certain "management practices" are proposed, apparently intended to reduce impacts, including: [a] The Applicant proposes limiting on-site parking to 24 vehicles. Alternative transportation would be the use of a van or valet parking. Staff notes that only 22 parking spaces are proposed in the site pIan, and that valet parking seems impractical, since a convenient valet parking lot does not appear to exist. [b] The Applicant proposes limiting certain ofthe parking spaces (Nos. 8, 9 and 10) to be used only as a last resort. Staff notes that parking spaces No.8, 9 and 10 are prime parking spaces, and unless the Applicant has a staff person directing arriving vehicles to certain parking spots, they would likely be occupied first. 5. Agreement for Fire Services The Applicant has provided a draft agreement (copy attached) with the Town of Vail that is under review by the Applicant and the Town. 6. Revised PUD Guide The Applicant has provided a revised PUD Guide that incorporates a definition of the Lodge as that use has been proposed. In addition, the revised PUD Guide includes certain provisions regarding how snow on the site is to be plowed. The latter provisions regarding snow removal are appropriate neither as zoning provisions nor as provisions subject to enforcement by Eagle County. Such provisions are more appropriate for private covenants. Mr. Forinash stated if the Board is inclined to consider approving an amendment to the PUD, Staff offers below certain revised conditions of approval for consideration. The revised conditions of approval offered for consideration are as set forth in the Staff Report except as noted, with deletions indicated by strike tlKough and additions by bold lettering). 1. The operator of the Lodge shall ensure that the parking of all vehicles of patrons of the Lodge be limited to the on-site parking spaces and, if necessary, appropriate parking areas further removed from the site, and not be allowed to occur on Elliott Road, the nearby Frontage Road or the drive from the Frontage Road to the site. Further, if in the judgment of the Director of Community Development, parking other than in the spaces provided on-site violates the foregoing condition and becomes a problem in the area, the Director of Community Development may require and the operator shall provide in a timely manner a written pIan to resolve any parking related violations and/or conflicts. If parking violations and/or conflicts persist, the Director of Community Development may, in his sole discretion, schedule the matter before the Board of County Commissioners as a potential violation of the conditions of approval of the PUD amendment. The Board of County Commissioners may impose any additional conditions of approval that it deems appropriate. 2. The Applicant shall demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners [ a] that any necessary permits to construct in the 100-year floodplain have been issued by the Eagle County Engineer; and [b] that any necessary 404 permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, and/or that satisfactory evidence be provided that all previous and proposed improvements on the site have been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, if any variation occurs between the approved site pIan and that permitted under any requirements imposed as a result of either a permit to construct in the 100-year floodplain or any Army 19 07-22-2003 Corps of Engineers permit, the Director of Community Development shall determine either that the resulting revised site plan is substantially consistent with the site plan and applicable conditions approved as part of this PUD amendment, or shall refer the revised site plan to the Board of County Commissioners for further review. 3. The Applicant shall demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners that a contract for fire service has been executed with the Town of Vail Fire and Emergency Services, and that any required improvements have been or will be made in a timely manner. 4. A road impact fee as prescribed in Section 4-710, Road Impact Fees, of the Land Use Regulations shall be paid '..vithin 30 days of approval of prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment. 5. A complete amended and restated PUD Guide shall be provided within two weeks of approval of the PUD amendment that includes in the definition of the Lodge the sentence "If a caretaker's unit is included, it will exist in one ofthe twelve units." [This condition was included in the Staff Report, but has been met in the Applicant's current revision.] 6. Prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide, a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer, [ a] a site plan that shows all required engineering detail, and demonstrates that on-site drainage on Lot 1 will be properly managed, including run-off from the parking areas and the snow storage areas; and [b] sufficient information regarding on-going maintenance of proposed improvements. 7. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County Commissioners, a revised site plan which depicts all proposed and approved landscaping on Lot 1. 8. Proposed provisions in the revised PUD Guide, describing how snow is to be removed from Elliott Road and where it is to be stored, shall be deleted. 9. 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. The following attachments are included in the staff report for the Board's consideration: Letter from Knight Planning Services, Inc., dated 11 July 2003 Revised Site Plan for Lot 1 dated 26 February 2003, last updated 16 July 2003 Memo from Eagle County Engineering dated 17 July 2003 in response to the Applicant's correspondence and site plan Current PUD Guide for Elliott Ranch Planned Unit Development Revised PUD Guide Draft Town ofVail Agreement for Fire Protection Services Letter from Knight Planning Services, Inc., dated 10 July 2003 to Steven Zorichak Letter from Knight Planning Services, Inc., dated 10 July 2003, with attachment (marked letter from Nancy Hassett dated 10 June 2003 previously provided to the Board) Letter from Dana Weber dated 18 June 2003 Letter from Jessie Edeen dated 16 July 2003 Letter from Jim Kleckner dated 17 July 2003 Commissioner Stone questioned the changes from the current PUD. Mr. Forinash explained those changes from the Board, Chairman Gallagher asked what is currently allowed at this establishment. Mr. Forinash replied 12 guests rooms, a common kitchen and a common living area. No one other that guests of the lodge are allowed to use the living area. Commissioner Stone asked if staff had researched the history of this file. Mr. Forinash stated he did not research whether there was a request to expand. 20 07-22-2003 Commissioner Stone asked about the Town of Vail and ifthey have the ability to have anything like this operation. He wondered whether the use was allowed in the Town of Vail. Mr, Forinash pictures of the site and the proposed changes. Dan Wolf, Attorney representing the applicant, was present and introduced the owner, Nancy Hassett and Tom Boni, Knight Planning. He stated they are present to try and amend the PUD, to explicitly recognize two closely related uses of the lodge. One is to host cooking classes and special events. They have included a number of restrictions and limitations on these proposed uses. He stated there is a history of special events being held at this establishment for several years. As far as the cooking classes go, there has been wide support for these classes. He stated he takes issues with staff saying these two issues were prohibited. This is not a restaurant and the public will not be able to come in and order a drink and get dinner. This PUD has always been a mixed use neighborhood. Currently 1/3 of the properties in the PUD have accessory uses. The lodge was going to be the focal point ofthis PUD. This lodge was never a home. It is not a B & B but rather a commerciallodge with a commercial kitchen. In the Board's packets is a letter from Jessie Eden indicating this has been the use ofthe neighborhood. In 1992 the pUD was amended to permit an artist studio which continues to operate as a showroom. This lodge pre-dates all the current neighbors. He stated there has been an effort to meet all the concerns ofthe neighbors. He stated the demands that are not unreasonable they have tried to meet. Some of the issues that have been raised are concerns with their ability to back out of their driveway, They decided to make the parking spaces on that side the last resort for parking. They have agreed to some very specific requirements of snow plowing. They heard concerns about Elliott Road. The have agreed to pave the approaches to the bridge. They will provide alternative transportation once the parking is full. There will be no outside events after 10:00 p.m. The proposal in front ofthe Board will benefit the County as a who Ie. It is important to the viability of the Lodge. If the PUD is not approved, a number of the proposed benefits will be lost. There are numerous letters of support of this operation. It will continue to create and maintain jobs for this County. They believe this will be a benefit to the County as a whole. Mr. Boni stated there has been a change of ownership for this property. As times and owners change, their business plans have changed. Things do not stay the same. He showed slides of the inside and outside of the Savory Inn. He spoke about parking and the drainage improvements. He stated this was never intended to be a Bed and Breakfast. It was always intended to be a Lodge. Mr. Boni spoke about the cooking classes and explained that they have been reduced to 20. They would like to add language into the PUD Guide to limit the use of the special function to no more than 70 people. Commissioner Stone asked about the number of patrons. Mr. Boni stated the change was in the special events from 90 patrons to 70 patrons. The cooking classes went from 25 to 20 participants. He reviewed the proposed improvements to the PUD this applicant will do. He stated they believe a positive finding can be made with the clarification of the open ended aspects of the PUD and they are improving specific portions ofthe site that will benefit the entire community. An undercurrent to this is to insure the success of the 10dge. They believe the applicant is very responsible to keep the lodge at a high level of operation and appearance. He stated they are doing their best to tailor the PUD to the economy so that this current owner can continue to operate the 10dge. Ms. Hassett stated she is a new business owner in Vail and purchased the 10dge with the intention of having cooking classes in the 10dge. She stated she was enthusiastic and thought it would be perfect to bring cooking classes to the Inn. It was not her intention to ever be open to the public but rather run the lodge and have cooking classes. No one can just stop by and have a drink. They never have overlapping events. Their kitchen is not big enough. It is one event at a time. They are finding more and more that these events must stay small. She stated two weeks ago she had committed to a wedding rehearsal dinner for 75 people which ballooned to 125 people. There were no problems except for parking, She stated the events are every other week. The Vail SYmposium would like to do a brunch. 21 07-22-2003 She stated she wants to be a member of the community and does invite the neighbors over for special functions. She stated she is working hard to solve as many problems as she can. She stated she employs between 12 or 14 people. Chairman Gallagher asked for the number allowed at a cooking demonstrations. Ms. Hassett stated she would keep the cooking demonstrations to 30. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was an agreement with the other neighbors in the PUD. Ms. Hassett stated 30 is sufficient for a cooking demonstration. Chairman Gallagher related the rules for public input for all those present who wanted to speak. It would be beneficial that if there is duplicate information the speakers could simply agree with the others who spoke previously. Greg Strahan, Vail Property Brokers, stated he has known Nancy Hassett for a number of years and knows her to be a person of integrity, vision, creativity and of concern for others. He stated for the good of Eagle County, this Lodge is an innovative use and it is quite an interesting use to offer the guests. This kind of activity will bring in groups for conferences. The applicant is willing to improve infrastructure and increase parking. He stated he is in favor of the applicant's request. David Sanchez, Executive Chef at Allie's Cabin in Beaver Creek, stated he has had the opportunity to teach classes at the Savory Inn and does not know if there is another place like this. He requested the Board approve this amendment application. Jennifer Sage, personal trainer and massage therapist, stated she has been at the Savory Inn as a guest ofthe cooking class, had her wedding at the Savory Inn, and as a service provider. She stated there have been elegant events in which the parking was not an issue. She stated this is an outstanding establishment and is run very well. Linda Lomax, resident of Eagle County, stated she has known Ms. Hassett for quite a while and knows the heart and dedication she has placed in this establishment. She spoke to those who attend cooking schools and sees this as an amenity to the community. She stated they are looking to have destination people visit this valley. She stated this is a great addition to the valley. Bill Aultman, business owner in the Vail Valley, stated Vail needs creative and inspired businesses, While this establishment is not in the Town of Vail it is in the Vail Valley. She stated they need a lot of charm and those businesses that attract the high end individuals. He stated bringing in people to the Lodge means they will be spending money in the Village. He stated in looking at what she has done with the 10dge and how she is working with her clients and with the people in the community, he can guarantee the Board everything will be top notch and above board. Bill Suarez, Billy's Island Grill, stated from a ski school aspect, some of his clients have 10ved the Savory Inn, As a business owner they are going through a tough time. The uniqueness is provided by the Savory Inn. He stated Ms. Hassett does an outstanding job with the Inn. The response has been overwhelming. He asked within reason, the Commissioners be reasonable in answering these requests as they have an applicant who is trying to do the very best. Burch Mollett, area resident, stated he took wine and food experts all over the world. He stated he has watched how Ms. Hassett treats her clients. When there are people that are skiing and their partners do not have anything to do, they could attend a cooking class. Pat Johnson, area resident, stated the opposition is probably about parking, snow plowing, dumpsters and trash. If the Board defines the rules they can get the neighbors together with the applicant and have an excellent establishment. Carol Thayer, area resident, stated she came to the area to help Ms. Hassett with the Inn. She stated she cannot tell them how many people call from all over the Country wanting to cook at the Inn. There are numerous people who want to keep coming back for cooking class after cooking class. She urged the Board to approve the request. Karla Sjogren, area resident, stated she has watched the area grow and was excited with something new coming to the area, She spoke to limiting the number of guests at a wedding and what a 22 07-22-2003 shame to have to do that. She stated the Town needs the shopping and the guests in this valley. Something new and exciting means change and that seems to be the problem. Gail Molloy, owner of Overland and Express Travel, stated they are worried about the Vail economy. She stated she has used the Savory Inn and is afraid that a 40 room 10dge is economically viable. You really do need other businesses to make this a viable lodge. She stated if this is not allowed the viability would decrease. Marilyn Heaney, area resident, stated she is extremely supportive of having the cooking school. She believes it is a great addition to this valley. She stated she is 100king forward to attending classes. Susan Bird, area resident, real estate management company, stated she has known that area to be operated as a commercial area.. She stated this is a different area. It has no negative effects. It lends itself as a commercial space. She stated she works for Vail Associates one day a week where they are looking for something else to do besides ski. One of the problems in this community is the lack of things to do. She urged the Board to approve the request. Susan Mitchell, Mitchell and Associates, stated when she does marketing she first finds out what their visions are for the business. She stated Ms. Hassett wants her lodge to be elegant and intimate. She stated she was happy to take her on as a client as she thought this would be a great addition to the Valley. Jessie Edeen, original owner of the Inn, stated it has always been run as an Inn and the maximum number of guests they ever had was approximately 36. She stated she sold in July and the existing parking had always been there. She stated she does not have a problem with the cooking classes. The parking has to be expanded. The number of people have been reduced. There has to be a limit on the number of people. There is no reason the neighbors have to be inconvenienced. She stated they must work together. Outside areas must be delineated and separated, This can be done very well and can enhance the area, It is not much different than what was there before. She stated they had events when they owned the lodge. Sally McNutt, area resident, showed pictures of the area, semis delivering food or alcohol, parking and trash problems. She spoke to the parking problems and the trash problems. She stated it was not standard practice to have special functions at the Inn. The neighbors have been asked to compromise their homes so Ms. Hassett can be happy. The integrity of the neighborhood and their home has been compromised. Jerry Stevens, area resident, stated he purchased his home prior to Ms. Hassett purchasing the Inn. Despite the applicants saying what they are going to do, there is no question that the impacts on their homes and on the neighborhood has been detrimental. He stated he agrees with the staff and the Planning Commission with their recommendation of denial. The parking has always been an issue. He appreciates the support Ms. Hassett has from her friends but the current owners have had the advantage. He spoke to the severe traffic problem and the problem the fire department will have getting to this property. Steve Zorichak, area resident, spoke to the community being commercial. He stated the previous Board of Commissioners were happy that his business would not be commercial in nature and there would not be a restaurant on the site. He stated there were many items in the record, 1) denial by the Planning Commission and the staff, because this is a residential area, He stated an Attorney wrote an opinion that all zoning laws were thrown out the window. He presented a map to the Board showing the areas that the applicant gathered signatures on her petition for her liquor license. He related there were no neighbors that signed this petition. He stated the people that are in support of this applicant are in like businesses. He stated 30 supporters say this will be great and the applicant says it will not destroy the neighborhood. However the residents feel differently. Ty Gillespie, stated he observed that Ms. Hassett has done a good job with the Inn and he believes with some rules and regulations there could be a solution. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. 23 07-22-2003 Chairman Gallagher spoke to the comments concerning the special events. He wondered if it was the cooking class and the Inn, ifthat would be acceptable, eliminating the special events. Ms. McNutt stated 30 people sounds acceptable. Mr. Stevens stated he does not know if 30 at a class, 14 staff and a fulllodge is acceptable. Parking is definitely a problem. Mr. Zorichak stated he did not have a problem with any of the Edeens functions, weddings, birthdays, they were parties and not commercial ventures. Ifthe people know the area, they park on the Frontage Road. If management of the Inn is good the special events will be good. Chairman Gallagher asked about dialog with the neighbors. Ms. Hassett stated the picture has been painted that she has not tried to speak with the neighbors and that is not true, She stated Mr. Boni has met with Mr. Zorichak numerous times to try and work things out. One event and one semi are not how she runs her business. Mr. Stevens stated he had not been to a function at the Savory Inn. Commissioner Menconi asked what is the difference in what was going on prior to Ms. Hassett's ownership, special events? Mr. Forinash stated special events are not allowed. Commissioner Menconi stated he hears that special events were held in the past. Mr. Forinash stated those were illegal events. Commissioner Menconi stated so anyone outside of a guest of the lodge would be an expansion to the PUD. Mr. Forinash stated there may be an expansion over what has occurred in the past and also in the frequency of what has occurred. Mr. Boni stated he sees a distinction in what has been previously approved and what has happened and it revolves around the cooking class and the cooking demonstrations. He stated he and Mr. Forinash differ on the "special events". He stated he believes they are an accessory use to the lodge. Ms. Edeen stated they had very large parties at the Inn. She stated they were allowed to have food for the guest purposes, They did events, weddings, etc., purely commercial events. In those events they insisted the applicant book the entire Inn. Commissioner Menconi asked if they had separate events with different guests than what was staying at the Inn. Ms. Edeen stated it was a requirement that if someone wanted a wedding there they had to book the entire Inn, Commissioner Menconi asked if the current owner was planning on having events that are not coupled with the guests at the Inn. Ms. Hassett stated that they are. She stated that it has been a leaming period for her. If they have an event of approximately 60 people, they must stay at the Inn. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Edeen her perspective on this matter. Ms, Edeen stated Ms. Hassett is doing her best and it is a learning curve. The parking is an issue and has to be addressed. Commissioner Stone asked how they handled parking. Ms. Edeen stated there is parking in the front of the building that will hold three cars. There was also parking on Lot 2, which she also owns. In the winter, people generally do not bring cars. Commissioner Menconi asked about parking requirements. Peter Fritch, Engineering Department, stated the County requirement is one space per unit. Commissioner Menconi asked about employee parking. Mr. Forinash stated the standards just require the one space per unit and does not account for employees. Chairman Gallagher asked about the dining space. Ms. Hassett stated they can seat 50 comfortably. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. McNutt how long she had lived in her home. 24 07-22-2003 Ms. McNutt answered seven years. Commissioner Menconi asked about the difference in the use between when the Edeens owned it and the current owner, Ms, McNutt stated Ms. Hassett is asking for two large events per week during the summer. She stated when the Edeens owned the Inn it was run as and Inn and they did not have the cooking school. The traffic has increased a lot. Commissioner Menconi asked about the special events, Ms. McNutt stated those are what she is objecting to. Commissioner Menconi asked about only on site parking and no delivering trucks. Ms. McNutt stated she believes the best way is to limit the number of people. Commissioner Stone stated he appreciated all the personal testimony that was given. He stated when making decision on changing a PUD Guide, he takes the personalities out of it. His view on this is more technical and does not include the personality of the owner. He spoke to the fire departments and the rating of the bridge. He stated the problem seems to be special events and perhaps there can be some kind of agreement about the delivery trucks. He spoke to the trash containers being bear proof. Ms, Edeen stated the bridge is rated a Highway bridge and anything can go over it. Chairman Gallagher stated he understands the applicant has an agreement with the Vail Fire Department. He stated the neighbors issues seem to be centered around control. What happens outside has an impact on the neighbors. The applicant's idea of adding parking up to 22 spaces is good, but believes some ofthe spaces need to be enlarged. He is looking for no activity of the lodge to involve on- street parking. If Elliott Road is posted "no on-street parking" do all the neighbors have enough parking. If the bridge cannot hold large vehicles they should not be allowed on the bridge. Chairman Gallagher asked about the accessory uses, Mr. Forinash read from the Land Use Regulations. He stated staffbelieves the principal use in this case is not a 10dge but rather a narrow use that is defined in the PUD Guide. They believe that the special functions are not an accessory use. Chairman Gallagher stated there needs to be dialog with the neighbors to see if they can come up with suitable restrictions and arrangements that most everyone can agree on. Commissioner Menconi thanked everyone for coming to the hearing. He stated the testimony heard today is very valid. He has known some of the neighbors for a 10ng period of time and they have very valid concerns. They are very close to making this work. He stated the idea of accessory use is up for debate. It seems that the most important point that was brought out was not what was going on but who owned the property. Commissioner Stone moved to table file number PDA-00043, Elliott Ranch PUD Amendment, to August 19,2003, at the applicant's request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUF-00008, Lot 10.2, New York Mountain Project Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number SUF-00008, Lot 10.2 New York Mountain Project. She stated Lot 10.2 of the New York Mountain Project was originally platted and re-zoned from Resource (minimum 35 acres) to Resource Limited (minimum 20 acres) as part of a cluster subdivision in 1985. In April of2003, the applicants obtained approval for a Subdivision Sketch and Preliminary Plan, as well as a Zone Change, to incorporate an additional, 3.346 acres of unplatted land, within Lot 10.2 of the New York Mountain Project. The intent of this plat is to redefine Lot 10.2 New York Mountain Project, incorporating the additiona13.346-acre portion ofland. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) This final plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for subdivision. (2) Required improvements ARE adequate. 25 07-22-2003 (3) Areas dedicated for public use and easements ARE acceptable and; Pursuant to Sections 5-280.B.3.e. ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master PIan and the Future Land Use Map ofthe Master Plan. No new development above and beyond what is already allowed is proposed as part of this application. As such, the proposal is not inconsistent with any of the applicable master plans (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES 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. No new development above and beyond what is already allowed is proposed as part of this application. (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS 10cated and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. No new development above and beyond what is already allowed is proposed as part of this application. The sole purpose of the previously approved Sketch and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision was to incorporate additional acreage into an existing lot. a. Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service pIan or shall be required prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. There are no proposed road extensions with this subdivision, as all improvements have been established as part of the original New York Mountain Project. b. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption, which would occur if under-sized lines had to be upgraded. c. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. All necessary utilities presently serve this lot. d. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, as well as existing and probable future public improvements to the area. No new development above and beyond what is already allowed is proposed as part of this application. e. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Steve Wojeck, representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated they are adding three acres of open space to their lot. There will be no increase in density. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none, He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. SUF-00008, Lot 10.2, New York Mountain Project, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the Plat. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous, Commissioner Stone was not present at this time. 5MB-00308, Highland Meadows, Filing 2, Lot 15 Joe Forinash presented file number 5MB-00308, Highland Meadows, Filing 2, Lot 15. He stated this was a minor subdivision to subdivide Lot 15, Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing 2, into two lots, each of which may have one single family dwelling, This lot, in its current configuration, was originally intended to accommodate a duplex structure. The existing zoning allows single-family 26 07-22-2003 residences as a use by right and the existing lot contains sufficient area to satisfy minimum lot size requirements for two separate single-family residentiallots, Staff findings are as shown on staffreport and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations the Community Development Director has determined the following in the review of this Type B Minor Subdivision: a. Access, Water and Sewage. The access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided IS adequate; b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The subdivision IS in conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. Improvements Agreements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement is NOT applicable to this application. Notices have been mailed to Elie and Heidi Ouaknine, A. Luc Pols, Chizmadia Family Partnership LLP, James and Bonnie D' Aquila, Antonio Roig Ferre, Phillipe and Ellyn Courtois, James and Kathleen Mestl, Richard Young, and Phillip and Pamela Ruschmeyer. A letter from Richard Rosen, Esq" representing James and Kathleen Mestl, objecting to the proposed subdivision, has been received and is attached. Chairman Gallagher asked about the driveways for the lots. Mr. Forinash stated Lot 15A will share the drive but the owner and the developer will have to come up with a solution for Lot 15B. Chairman Gallagher stated he had concerns with subdividing and saying that access is adequate when they do not know what the access is. Mr. Forinash stated what they have taken the access to mean is to a public or private road rather than evaluating each driveway. Chairman Gallagher stated as they look at the plat, the driveway access from the westerly portion of Lot 15 could be in conflict with a section of the road. Mary LaBond, Slifer, Smith & Framption, stated she is here representing the applicant. She related a duplex site will take all of the trees offthe 10ts. She related she had no comments on access. Felipe Curton, area resident, stated he lives one lot down from this 101. He related subdivision of this lot goes against the Master Plan. He stated he has letters from the different owners in the immediate area who are impacted from the drainage of this lot. He stated the lot on the left center and it has had major drainage problems. Part of the lot slid down the hill. Chairman Gallagher stated it has been recommended by staff that the applicant request a tabling until staff can visit the site and look at access, Ms. LaBond requested this matter be tabled, Commissioner Menconi moved the Board table File No, 5MB-00308, Highland Meadows, Filing 2, Lot 15 to August 12,2003, at the applicant's request. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Helen Migchelbrink asked if the applicants to stake the corners of the proposed 10ts. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until July 29,2003. Attest: Clerk to the Boar 27 07-22-2003