No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/30/03 PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Teak J. Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board These being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Commissioner Menconi is absent and is participating in Philanthropy Days. Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first item before the Board is an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and providing direction concerning negotiation of lease exhibits for lease between County and Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District and for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning the Eagle Park Reservoir Company and the County's shareholder status as well as for purposes of receiving legal advice concerning funding of Bair Ranch Conservation Easement which are appropriate topics pursuant to CRS. 24-6-40294) (b) (c) and(e). Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unarumous. It was agreed that the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District should occur on the record during weekly update so no discussion was had on this topic during executive session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meetmg. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unammous 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 September 29, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for October 2,2003, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of September 9,2003 D) Resolution 2003-121, approving the Deed Restriction Agreement for the occupancy and resale of Miller Ranch Housing and Miller Ranch Housing Guidelines E) First Amendment to the Agreement for wildfire hazard assessment and mapping services between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and Dynamac Corporation F) Resolution 2003-122, approving the form General Warranty Deed, form Partial Release of Property from Land Lease and Option Agreement, and form Memorandum of Acceptance of Deed Restriction Agreement for the occupancy and resale of Miller Ranch Housing G) Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Gallegos Corporation / Hillcara, LLC, for vacant lot at 882 Chambers Road, Eagle, Colorado 1 September 30, 2003 H) Agreement between Eagle County and B. Sandrina Laroche I) A VI Maintenance Agreement J) Contract Agreement for improvements to the Eagle County Regional Airport AIP Project No. 3-08-2-35. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated there is one point of clarification with regards to Item I, the A VI Maintenance Agreement. The on site service rate is $115.00 per hour plus travel expenses. She has been advised that the likelihood for travel is limited. John Denardo, Director oflnformation Technology, informed the Board that the standard contract is 24/7 support and as long as there is someone on our end available they would not have to travel to Eagle County. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2003-123, approving a site specific development plan for a multi-purpose pond on Recreation Tract C of the Berry Creek Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development, Eagle County File No. PR-00022. The Board considered the Applicant's request on September 17th, 2003 Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2003-123, approving a site specific development plan for a multi-purpose pond on Recreation Tract C ofthe Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD, file number PR-00022. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-124, acknowledging a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the construction of a major extension of an existing domestic water system and the efficient utilization of a municipal water project for the EI Jebel Mobile Home Park Water Tank Restoration Project in the community ofEI Jebel, Colorado, Eagle County File No. 1041-0052. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2003-124, acknowledging a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the construction of a major extension of an existing domestic water system and the efficient utilization of a municipal water project for the El Jebel Mobile Home Park Water Tank Restoration Project in the community ofEl Jebel, Colorado, Eagle County File No. 1041- 0052. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for September 30, 2003 as follows: A) D & L Ranches LLC 2 September 30, 2003 Piney River Ranch This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located up at Piney Lake, Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Ritz-Carlton Hotel LLC & Bachelor Gulch Operating Company LLC Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located in Daybreak Ridge in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Cooking Inns, Inc. Savory Inn & Cooking School This is a renewal of a private hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located in the Elliott Ranch PUD in West Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for September 30, 2003 as presented. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher stated he had asked Earlene Roach to come up with a list of items other than renewals to include on the consent agenda. She recommended renewals, manager registrations, change in corporate structure, trade name change and change in corporate name be added to the consent agenda for the Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stone questioned the manager registration inclusion on the consent agenda. In previous meetings managers have been interviewed to insure their understanding and intent to comply with State of Colorado Liquor Codes. Chairman Gallagher concurred. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Treu about codifying this procedure with a resolution or a policy statement. He believes there is some official paperwork to change the other items to the consent agenda. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Approval of Settlement Stipulations Diane Mauriello presented settlement stipulations for approval from the Board of Assessment Appeals. She stated these are stipulations where the modifications is such it exceeds 10% or more of a change, but either new evidence has come to light or such that has caused the change. She stated staff would like to know if the Board would like to continue hearing these. Chairman Gallagher reviewed the information in the files. He asked staff to summarize the change. Jon Harrison, Appraisal Coordinator, stated that the original valuation was $1,441,750.00 and after BOE review, the value was not changed. He informed the Board that at the BOE hearings the quality of construction was determined to be less than originally assessed. The situation occurs with homes built in the mid 80's and as time went on the dictates of the market changed and the properties that are being built now are much newer and larger compared. He stated the new recommended value is $974,370.00. Chairman Gallagher asked why a property would be diminished in this case. Mr. Harrison explained that it is a comparative valuation. 3 September 30, 2003 Chairman Gallagher reviewed the other files which had similar reasons for reduction in value. He stated the James P. Power stipulation appears to be the same which goes from $3,781,010.00 to $2,688,080.00. Mr. Harrison stated this was correct. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the settlement stipulations of values listed on attached Exhibit A. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Approval of Settlement Stipulations for Arbitration Diane Mauriello presented the next item for the Board's consideration, the settlement stipulations that are being submitted for arbitration rather than the Board of Assessment. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the settlement stipulations for arbitration listed on attached Exhibit A. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Rural Resort Housing Summit Commissioner Stone spoke about the Rural Resort Housing Summit that he had recently attended. He presented the Chairman several Smart Growth awards for involvement in affordable housing regional planning process in the Roaring Fork Valley. The second award was for involvement and sponsorship in the NWCOG second home study. Chairman Gallagher commended Rebecca Leonard for her work on the Housing Summit and Tom Stone's work in the Roaring Fork Valley. Settlement Stipulations, Cont. Ms. Mauriello asked the Board whether they would like to have the settlement stipulations come before them in a public hearing or in Attorney update. Debbie Faber, Attorney's Office, stated that there were 7 of 10 appeals that were over 10% difference in valuation. Chairman Gallagher stated that he would like to be informed of these situations more than to approve them. He asked for a one page summary in the future. Ms. Mauriello stated that this would be fine in the future. Mr. Harrison attempted to put the Board's mind at ease and related some statistics related to appeals. He assured the Board that the number of settlements is small compared to the total. Solid Waste Work Session Ron Rasnic, Solid Waste Manager, presented the Waste Management update to the Board as follows and as shown on staff report: 1. Tipping fee proposal. The proposal is to restructure the fee schedule, i.e., add a few discrete categories and increase fees for compacted waste and construction/demolition waste. A new scrap tire category for large, oversized tires would also see a substantial increase in fees. Compacted waste is the type of waste most commonly referred to as "garbage". It's the type of trash that is picked up from residences and businesses by compactor-type trucks operated by both the pri vate and public sector. The proposal is to raise this tipping fee from $23.10 per ton to $27.00 per 4 September 30, 2003 ton, a 16.9% increase. This type of waste, for the most part, is putrescible waste and has long term landfill management ramifications, e.g., landfill gas production and leachate production. Therefore, given that the rates have not been raised in almost four years, the increase is justified. Further, the proposal is that the rates for disposal of construction/demolition-type waste be increased 2.5% from $43.90 per ton to $45.00 per ton. This new rate would put the County more in line with neighboring facilities. Mr. Rasnic stated he is reluctant to raise the fees too high which may only drive away business and have an adverse impact upon the revenue stream. The following Exhibit A details the landfill's existing fee structure with revenue projections for 2004 as compared to the new, proposed fee structure and revenue projections for the same period. Eagle County Tipping Fee Proposal Tippin!! Fee Structure Comparison Existin!! Rate Proposed Rate Compacted/domestic $23.10/ton Compacted I $27.00/ton Construction/ demolition $43.90/ton Construction/ demolition2 $45.00/ton Mixed waste3 $23.10/ton Recyclable meta14 $21.00/ton Clean, separated wood $21.00/ton Clean, separated woodY $21.00/ton Cut tires $23.10/ton Cut tiresO $23.10/ton Whole scrap tires Whole scrap tiresT Separated from trash $4.00 each Separated from trash $4.00 each Mixed with trash $6.00 each Mixed with trash $6.00 each Oversized tires~ $30 each Contaminated soil $43.90/ton Contaminated soij'T $50.00/ton Dead animals $10.00 each Dead animals $10.00 each Mobile home disposal Mobile home disposal < 40 ft $250.00 < 40 ft $250.00 each 40 ft to 50 ft $300.00 40 ft to 50 ft $300.00 each 50ft to 60 ft $400.00 50 ft to 60 ft $400.00 each > 60 ft $500.00 > 60 feet $500.00 each Minimum charge $6.00 Minimum charge $6.00 Uncovered loads $9.00 addtn'l Uncovered loads1o $20.00 addtn'l After hours fees After hours fees Commercial $100.00 addtn'l Commercial $100.00 addtn'l Domestic $50.00 addtn'l Domestic $50.00 addtn'l [Notes to table on following page.] Based on proj ections of 84,792 tons for 2004 the existing tipping fee structure shows anticipated revenues of$2,789,695. With the proposed fees outlined above, anticipated revenues increase to $3,101,142. Notes to tipping fee table: Note 1: Formerly, compacted and domestic type waste was combined. Domestic waste generally being "garbage" brought into the landfill by a residential customer. Domestic waste comprises 5 September 30, 2003 only a small portion of the waste stream while compacted waste is a major component. They should be separated. Note 2: The construction/demolition waste category is just what it sounds like and usually comes into the landfill in roll-offtype commercial containers, tandem dump trucks and larger trucks. Includes wood debris, metal, plastic, cardboard, concrete, asphalt, etc. May also apply to residential customers. Note 3: Mixed waste, a new category. Includes most waste hauled by residential customers, e.g., garbage, some C&D, furniture, mattresses, box springs, etc. Landscape debris would also fall into this category. Note 4: Scrap metal that can be recycled. Not all metal that comes into the landfill is recyclable. Includes white goods. Note 5: This category would remain as is. Note 6: Certain businesses within the valley cut scrap tires into quarters or like a bagel. For years this waste stream has been charged by the ton. The new proposal would leave this as it is. Note 7: Whole scrap tires under this category would include passenger car tires, light truck tires and over-the-road semi tires. Note 8: Oversized tires would be any tire larger than the ones noted above. These types of tires are too large to be shredded or ground and can only be landfilled. Would include off-road heavy equipment tires, e.g., scraper, motor grader tires, etc. Note 9: Contaminated soil. The landfill can accept contaminated soil ifit meets certain testing requirements. In the past it has been charged at the C&D rate. The proposal would raise that rate to $50.00 per ton. Note 10: Uncovered loads. In the interest of trying to reduce or eliminate litter along roadways the landfill charges an additional fee to customers who fail to secure their loads. The $9 additional that has been charged in the past doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent. That fee may be better if raised to $20.00. 2. Question about "shelf life" for Design & Operations (D&O) plan and site investigation for Phase II. There really is no "shelf life" for a site investigation, and there are advantages to getting baseline groundwater data, etc. early on. On the other hand, there can be a "shelf life" for a D&O plan since regulatory changes could affect liner systems and monitoring network designs and could mandate intense waste diversion. Plus, there are unforeseen market forces that could change how waste is managed. The landfill engineering consultants recommend using a 5 to 10 year lead time. Ten years is the longest lead time under almost any circumstances, and five years is a reasonably comfortable window to get all the appropriate site investigation, design and permitting completed. The attached Exhibit B illustrates a plan of landfill development for the transition from Phase I to Phase II. Landfill Development - Transition from Phase I to Phase II Year 2004 . Develop waste disposal Module 6 . Aerial survey of total landfill property (all 730 acres) Year 2005 . Develop waste disposal Module 7 . Phase II site investigation (do test borings, soils testing, install groundwater monitoring wells) Year 2006 6 September 30, 2003 . Develop waste disposal Module 8 (this will conclude lateral expansion to the west in Phase I; remaining areas to be developed in Phase I include the east side and area north of pre-1996 waste) Year 2007 . No new waste disposal module development; continue to vertically fill Modules 1,2,3, 4,5,6, 7 and 8 to final or near-final grades working west to east . May begin final closure activities on this portion working west to east Year 2008 . Develop Phase II Design, Operations & Closure Plan 1 . Develop waste disposal Module 9 Note 1: By waiting until 2008 there should have a clearer picture of when Phase I will be filled to capacity plus there will be a minimum 3 years of groundwater data to aid in the Phase II design. Additionally, it may be possible to tie portions of Phase II (the west side) into the Phase I leachate collection system thus simplifying the design process and possibly foregoing the construction of another leachate collection sump, at least for a certain period of time. Therefore, it appears to be prudent to know this information about Phase II before developing the east side of Phase I. Finally, there should be sufficient time from this date to develop the Phase II D&O plan. Note 2: If anything drastic happens with waste volumes this conceptual plan can be accelerated or decelerated as required. 3. Tire shredding possibilities with other area landfill facilities. Other area landfill facilities have been contacted, e.g., Garfield County, Pitkin County, South Canyon and Summit County, to ascertain interest in a joint effort to shred or chip scrap tires. Everyone acknowledges that scrap tires are problematic to manage. With the exception of Summit County, all other facilities do make the effort to avoid landfilling scrap tires. Summit County is considering separating tires from landfilling in the near future. One problem is that the amount generated at all facilities is relatively small. The estimated number is about 18,500 tires annually. It is difficult to interest private vendors who grind or shred scrap tires when the quantities are small and the stockpiled tires are located in scattered locations. Therefore, perhaps this issue should be dealt with from a strictly public sector co-operative effort. From research that has been done to date, it appears that locating a tire shredding/chipping machine in a central location then hauling tires to it to be ground or shredded is the best situation. Mr. Rasnic proposed that the machine be located at Eagle County Landfill because the other facilities have no use for the shredded tires. The Eagle County Landfill does have a use for this material - leachate drainage media for the waste disposal modules. It wouldn't make sense to haul the machine to another facility, shred the tires then haul the machine and the tire shreds back. From his most recent survey, it appears that the other landfills have a great deal of interest in getting together and working toward a common solution. However, before jumping into this agreement significant work needs to be done. He proposed the following: . Estimate number of scrap tires which may be generated; . Research a larger universe of machines which are capable of handling this waste stream; . Estimate machine capital costs; . Estimate facility capital costs; . Estimate operation and maintenance costs; . Determine avoided costs of purchasing the material from off-site; . Estimate liability issues, e.g., fire hazard, harboring of mosquitoes, etc.; how to handle; . Develop plan of operation; . Determine what costs or charges to other parties may be required; . Develop proposal and circulate among interested parties to gauge interest; 7 September 30, 2003 . Prepare report for BOCC. 4. Curbside recycling. The two largest private waste haulers operating in the Eagle Valley, Waste Management and Vail Honeywagon, offer curbside recycling services to their residential customers. There is no extra charge for this service. Material collected includes commingled #1 and #2 plastic, steel cans, aluminum cans, glass bottles and newspaper. Waste Management apparently has an agreement with the Town of Minturn to provide trash collection to its residents which includes the recycling service. In addition, they also offer recycling services to their commercial customers; however, there is a charge for this. Commercial customers generally can recycle commingled material #1 and #2 plastic, steel cans, aluminum cans, and glass bottles, office paper, newspaper and cardboard. 5. C&D waste grinding analysis costs and plan. The landfill consulting engineers, KRW Consulting, Inc., have prepared a proposal to perform an economic analysis to determine if it is economically beneficial to grind C&D waste prior to landfilling thereby reducing volume requirements for this material. The estimated cost ofthis project is $3,200. Their proposal is attached as Exhibit C. 6. Computer recycling. It's possible to initiate a computer/e-waste recycling program at little or no cost to the County. The main problem has been and remains having some sort of temporary storage available to store the collected material until it can be picked up by vendors. Under one scenario, Adam Palmer, Executive Director of the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability, has some funding available to rent a storage trailer which could be sited at the landfill for temporary storage. Material could be collected, packaged and temporarily stored until pickup. Another scenario has presented itself in that a local computer/e-waste recycling company, Computer Recyclers of Oak Creek, would be willing to provide the storage trailer for collection. No packaging would be required. The vendor would pick up collected material on periodic runs. The costs to the public are probably less under Scenario 1 than Scenario 2, but pickup may be more frequent under Scenario 2. In either event, this appears to be the crucial first step in getting something going to address this need. Chairman Gallagher wondered why the mixed waste would stay at $23.10 per ton and not go up to $27.00 as it is household waste plus construction demolition. It would also include the occasional sofa and vegetation. Looking at bulk of it should it be at $27.00. Mr. Rasnic stated that he didn't think this would be necessary as for tonnage wise it is not much. Chairman Gallagher also asked to understand how much a tire weighs. Mr. Rasnic responded about 20 pounds which would mean 100 per ton. Chairman Gallagher stated if they are cut they would give them a big break. Mr. Rasnic stated if you landfill a whole tire there is a chance it can break through the top of the ground. If they are cut they would not do that. Chairman Gallagher stated that uncovered loads should be charged around $50.00. Commissioner Stone asked if there is a problem with haulers bringing in uncovered loads. Mr. Rasnic stated that most professional haulers have covered loads. Commissioner Stone asked ifthere were many mobile homes. Mr. Rasnic stated that in the last year or two they have received more. Commissioner Stone asked how these types of homes would compare with construction waste of the same weight. Mr. Rasnic responded stated they did the figures based on what it would weigh if it was all torn apart. Commissioner Stone wondered if it was an appropriate amount. Mr. Rasnic responded that he thought it was. 8 September 30, 2003 Commissioner Stone inquired about curbside recycling and the possible connection between recycling and not recycling. He recalled recent discussions about asking the towns to participate in a greater capacity if they don't offer their own recycling program. Mr. Rasnic did not have an answer to this question. Commissioner Stone asked which towns have their own recycling collection services. He wondered why Mr. Rasnic had not come back with the answers to this question because it was discussed at the previous work session. He asked Mr. Rasnic for suggestions for motivating people to recycle. He is looking for a way to make it more convenient for people and increase recycling. Mr. Ingstad asked if an incentive could be given to towns to encourage them to comply with the recycling program. Matt Donovan, Vail Honeywagon, asked if private haulers would then get a discount. He stated that it costs everyone money to recycle and there are no easy answers. Commissioner Stone stated that people could be motivated - particularly the towns who added the service of curbside recycling. Mr. Donovan asked how it would relate to unincorporated Eagle County. Commissioner Stone stated that he felt it was a good issue for discussion and that he didn't have an answer. Mr. Donovan informed the Board that hazardous residential waste is another big problem. He questioned the construction / demolition increased fees and wondered if those fees would prohibit the Roaring Fork contractors. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Donovan what type of increases he would prefer. Mr. Donovan stated he preferred smaller increases more often. Rates would have to go up to cover these increases. Mr. Ingstad asked what effect does the proposed increase have on Honeywagon's customers. Mr. Donovan stated their rates would go up. Commissioner Stone wondered what Waste Management had to say about this proposal. Mike Andruzak, Waste Management, would rather see smaller and more frequent increases. He stated these charges will be passed onto the customer. Commissioner Stone asked about his opinion on recycling. Mr. Andruzak responded that the concept of recycling is a necessary thing. He agrees with the concept of the drop-off centers. Commissioner Stone stated that Adam Palmer's group complained about site management for the recycling bins. He wondered how these sites could be managed better. Mr. Andruzak stated that the fairgrounds site has tires, refrigerators, motor oil, windows, etc. It is impossible to control this situation. He hopes that people will become more educated in the future. Commissioner Stone stated that that is one reason he likes the idea ofincentivizing the municipalities and encourage curbside recycling. He wondered if anyone realized that there is a motor oil recycling center in Gypsum. Mike Andruzak stated that it wouldn't be cost effective for his firm to come into the town of Eagle to offer recycling services, because the homeowners would be paying twice. Mr. Ingstad asked Mr. Rasnic the reason for the proposed increases. Mr. Rasnic responded that he had compared neighboring County's prices for similar waste disposal and told the Board that was why he recommends increasing Eagle County's prices. Chairman Gallagher stated that he was in favor of raising rates if it would enable Eagle County to purchase capital items such as tire shredders and other capital items. He is not in favor of reducing fees to encourage recycling. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Rasnic to come back to the Board with his suggestions for incentives or penalties. 9 September 30, 2003 Mr. Rasnic spoke about shelf life for design and operation plans or site investigations. He stated there is no shelf life for site investigations. Regulatory changes could affect the way things are done. He proposed a 4-5 year plan on how to finish off phase one and how he would continue with phase two. Chairman Gallagher asked about the aerial survey and when GIS would do the flyover. Mr. Rasnic responded that John Staight, Director of GIS, informed him that all flyovers are not the same. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Rasnic to take another look at the GIS plan for mapping the area. Mr. Rasnic stated that phase one is approximately 60 acres. Chairman Gallagher asked to see a map in the future. Commissioner Stone asked if the County pays someone to come in and grind up the tires. Mr. Rasnic stated Eagle County does pay someone to come in and grind them up. He stated Pitkin County is currently bailing theirs, Summit County is landfilling theirs, Garfield County also stockpiles. Commissioner Stone stated he liked Mr. Rasnic's idea of contacting other communities in the interest of becoming a centralized facility, but only if there is some type of cost savings and a long term commitment from other Counties. Mr. Rasnic referred to item 5, stated the Landfill Consultants are preparing a plan to do the grinding of construction and domestic trash to see if it saves them money. The Board concurred to go ahead and get it done. Mr. Rasnic spoke to item 6, stated that Adam Palmer had looked into renting a semi trailer for storage until they can be picked up. There is an individual in Oak Creek who would provide this service at no cost. Commissioner Stone asked if Eagle County could charge people to drop off their computers in association with the Oak Creek group. Mr. Rasnic stated the prices are quite a bit higher with the gentleman in Oak Creek. Chairman Gallagher liked the idea of supporting the local groups and he asked for an actual cost for this type of program. Commissioner Stone stated that he would like to make the decision at the same time as the rest of the items, including the tipping fees. Mr. Rasnic stated that he was hoping to impose these new fees January 1, 2004. Commissioner Stone and Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Rasnic to come back to the Board with a proposal for incentivizing recycling efforts. Chairman Gallagher stated that he would like to have the program include marketing efforts for recycling from the involved entities. Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. There was none. PDA-00045, Berry Creek Ranch Comp Sign Plan Cliff Simonton presented file number PDA-00045, Berry Creek Ranch Comp Sign Plan. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to October 7,2003. Commissioner Stone moved to table file PDA-00045, Berry Creek Ranch Comp Sign Plan to October 7, 2003, at the applicants request. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00037, Vail Christian School Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number PDS-00037, Vail Christian School. He stated the applicant is proposing to create a planned unit development (PUD) on a 205.4 acre parcel 10 September 30, 2003 located in the westernmost extent of the Edwards community. The subject property is currently zoned Resource. This PUD Sketch Plan application anticipates five separate 'Planning Areas', inclusive of: Planning Area 'A' - Planning Area 'A' is 66.6 acres in area and includes Interstate-70 right-of- way, the Wilmore Lake rest stop area, U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way, Hillcrest Drive right-of-way, Beard Creek Trail, Lake Creek Drive, Red Canyon Road and Squaw Creek Road right-of-way. Wilmore Development, LLC contends that it owns the land beneath Interstate-70 and U.S. Highway 6 in fee-simple. Wilmore Development, LLC also claims ownership of the land underlying the Union Pacific Railroad. The subject property was formerly owned by the State Land Board of Colorado. The multiple roadways and the rail corridor were created under State ownership. The State had been willing to create right-of-way easements over the property and grant them to other public and private entities but never did so in fee interest. In 1997 the State Land Board of Colorado transferred the property to Wilmore Development, LLC. Differing opinions exist regarding the ownership status of the aforementioned public rights-of-way. In any event, this Planning Area represents lands which will be conveyed to Eagle County and other applicable public agencies at the time of Final Plat should this proposal be approved. Planning Area 'B' - Up to 20,000 square feet of commercial and/or religious use development on a 1.5 acre site located on the northeast corner of the Hillcrest Drive and Squaw Creek Road intersection; Planning Area 'c' - Up to 90,000 square feet of educational and religious use development on a 9.6 acre parcel most commonly referred to as 'the Eagle River Bench' located in between U.S. Highway 6 and the Eagle River west of Hillcrest Drive. Planning Area 'D' - A cemetery 1 sports field 1 recreational park use on an 18.2 acre parcel most commonly referred to as 'the Squaw Creek Bench' located on the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 6 and Squaw Creek Road. Planning Area 'E' - Open space within the PUD is 109.1 acres in area (53% oftotalland area) and is located adjacent to the north side of the Eagle River, as well as, on the steep, un-developable mountainside south of U.S. Highway 6 and west of Squaw Creek Road. Please refer to the attached Planning Parcel Map. Safe vehicular ingress/egress to each of the three developable Planning Parcels. The feasibility of installing a pedestrian a sidewalk parallel with U.S. Highway 6 on the school 1 church site, as well as, a safe location for pedestrians to cross U.S. Highway 6. Utilize a stoplight and crosswalk as opposed to an expensive pedestrian underpass 1 overpass. Whether or not affordable housing should be a consideration as it relates to the church 1 school parcel. Development of the proposed cemetery in a low impact manner with no buildings allowed. The water supply plan 1 irrigation 1 utilization of native landscape materials to conserve water. Limit use of Squaw Creek Bench to a low impact cemetery only. Traffic mitigation. Provision of a safe, accessible ECO transit stop by the school. Adequacy of the proposed amount of onsite parking for the school site. The appropriateness of allowing either a gas station or restaurant to locate on the northeast corner of U.S. Highway 6 and Hillcrest Drive. Minimize lighting on all of the parcels. Preservation of critical deer and elk winter range - limiting use of the Squaw Creek Bench to a cemetery only. The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report: In 1996 the State Land Board transferred 20+1- acres of its holdings in Sections 25 and 36, T4S, R85W to the Archdiocese of Denver (St. Claire of Assisi site). In 1997, the State Land Board transferred 570+1- acres (the subject property) to Cordillera (Wilmore Development, LLC). The subject property was part of an historical Colorado State School Land Section under the control of the State Land Board. Subsequently, 11 September 30, 2003 that portion of the original transfer located north oflnterstate -70 was subdivided into 35 acre tracts ofland and is developing as the 'Timber Springs' subdivision. The portion ofthe 'River Parcel', east of Hillcrest Drive, is presently used as an un-permitted contractor storage site. West of Hillcrest Drive, the site is identified on USGS Maps as an old mine site. In 2002, Wilmore Development, LLC made application to Eagle County for a mixed use PUD Sketch Plan that included commercial development, multi-family development and open space. The application was subsequently withdrawn in July of 2003 prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing the proposal. This was done to accommodate this current proposal since it is not permissible to have two pending applications on the same property. Please note that the prior Wilmore Development, LLC proposal encompassed a larger land area than does the current application. Previously, the land located in between the Eagle River and U.S. Highway 6 spanning westward from the intersection of Squaw Creek Road and U.S. Highway 6 was included and proposed as Open Space. Assuming approval of this application, Wilmore Development, LLC will retain ownership of this stretch of river frontage. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering - Please refer to attached response dated August 21,2003. Eagle County Environmental Health - A verbal response from the Department of Environmental Health indicates that there are no identified issues at this time. Eagle County Housing Department - Please refer to attached response. Eagle County Sheriff's Office - A verbal response recommends that the underpass/overpass be constructed and made operational concurrent with the opening of the school/religious uses. Eagle County Road and Bridge Department - Recommends that adequate vision clearance be provided at the access point to the Squaw Creek Bench off of Squaw Creek Road. ECO Transit - Please refer to attached response dated August 22,2003. ECO Trails - Please refer to attached response dated August 22, 2003. Eagle River Fire Protection District - Please refer to attached response dated August 25,2003. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District - Please refer to the attached response dated August 25, 2003. Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to the attached response dated August 29,2003 Colorado Division of Water Resources - Based on information provided was unable to comment at Sketch Plan stage. Please refer to the attached response dated September 5, 2003 Colorado Division of Wildlife - Please refer to the attached response dated August 26, 2003. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments - Please refer to the attached response dated August 18,2003. Holy Cross Energy - Please refer to attached response dated August 12,2003. Natural Resources Conservation Service - Please refer to attached response dated August 11,2003. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - The referral response dated August 27,2003, indicated that the Army Corp has determined that a 404 Permit will not be necessary for this application. The Army Corp further stated that future Eagle County Trail improvements may necessitate a 404 Permit. Saint Clare of Assisi Parish - Rev. Edward J. Poehlmann, Pastor of St. Clare's, fully endorses this proposal and feels that it would be a nice complement to St. Clare's school and family learning center. Please refer to the attached response dated September 9,2003. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: Attorney's Office Animal Control Eagle County School District (RE-50J) Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado State Forest Service Colorado State Historical Society United States Forest Service 12 September 30, 2003 Century Tel WECAD Edwards Metropolitan District Eagle County Historical Society Eagle Valley Land Trust 13 Homeowner's Associations in the Edwards Vicinity Public Letters/Comments The Edwards Council of Governing Entities provided two separate responses: The initial response dated July 11, 2003 indicates opposition to the proposal; a subsequent response dated August 26, 2003 retracts the original opposition because the members of ECOGE could not reach a consensus and, therefore, agreed amongst themselves to not take a stand and offered no further input on the proposal. Additionally, thirteen (13) letters of support for this proposal have been received to date; copies of each are attached to this report. Lastly, a petition of support for this proposal containing 846 signatures was submitted to the record before the Eagle County Planning Commission. This petition is in the application file. Copies have not been attached to the Staff report. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F., Procedure for Development Review: Section 5-240.F .1.a., Sketch Plan states "The purpose of sketch plan review is for the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development ofthe proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision." The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Master Plan is determined, as is the compatibility ofthe proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague, or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be indicated for that Standard. Pluses and minuses appearing before specific Standards indicate where it has been found that the proposed development currently meets that Standard ([ +]), does not currently meet that Standard, but may be able to meet that standard at application for Preliminary Plan ([ +/-]), does not presently meet and likely will not be able to meet that Standard at application for Preliminary Plan ([ -]), or the Standard does not apply ([n/a]). STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The subject property is owned by Wilmore Development, LLC who has granted Vail Christian Schools the ability to make application to the County for this proposal. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] It HAS been demonstrated that the title to all land that is part ofthis PUD is owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, 13 September 30, 2003 "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. Proposed uses in the PUD include: Plannin!! Parcel A: All existing improvements. Transportation Corridors - inclusive of vehicular and pedestrian access. Potential recreational uses. Open Space / Greenbelt. Plannin!! Parcel B: Commercial - including but not limited to office, retail, restaurant, storage and garage. Religious uses including up to a 300 seat church and community outreach uses. Plannin!! Parcel C: All existing uses and improvements. High School and ancillary uses. A maximum 20,000 sq. ft., 400 seat Church, community outreach and other ancillary uses typically associated with religious facilities. Recreational uses typically associated with high school use. Plannin!! Parcel D: Cemetery, memorial wall, columbarium and ancillary related uses not to exceed 5,000 sq. ft. Recreational Uses including hiking trails, nature study, sports field and other related uses. Plannin!! Parcel E: All existing uses and improvements. Limited Parking for recreational activities. Recreation Uses and ancillary facilities. Open Space. Greenbelt. Preservation and Conservation. All uses as proposed, with the exception of commercial uses 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 Districts Use Schedule" within the existing Resource (R) zone district. Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, provides that variations may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds that the Preliminary Plan achieves one or more of several specified purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. Those purposes include: [1] Obtaining desired design qualities; [2] Avoiding environmental resources and natural hazards; [3] Providing incentives for water augmentation; [4] Providing incentives for improvements to the Eagle County trails system; [5] Providing incentives to assure long term affordable housing, or; [6] Providing incentives to develop public facilities. The application includes a request for the necessary variations (page 34) based on each ofthese purposes. [+/-] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD with the exception of Commercial Uses. Variations of the Commercial 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)] - 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 14 September 30, 2003 Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed for the PUD are not as specified in Table 3-340 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for the Resource (R) zone district. Minimum lot sizes have not been specified for each proposed Planning Area. The Resource zone district (R) specifies a minimum lot size of thirty-five (35) acres. Structural setbacks and maximum height proposed are generally consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; however, a maximum height of 45 feet is called out where the ECLUR allows a maximum height of 35 to 40 feet. The ECLUR also requires that the side-yard setback be equivalent to one-half the height ofthe tallest building on the site. By example, a 45 foot tall building would require a 22.5 foot side-yard setback. The proposed PUD Guide calls out a minimum side-yard setback of 15 feet. As such, variations from certain dimensional limitations will be required. Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: (a) obtains desired design qualities; (b) avoids environmental resources and natural resources; (c) incentives for water augmentation; (d) incentives for trails; (e) incentives for affordable housing; and/or (f) incentives for public facilities. The Board of County Commissioners has considerable discretion in the establishment of appropriate setback and height standards within a proposed PUD. Referencing the above, it may be determined by the Board that the variations proposed for this project allow for the "obtainment of desired design qualities". The Obtain Desired Desif!n Qualities section of the Land Use Regulations lists "integration of mixed uses", "allowing greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings" and "promoting more efficient land use patterns and increase open space" in support of desired design Qualities. Integration of uses is contemplated by this plan, as is a variety of building types or designs. Given the somewhat constrained nature of the property, the proposed variations in setbacks, height and lot sizes may allow a more efficient land use pattern. Any dimensional limitation standard that will not be met within the proposed plan must be detailed in the application for Preliminary Plan. A discussion regarding the basis for granting these variations is also required The Applicant will be required to request specific variations from zone district dimensional limitations at application for Preliminary Plan approval, with appropriate justification, and should also include the specifics of these variations in the PUD Guide for the project. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT 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. However, the Board MAY grant variations to the proposed dimensional limitations as part of the approval of the Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading 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. 15 September 30, 2003 The PUD Guide does state that all Parking shall comply with the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR) OR with the specific parking standards detailed on the conceptual site plan. Since it is not known at this time how exactly the proposed developable square footage for each Planning Area will be utilized, it is not possible to calculate the precise number of parking spaces that woul be required for each specific use pursuant to the ECLUR versus the amount of parking indicated on the conceptual site plan. It is also not possible to determine whether or not a shared use parking arrangement would be viable. Staff is concerned that adequate on-site parking be made available for each of the proposed uses both individually and cumulatively should the operation of more than one use overlap. The Applicant will be required to clearly demonstrate the viability ofthe proposed parking arrangement at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It has NOT been fully demonstrated that Off-street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD will comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that provisions for parking and loading will comply with applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A conceptual landscape plan has been provided. It appears that the plan generally satisfies the intent of the ECLUR with regard to minimum landscape standards, however, it will be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate at the Preliminary Plan stage, via the Detailed Landscape Plan, that the proposed landscaping conforms to the provisions of Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards, in the ECLUR. As a condition of approval, adequate planting strips should be provided adjacent to all property lines where a street right-of-way is located adjacent to the parking area, as required. Also, that all planting materials usel for landscaping are compatible with the local climate and the soils, drainage and water conditions ofthe site. The planting materials should consist of native, drought-resistant varieties. [Condition #1] [+/-] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] The Landscape Plan submitted is sufficient for Sketch Plan evaluation but, DOES NOT, at present, adequately delineate specific areas that will be disturbed, or how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved or replaced, or how the areas disturbed will otherwise be re-vegetated. However, these details MAY BE addressed at the time of Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., SiJms Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) , the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The proposed PUD Guide does include a sign plan which is clearly worded. Proposed is that the signage be allowed to be illuminated internally. Staff recommends that internal illumination of' canned signs' not be permitted in an effort to minimize nighttime light pollution. [Condition #2] Rather, monument style signs constructed of natural materials which are directly spot lit would help to improve the overall aesthetics of the site and minimize the amount oflight glare generated by the signage. Further, the PUD Guide needs to specify a maximum allowed height and setbacks from property line for each type of proposed sign. Any signage not otherwise contemplated in the PUD Guide will be required to adhere to the standards of the ECLUR. [+/-] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] Unless specified in the PUD Guide, the sign standards applicable to the PUD SHALL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. 16 September 30, 2003 STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Potable water supply. It is anticipated that the Edwards Metropolitan District will provide water to the proposed development. To date, there are no formal arrangements in place between the Edwards Metropolitan District and the applicant. Either prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan approval, a 1041 review must be successfully completed to evaluate the impacts associated with the extension of water and sewer lines to service the subject property. Sewafle disposal. It is anticipated that the Eagle River Consolidated Water and Sanitation District will provide sewage disposal services to the proposed development. To date, there are no formal arrangements in place between the Eagle River Consolidated Water and Sanitation District and the applicant. Either prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan approval, a 1041 review must be successfully completed to evaluate the impacts associated with the extension of water and sewer lines to service the subj ect property. Solid waste disposal. The use of bear-proof trash containers is not specified in the draft PUD Guide, however, the wildlife evaluation report submitted by the applicant includes this as a recommendation. Language to this effect should be included within the PUD Guide. Providers of solid waste disposal services do exist and operate in the vicinity of the subject property. Electrical supply. Holy Cross Energy has provided a written statement stating that it has adequate resources to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Fire protection. The subject property is located within the boundaries of and services will be provided by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. The District's response indicates that fire hydrant locations need to be reviewed and approved by the District. Also, vehicular access throughout the site needs to be designed to accommodate the fire truck's turning radii. Roads. CDOT will require new access permits for each point of ingress/egress off of U.S. Highway 6. These access permits should be applied for concurrently with the Preliminary Plan application and must meet the requirements of the State Highway Access Code. Two points of access to Planning Area 'c' are proposed. One a full movement access and the other is a right in and right out only. U.S. Highway 6, adjacent to the proposed school site, is classified as a Regional Highway and, as such, allows only one access per parcel. Further, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that intersections operate at a Level of Service 'D'. The applicant's traffic report indicates that the full movement intersection at the school site will operate at a Level of Service of 'E'. U.S. Highway 6 adjacent to the commercial site is classified as a Non-Rural Principal Highway. The application proposes two points of ingress/egress to the commercial site; one access onto U.S. Highway 6 and the other onto Hillcrest Drive. This classification allows one access per parcel if reasonable access cannot be obtained from a local street. In this instance, reasonable access can be obtained via Hillcrest Drive. Proximity to schools. police and fire protection. and emergency medical services. The nearest police, fire protection and emergency medical services are located in the immediate Edwards vicinity. Proximity to public schools is not applicable in this instance. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal. Also, ingress and egress to the subject property, as proposed, is not consistent with the access control plan. However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that applicable standards will be met at application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or 17 September 30, 2003 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-ofway, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. CDOT will require new access permits for each point of ingress/egress off of U.S. Highway 6. These access permits should be applied for concurrently with the Preliminary Plan application and must meet the requirements of the State Highway Access Code. Two points of access to Planning Area 'c' are proposed. One a full movement access and the other is a right in and right out only. U.S. Highway 6, adjacent to the proposed school site, is classified as a Regional Highway and, as such, allows only one access per parcel. Further, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that intersections operate at a Level of Service 'D'. The applicant's traffic report indicates that the full movement intersection at the school site will operate at a Level of Service of 'E'. U.S. Highway 6 adjacent to the school site is classified as a Non-Rural Principal Highway. The application proposes two points of ingress/egress to the commercial site; one access onto U.S. Highway 6 and the other onto Hillcrest Drive. This classification allows one access per parcel if reasonable access cannot be obtained from a local street. In this instance, reasonable access can be obtained via Hillcrest Drive. No pedestrian improvements are shown along U.S. Highway 6 in front ofthe proposed school site. The Eagle County Engineering Department recommends that there be a sidewalk or trail along U.S. Highway 6 in front ofthe school site. ECO Transit recommends that a bus shelter be installed on the north side of U.S. Highway 6 in close proximity to the proposed walkway overpass/underpass. Should this structure be abandoned or delayed by more than three years after the school is ready of occupancy, ECO recommends that a bus shelter be installed on both sides of U.S. Highway 6 as close as possible to the main entrances of Vail Christian School and Saint Clare of Assisi Catholic Church. The subject property is located within the boundaries of, and services will be provided by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. The District's response indicates that fire hydrant locations need to be reviewed and approved by the District. Also, vehicular access throughout the site needs to be designed to accommodate the fire truck's turning radii. A plan for Snow Storage has not been submitted and will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. 18 September 30, 2003 The Eagle County Trails Plan proposes three possible bike trail alignments in the vicinity of the subject property: One option is to follow Red Canyon Road; another option is to locate the trail between the rail corridor and the river, or; adjacent to the south side of U.S. Highway 6. This proposal, if approved, would make land available for a portion of the bike trail alignment. [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. The Applicant MAYbe able to demonstrate, however, that applicable standards will be met at application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Existing and allowed land uses surrounding the subject property consist of a church/school/child care facility and employee housing (Saint Clare of Assisi's) to the south; primarily BLM land and land owned by Wilmore Development, LLC to the west; Interstate-70 and a subdivision of 35 acre lots (Timber Springs) to the north, and; mixed residential, commercial and wastewater treatment facility to the east of the subject site. The immediate area reflects part of a transition from the greater density of the Edwards community center to an undeveloped corridor between the communities of Edwards and Wolcott to the west. At the time when Saint Clare of Assisi received approval, it was considered an ideal transitional, edge- of-community use. Given this proposal's similarity, compatibility for this proposed project is, therefore, bolstered by the existence ofthe Saint Clare complex. It is anticipated that, if approved, cooperation and synergy between the two like-facilities would be fostered, including shared sports and educational facilities. Uses included in the proposed list of allowed uses for the commercial site (Planning Parcel 'B') include all existing uses and improvements including but not limited to contractor storage. The existing contractor storage yard is not a permitted use in the Resource zone district. Contractor's storage is otherwise allowed in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as a use-by-right only in the Industrial zone district and by Special Use review and approval in the Commercial General and Rural Center zone districts. Given the highly visible location of the site and the surrounding uses, these industrial uses should not be perpetuated. As a condition of approval, the PUD Guide should be modified to eliminate contractor's storage yards as uses-by-right because that type of use is not compatible with existing and allowed uses in all directions from the subject site. [Condition #3] Further, the PUD Guide should incorporate language which clearly states that all existing uses cease no later than the issuance of the first building permit for improvements on the Commercial Site. [Condition #4] Regarding Planning Area 'D', the Squaw Creek Bench, it is proposed to locate a Cemetery and ancillary facilities. There is a noted need for additional cemetery space within Eagle County. A Cemetery may be viewed as a compatible, low-impact, low traffic generation use and would create a negligible visual impact. Discussion with the applicant's representative indicates that the intent for the proposed Cemetery is to incorporate wildflowers and natural grasses. Headstone markers would be installed flush with the ground. The PUD Guide also indicates that Recreational Uses could occur on the Squaw Creek Bench inclusive of sports fields and related uses. Staff recommends that sports fields not be allowed due to the amount of site grading that would be necessary to accommodate a ball field and the resulting visual impact. Further, increased parking would become necessary to accommodate the corresponding increase in traffic. [Condition #5] [+/-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] It HAS been demonstrated that the development proposed for the PUD could be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The Applicant should be required to delete certain proposed uses or, to demonstrate compatibility at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from 19 September 30, 2003 sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may change. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Spacel Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance X X X X X Non X Conformance Mixed X Conformance Not Applicable Environmental Quality - The applicant has worked closely with the CDOW to develop criteria for a Wildlife Mitigation Agreement. An executed agreement must be submitted to the County with the Preliminary Plan. The proposed development plan does not impact existing wetlands. Riparian areas have also been avoided with the exception of the creation of foot-paths to access the river for fishing. The Army Corp of Engineers confirms these statements. Development, as proposed, will occur in areas which have already been disturbed. Areas of native vegetation and soils will remain as open space. Open Space/Recreation - The Plan encourages a variety of open space alternatives for the benefit of present and future residents and provides recreation lands and facilities to meet the wide range of needs of the County. Further, the Plan identifies visual quality, buffers, recreation, wildlife, natural water systems, historic unique land forms and natural hazards as priorities for preservation. The application proposes to utilize the most viable, already disturbed areas of the subject property for development. The majority balance of the site is identified as Open Space. The benefits of open space are that a significant stretch of river frontage will be preserved; the beginning of a visual and physical buffer between Edwards and Wolcott will be established and recreational opportunities will be created by the future trail alignment and increased access to the river for fishing. Development - The Plan recommends that buffer areas between communities be maintained in their natural state. The Plan also encourages the use of the PUD to achieve more creative, efficient site design and to maximize open space through clustering. As stated above, this PUD proposal does strive to achieve these goals. The transition to the buffer area would be sharpened, however. Affordable Housing - The proposal did not include an affordable housing plan. The project does create a need for affordable housing and is not in compliance with this aspect of the Plan. At Preliminary Plan, a Housing Plan should be required. Transportation - The proposed development would resolve discrepancies regarding the ownership of land underlying multiple public roadways including 1-70 and U.S. Highway 6. The rail corridor will also be quit claimed to the County, allowing the County to locate a future trail corridor and/or allow the possibility of utilizing the rail for a commuter-rail system. This is consistent with one of the Plan's stated goals to expand the County's transportation system along the 1-70 corridor to provide public transportation from Dotsero to Vail year around. The Plan acknowledges the long term goal of a fixed guide way or rail system. Community Services - The Plan identifies additional school services as a goal. The religious, community outreach and cemetery uses are needed community services. FLUM - The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as 'State Land', which it was in 1996 when the current Master Plan was completed. Through no fault of the applicant, the subject property is now held in private ownership. The Plan's stated goal was to maintain the subject property as public land. The Plan does, however, acknowledge that public land may be sold or traded to private individuals. Persons who obtain public lands should anticipate that the land's designation will reflect the prevailing character of adjacent lands. Although the FLUM never anticipated the (former) State 20 September 30, 2003 Land to become private, this proposal does reflect the current prevailing character of the adjacent lands. Please refer to the above discussion regarding compatibility. The area north and east of the intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and Hillcrest Drive, in which the commercial site is proposed, is on the westernmost edge of an area designated as Community Center. Such areas are deemed appropriate for residential and commercial activity centers, as such; this aspect of the proposal does conform to the FLUM. Land Use Open Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlif Cooperation Space Preservation Quality Patterns e Provision Conformance X X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Cooperation - Not Applicable. Open Space Provision - The Plan states that, "Eagle County should recognize that planned unit developments and cluster housing assist in open space maintenance". The PUD Sketch Plan being considered does endeavor to create and maintain open space by 'clustering' development on the most viable building sites which are clear of any natural or man made hazards and which have already been disturbed in the past. Unique Character Preservation - The Unique Land Forms map identifies the rock formation at the Wilmore Lake Rest Stop as unique formations where development should be prohibited. This proposal does identify this land form as part of Planning Area 'A' and is included within the transportation corridor designation. The Unique Land Forms map does no identify any other areas within the subject property. Visual Quality - The Visual Quality Map identifies much of the subject site as being 'Moderately' to 'Highly' constrained. The proposal, however, endeavors to set the topographically constrained portions of the site aside as Open Space. Again, development would occur only on previously disturbed areas where visual degradation has already occurred to varying degrees. The Squaw Creek Bench, if developed as a cemetery, would maintain an open, park-like land use buffer transitioning into true open space. The applicant has indicated that the Cemetery would utilize native vegetation and that headstones would be installed flush with the ground. Development Patterns - The Plan states that, "It is the policy of Eagle County to encourage development to occur in and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas". The proposal does not represent leap-frog development and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposal will not only create an edge-of-community transitional buffer but, will also set aside high quality visual open space and enhances the river corridor by preserving the native areas and limiting development to already disturbed sites. Hazards - Development within the proposed PUD is constrained to those portions of the subject property which are clear of any natural or man made hazards. Wildlife - The CDOW has visited the site and has developed criteria which will be incorporated into a Wildlife Mitigation Agreement. This agreement will be required with the Preliminary Plan submittal. 21 September 30, 2003 Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land Use X Housing X Transportation X Open Space X Potable Water and Wastewater X Services and Facilities X Environmental Quality X Economic Development X Recreation and Tourism X Historic Preservation X Implementation X Future Land Use Map X EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Land Use - The stated goal is, "The location and type ofland uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". This proposal would serve to balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the Edwards Community by providing the Vail Christian School with a permanent home which would be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner. Public facilities and services already exist in the immediate proximity of the subject property. Housing - Affordable housing was not anticipated in the current application. A housing plan should be required with the Preliminary Plan application. Transportation - The applicant needs to work with the Eagle County Engineering Department and the Colorado Department of Transportation to secure appropriate access permits which will function within Eagle County's parameters. By providing safe pedestrian circulation, as well as, the provision of land for a bicycle trail, will promote the increased use of bicycles as an alternative means of transportation. The proposal did not account for mass transit; however, ECO Transit did request that a bus shelter(s) be constructed adjacent to U.S. Highway 6 immediately adjacent to the entrance to the school site. Open Space - "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with land owners, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal does represent a coordinated effort to preserve a significant portion of the subject site as Open Space which, in turn, helps to define a buffer between Edwards and Wolcott. Potable Water and Wastewater - Public potable water and sanitary sewer service is anticipated to be made available to serve the proposed development. The applicant has been in discussions with the providers of said services. Services and Facilities - This goal pertains to recycling of solid wastes and provision of public schools, occupational training and higher education and, as such, is not applicable. Environmental Quality - The Plan sets forth six goals pertaining to Environmental Quality all of which pertain to the greater Edwards area and are not necessarily intended to be site specific. This proposal does satisfy many of the stated objectives: The NWCCOG indicated that non-point source 22 September 30, 2003 runoffhas been addressed and made only one suggestion pertaining to storm water control on a construction site. NWCCOG states that the erosion control best management practices shown in the application are adequate but, they prefer small rock to straw bale check dams where these practices are necessary. A detailed erosion control plan that outlines construction phasing, drainage patters locations ofBMP's will be required with the Preliminary Plan. Also, NWCCOG concurs with the application's regarding retention of particulate matter from storm water runoff even though post development increases in peak flows may be minimal. A water quality outlet should be incorporated into any retention basin design and documented in the Preliminary Plan application. This proposal does endeavor to maintain scenic vistas through the provision of open space and will promote diversified transportation by providing sidewalks and trail corridors. Natural hazards are being avoided and riparian areas and wetlands will be protected with the exception of footpaths to access the river for fishing. The applicant intends to prepare a plan for controlling fishing access on the subject property in coordination with CDOW. Much of the subject property will remain undisturbed as native vegetative and wildlife habitat. The applicant is also preparing a Wildlife Mitigation Plan with input from CDOW. Economic Development - The proposal does promote a balanced mix of land uses in the Edwards community to encourage a diverse economy. The proposal also represents an opportunity for the ongoing education and training of the Edwards area residents while promoting the innovation and higher-level thinking of its residents (and visitors). Recreation and Tourism - The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". This proposal will provide fishing access to the Eagle River in an area which is currently inaccessible, as well as, passive and active open space opportunities. Historic Preservation - No historic resources were identified on the subject property. At the time of this writing, neither the Colorado State Historical Society nor, the Eagle County Historical Society had provided comment. Implementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) - The proposed commercial site is identified on the FLUM as an area appropriate for, "medium density residential development and minimal mixed use that would address the service, retail and office needs of specifically the surrounding neighborhood. This aspect of the proposal is consistent with this recommendation. The FLUM identifies the Eagle River Bench as appropriate for, "a small river-oriented recreational facility. It may also be appropriate for a low impact public use". The proposed religious/school use would constitute a public use although 'low impact' is debatable. Although it is difficult to say that the proposal fully conforms to this particular FLUM recommendation, the Plan does contain language which allows the Planning Commission to approve exceptions to the plan policies if they find that the original objectives of the Plan are met and the proposal is a unique situation, one not anticipated when the Plan was adopted such as a new church or school". This exception language is precisely applicable to the primary element of the overall proposal. The FLUM identifies the Squaw Creek Bench as appropriate for, "low impact public use". The proposed cemetery and passive/active open space/recreational element may be considered low impact public uses. 23 September 30, 2003 EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Based upon much of the above, redundant discussion pertaining to wildlife, recreation and land use, the initial finding is that the proposal is in conformance with the Eagle River Watershed Plan. Additional information pertaining to water quantity and quality will be forthcoming in the 1041 review process and the Preliminary Plan application. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs The PUD Sketch Plan application did not include a Housing Plan. Such a plan will be required with the Preliminary Plan application. [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Following Final Plat approval, the commercial site would be marketed for sale to a prospective developer or interested religious entity. The implementation of the final design and construction would be up to the individual purchaser. 24 September 30, 2003 The Vail Christian School would implement a first phase of the high school, probably about 30,000 - 40,000 square feet and the gymnasium as soon as practicable. Additional school phases would be initiated as demand and financing allow. Phasing and timing or construction of the interfaith chapel site is undetermined at this time. The Eagle County Sheriffs Department recommends that the overpass/underpass be constructed and operational concurrent with the opening of the school/religious facility. The Applicant will be required to construct public improvements in accordance with Section 5- 240.F.3.e (11), Phasing and other Sections of the Land Use Regulations, and will be required to provide a phasing plan and cost estimates, sufficiently detailed to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer, prior to approval of the final plat for the development. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been proposed for this development. A specific Site Development Schedule sufficient to meet the requirements of this standard, to include guarantees for all public improvements, WILL BE required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum often (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. (1) 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. a. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. b. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor 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 al/landowners within the PUD. The proposed PUD defines a total of 109.1 acres of open space that is approximately 53% of the overall land area included within the PUD boundary. Information submitted does not break out the total amount of use able open space versus passive open space. That portion of the subject property located above and below, to the south and west of the Squaw Creek Bench does constitute the majority of contiguous open space within the PUD, however, the majority of this land area exceeds 30% in slope. 25 September 30, 2003 The PUD does not address continuing use and maintenance responsibility or organization. With the Preliminary Plan application, this information will be required. [+/-] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It HAS been fully demonstrated that The PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to minimum area. It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the requirements for common recreation and open space standards with respect to: a. Improvements required; b. Continuing use and maintenance; or c. Organization. d. Minimum usable open space The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate conformance to all applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the Applicant's own analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of all referral agencies, as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. The Army Corp of Engineers indicated that the proposal does avoid wetland and riparian areas and, as such, a 404 Permit will not be necessary. NWCCOG indicated that overall the proposal does conform to the best management practices defined in the Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan). NWCCOG did provide several recommendations to further strengthen the projects adherence with the 208 Plan. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has visited the site and set forth a number of recommendations for wildlife impact mitigation which will be incorporated into a Wildlife Mitigation Plan which must be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. The Natural Resources Conservation Service referral response offered no comment on this proposal. The Colorado Geological Survey's referral response notes that the proposed cemetery use is a much preferred alternative from previous proposed uses for the Squaw Creek Bench. CGS recommends that, at a minimum, the 50 foot live stream setback be adhered to because structures built too close to the channel are at risk of being undermined by erosion, slope undercutting, caving and channel migration. They further recommend that a site-specific hydrologic analysis be completed to determine whether a larger setback will provide adequate protection. Also, CGS identifies the potential for subsidence due to collapsible soils in the area, especially on the proposed commercial site. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed Geologic Hazards Analysis, as required in Section 4-420.D.2. of the Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS been demonstrated that the PUD has considered the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Additional, more detailed information will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. 26 September 30, 2003 See discussion above on pages 14 and 15, "Consistency with Master Plan." [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] Please see discussion above. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS NOT presently consistent with all policies of the Master Plan and ancillary documents. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [ +/ -] Uses - All uses proposed, with the exception of Commercial Uses, are consistent with those allowed by right, by limited review or by special use in the Resource zone district. [+/-] Lot dimensions - Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f, Variations Authorized for a PUD, a Variation would be required for lots smaller than 35 acres, which is the minimum allowed in the Resource (R) zone district. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) - The Applicant has provided a Conceptual Comprehensive Parking Plan for this proposed PUD. Parking should be addressed in the PUD Guide. Given the proposed uses, density, and lot sizes, conformance to related standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval should not be a problem. The parking standards proposed in the conceptual plan, are less stringent than those otherwise defined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Staff is concerned that sufficient off-street parking be available, particularly with regard to the proposed religious uses. [+/-] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) - The Landscaping Design Standards provide that landscaping in a PUD shall be provided in a manner which is most consistent with the character planned for the development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. The Standards go on to indicate that for development that contains lots larger than two (2) acres, "landscaping should include preservation or replacement of existing trees, shrubs and ground cover and re-vegetation of areas that are disturbed by development." While the Applicant has provided some information, what areas will be disturbed and how existing shrubs and groundcover will be preserved, replaced or how grounds will otherwise be re- vegetated has not been fully addressed. The Applicant is required to provide such information as part of the detailed landscaping plan at Preliminary Plan application. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) - The proposed PUD Guide does include a sign plan that is clearly worded. Proposed is that the signage be allowed to be illuminated internally. Staff recommends that internal illumination of 'canned signs' not be permitted in an effort to minimize nighttime light pollution. [Condition #2]. Rather, monument style signs constructed of natural materials which are directly spot lit would help to improve the overall aesthetic of the site and minimize the amount of light glare generated by signage. Further, the PUD Guide needs to specify a maximum allowed height and setbacks from property line for each type of proposed sign. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) - Please see discussion above. [ +] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. An executed Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The concerns of the Colorado Geological Survey must be adequately addressed with the Preliminary Plan submittal. With Preliminary Plan application, the applicant will be required to submit a detailed Geologic Hazards Analysis. 27 September 30, 2003 [+/-] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has not yet responded to this proposal, however, the CSFS did respond to the previous application on this property and noted a low wildfire hazard on this site. [N/ A] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - Not applicable. [N/A] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not within a designated ridgeline area as depicted on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) -No environmental quality issues have been identified at the time of this report. If significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, an EIR will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) - The proposed development includes a commercial site north of U.S. Highway 6 and east of Hillcrest Drive. The proposal will be required to conform to the requirements ofthis Division. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [-] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - CDOT will require new access permits for each point of ingress/egress off of U.S. Highway 6. These access permits should be applied for concurrently with the Preliminary Plan application and must meet the requirements of the State Highway Access Code. Two points of access to Planning Area 'C' are proposed. One a full movement access and the other is a right in and right out only. U.S. Highway 6, adjacent to the proposed school site is classified as a Regional Highway and, as such, allows only one access per parcel. Further, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that intersections operate at a Level of Service 'D' or better. The applicant's traffic report indicates that the full movement intersection at the school site will operate at a Level of Service 'E'. U.S. Highway 6 adjacent to the commercial site as a Non-Rural Principal Highway. The application proposes two points of ingress/egress to the commercial site; one access onto U.S. Highway 6 and the other onto Hillcrest Drive. This classification allows one access per parcel if reasonable access cannot be obtained from a local street. In this instance, reasonable access can be obtained via Hillcrest Drive. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The applicant proposes a blanket trail easement be established on the north side of the Eagle River outside of the development parcels. ECO Trails has indicated that this is the preferred alignment of the three depicted in the Regional Trails Plan for the connection of west Edwards to Wolcott. ECO Trails further recommends that the easement language be written to avoid Eagle County having responsibility for the maintenance (weeds, etc.) and liability of the entire blanket easement until such time as the trail is constructed and a precise trail easement width and location can be determined (20 feet is typical) as well as specific locations for river access from the trail. Final plat is when the blanket easement language should be finalized. In addition to the blanket easement, with the previous application, the Eagle Valley Trails Committee had requested that the applicant make a financial contribution to the actual trail construction. ECO Trails defers to the Planning Commission to explore this possibility with the current application. The Conceptual Site Plan maps do show a sidewalk connection to the existing trail system as recommended during the previous submittal. This link will serve the property and provide a safe pedestrian route other than walking on the shoulder of U.S. Highway 6. The intent was for a development specific sidewalk, not an 8 or 10 foot wide trail for the regional system. Eagle County Engineering has recommended that the project sidewalk be located in front of the development parcel. That seems a reasonable request because access could be more easily controlled from the visible frontage of the property. Some portion of CDOT right-of-way may be available to help with avoiding riparian zones impacts. The Eagle County Sheriffs Department recommends that the underpass/overpass be constructed and operational concurrently with opening of the school/religious uses. [ +] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - It appears that the requirements of this Section will be satisfied. Additional information will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan. 28 September 30, 2003 [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The Applicant should be able to meet applicable standards. A full drainage report and storm water control plan will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan. Per the referral response from NWCCOG, the proposal does conform to the guidelines of the 208 Plan. [ +] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The plan does will meet the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. Detailed plans incorporating NWCCOG's recommendations will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It does not appear that proposed plan will have particular difficulty in meeting these standards which should be detailed at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Lighting standards should also be included in the PUD Guide. [+/-] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - The application indicates that the standards of this Section can be met. Additional information will be required with the subsequent 1041 review process and Preliminary Plan documentation. [+/-] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - The application indicates that the standards of this Section can be met. Additional information will be required with the subsequent 1041 review process and Preliminary Plan documentation. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) School land dedication or fees-in- lieu is not necessary at this time because the application does not contain any residential development. Road impact fees will be assessed at the time of application for building permit per applicable Eagle County regulations. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. However, the Applicant MAY BE able to meet applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. a. Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Ea!!le 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. The proposed development should not create any of the inefficiencies, duplications or leapfrog development patterns contemplated by this standard. The Applicant is required to demonstrate fully at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed subdivision will 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. The Applicant must further demonstrate conformance to this standard at application for Preliminary Plan STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. 29 September 30, 2003 The property appears to be suitable for development. Comments from the Army Corp of Engineers and NWCCOG indicate that the proposal will not compromise wetland or riparian areas. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS been sufficiently demonstrated that the property proposed to be developed is suitable for development, considering its environmental resources and natural and manmade hazards. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please note earlier discussion. [+/-] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS been demonstrated that the development proposed for the PUD could be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The applicant should be required to delete certain proposed uses or, to demonstrate compatibility at application for Preliminary Plan. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: 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." The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: "to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations." This Section goes on to say that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: a. Permit integration of uses; b. Establish more efficient land use patterns; c. Preserve lands; d. Maintain water quality and quantity; e. Contribute to trails system; f. Establish incentives for affordable housing; and g. Be consistent with the Master Plan. The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. The proposal has been reviewed to determine whether one or more of the performance standards listed above are being served by techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies the use of PUD zoning. The applicant has demonstrated at Sketch Plan level of detail that the benefits of establishing a mixed use PUD in this area of Eagle County outweigh the anticipated impacts. The proposed development would create a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards ofthe Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant has submitted a PUD guide and HAS demonstrated that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Furthermore, the Applicant will likely be able to demonstrate that the purposes of PUD zoning are being served by the proposed development. ReQuirements for a Zone Chan!!e It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these considerations be reviewed at PUD Sketch Plan, even though zone changes are neither granted for a PUD at Sketch Plan nor may they be "formal" findings. It is almost impossible to avoid confronting these requirements at this stage since they are fundamental to the location's appropriateness of the proposed land use in the first place, and must be found at Preliminary Plan. Staff, therefore provides a list of criteria which must be met for a zone change, pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards, for amendment to the Official Zone District Map: (1) Consistency with Master Plan. (2) Compatible with surrounding uses. 30 September 30, 2003 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Public interest. Mr. Naracci presented a power point slide show about the subject property. He showed pictures of views for each of the sites, cemetery, and open space. He showed a picture of the commercial site from Highway 6 in all directions. Commissioner Stone asked about the building on the site. Rick Plyman, PJA Land Planning, told the Board that the property is a bit further to the east than the pictures show. Commissioner Stone asked what the maximum use might be on the commercial site. Mr. Naracci answered that the most intensive use might be a restaurant or a gas station. He showed the church and school site pictures and reviewed staff concerns and referral agency recommendations. Commissioner Stone inquired as to who would own the open space. Mr. Naracci stated he understood that it would remain under the ownership of the Vail Christian School. Commissioner Stone asked about the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Naracci responded that it would likely be owned by Eagle County. He highlighted some areas that could be used for fisherman access parking. He stated Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the plan. Terry Halvorson, Chairman of Vail Christian High School spoke to the Board. He gave some details about the mix of students who attend the school. He told the Board that they had meandered a bit in finding an appropriate site for the Church and School. "Some of the sites that they had access to would have limited the potential total number of students who could attend. The current site will allow the school to grow to around 250 children." Mr. Plyman told the Board that 64% of the current student body comes from Avon, Edwards and 30% from Gypsum and Eagle and 6% come from Vail. He explained that this is a very central location for the school. He stated that the property is a 205 acre parcel, which by title includes the Wilmore lake rest area and 1-70 right of way, railroad tracks, a portion of Hillcrest Drive and portions of Highway 6. He assured the Board that the right-of-ways would be dedicated away at final approval. The maximum plan would allow for a 20,000 square foot facility which could be two stories high. Mr. Plyman showed the Commissioners the suggested access points for all of the proposed uses. Commissioner Stone asked who the permitting authority was. Mr. Plyman stated that Eagle County is. He related that the applicant is currently partnering with the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation and would like to accommodate a third interfaith worship facility in the central part of the valley. He stated that the applicant believes the uses are compatible with the other area uses. The Master Plan supports this use. He stated that these are really community facilities and not real estate development. This is about supporting the community. He stated there is one issue which concerns the cemetery. It allows them to keep the open space. He stated the Cordillera Property Owners Association were concerned about the fishing rights and the entry statement a cemetery might make at the corner of Squaw Creek Road. He stated the Cordillera Property Owners Association has made an offer to the school to purchase the fishing rights to the property and the cemetery site and keep it as open space. He stated they would like to keep the cemetery in the application in the plan until that deal is closed. Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. He asked all those to present to not repeat previous comments and to keep their comments brief. Steve Glandorf, Principal of Vail Christian High School, thanked the Board for allowing them to meet with the Commissioners today. He stated this program is becoming a vital program in the valley. 31 September 30, 2003 Changed conditions. Effect on natural environment. Community need. Development patterns. He urged the Board to approve this request. They are fully accredited and all teachers have a Bachelors Degree in their specific field. He stated Linda Isbill was named teacher of the year for the State. In May 2003, the rocket team competed in a national rocket competition and finished third. Students were accepted at a school oftheir choice. They have athletic programs in football, volleyball, basketball and track. There are families throughout the valley attending this school. They have a 31 % increase. Because ofthe increase it is imperative to move to the site. It is an honor and privilege to work with the youth today. They take great pride in molding the future leaders of the world. Rachel Glandorf and John Mcgee, students, were present for the hearing. John Mcgee stated he has been at this school for four years. In the past three years he has had more opportunities at this school than he ever could have imagined. He went to Washington D.C., he competed in the rocketry challenge and took third place. Being a senior at this school and having seen what this school has done and what they can do, he fully supports a new building. It is the next step for this school. He stated they have gathered 1,000 signatures on a petition in support ofthis project. There are a lot of kids who want to be a part of this high school. Rachel Glandorf spoke to the Board about the opportunities and experiences she has had at this school. She related she is a junior this year. She stated she participates in three sports every year, goes on annual mission trips with the school each year while preparing for college. She stated there are a lot of kids who want to be a part ofthis school. She urged the Board to approve this proposal. Father Brooks Keith, Director of the Episcopal Church of the Transconfiguration, stated he is a past president ofthe Religious Foundation for Eagle Valley. He related they have been looking for a place for the past eight years. He stated they have moved four times in seven years. He stated they must find a place to plant. There are other faith groups that will benefit from this proposal. On any given week night they are competing for space to meet. He stated they have looked at 20 parcels in those eight years. He asked for a unanimous vote. This will be a great benefit to the entire community. Chairman Gallagher asked about the 20,000 square foot building with a 10,000 foot print. He asked if that was large enough. Father Keith stated they would like to add on a couple more thousand feet in order to have larger classroom size. The building is designed for multi-congregational use. Michael Mutter, area resident and developer, mentioned this was a beacon of cooperation. To think they could put three congregations in one neighborhood and have it all work in the spirit of cooperation. He stated donations are what is going to fund this operation. Without the support of the Cordillera Property Owners Association this would not be possible. All of the organizations that have been mentioned have been looking forever for a place to go. They need to minimize all the add-ons. He would like the Board to approve this application and related this is a vital piece of infrastructure. This is vital to our community. Narda Reigal, representing the Catholic crowd and Board member of Vail Christian High School, stated this project is very exciting. They have the privilege of being so different and unified in taking care of the families in this community. These families need help and support. She spoke to mentoring programs. Unity and diversity are also working. She urged the Board to support this proposal. Eric Williams, Youth Minister, stated he agrees with all other comments. He stated he is involved with this for the youth groups. The chapels are beautiful but they do not work well with youth groups. He stated last night they played Frisbee in a parking lot. They need areas where they can all come together. He stated there are children from Gypsum that go to youth group and they are currently meeting in Minturn. Rob Haney, Chairman of the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation, spoke to the commercial corner. He stated his involvement with the high school has led him to be a part of the team. It is about redeveloping a community and a neighborhood. These people are going to provide schools and chapels. In developing the commercial corner it provides needed funds that the high school can immediately use for land development and construction. These sites are appropriate for development. There will be a 32 September 30, 2003 restaurant, service station and other service facilities. They will be redeveloping with landscaping and western architecture that helps an area of west Edwards that is currently being used as industrial storage. Within walking distance, there is the Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park. These people have to walk over a mile for those services. Lake Creek Village Apartments are within walking distance. Approximately 3,500 residents live within walking distance. The commercial corner would also provide jobs. They would also provide two housing units on site. Speaking to traffic patterns, currently there are 18,000 to 20,000 cars pass the property daily. They are not trying to pull more traffic onto Highway 6. It is important to mention they will not cause more traffic. They would not specifically be a destination point. They would address getting traffic out of the core of Edwards. They want to mention the architectural style, lighting is a significant issue and will be down cast and low wattage, so it will not negatively impact the neighbors. In summary they want to work with the community and provide a re- development of this area. This meets the proposed use guidelines and provides much needed services to the area and establishes an attractive development. He too asked for a unanimous vote. Janet DeClark, Vail Christian High School and area resident, stated she has three children in three different schools. There is a lot of diversity in her own family. She stated you need a choice in education. Her son is a freshman at Vail Christian High School. He is very happy and answers her questions now with more than just a grunt. There is a belonging there. The economic base is changing and they would like to attract different types of businesses. One of the things they look at is the school system. With approval of this proposal those people will find that Eagle County values diversity. Eugene Scott, Pastor of the Presbyterian Church, stated he is new to the community. One of the first things he recognized is the problem with becoming a community. He stated being able to mow lawns for summer jobs or a consistent place to gather for groups keeps the community together. They are looking at this being much more of a community center than a chapel. He stated education, meetings and times of prayer are what is needed. He spoke to future needs as well. He stated he has a vision of a Protestant Hispanic meeting place so they to can feel at home and have a place to worship. There are a lot of other faiths in the community who are waiting for a place to meet. They need a high school and have open arms. Steve Ruder, area developer and resident, stated he is the property owner across Highway 6. He stated Highway 6 property owners are using their property for commercial businesses. He stated he knows Mr. Haney and he does a dynamite job. When this is complete it will look good and will be a benefit to the community. He stated at his age the cemetery also sounds good. He stated the schools will be an asset. Bruce Hlavacek, president of the Cordillera Property Owners Association, stated they are excited about this proposal. He stated they have come to a win win team effort to work together and make this possible. They have come up with a significant amount of money to purchase the cemetery bench, the north side of the river and the fishing rights. They will be working with the DOW to keep that space as wildlife space. They are committed to that remaining open space. Commissioner Stone asked if the Board decides to move forward and the cemetery remains, how would they feel. Mr. Hlavacek stated as soon as they close on the property they will be closing on their share at the same time. He stated as soon as they close on the property the cemetery will no longer be a use. That portion of the property will be open space. Chairman Gallagher asked about the fishing rights. Mr. Hlavacek stated they will be working with the school. He stated the DOW has been negotiating the areas to be open for fishing. He stated the school has concerns with someone fishing the area during school hours. Cordillera will use that and manage that for their own fishing rights on a limited basis and will be teaming with the school so as not to interfere. The school will also be able to use the access to the river. Chairman Gallagher asked about the south side of the river. 33 September 30, 2003 Mr. Hlavacek stated the school would have control of the south side of the river but not the fishing rights. He pointed out on a map the location of the sides of the river being owned by Cordillera. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Mr. Plyman stated the applicant does not have response to public comments. Mr. Narracci stated staff has no response to public comment. Chairman Gallagher asked about the apartments above the service station. It appears those are two 1,000 square foot one bedroom apartments. Mr. Haney stated that was correct and related those can be enlarged if needed. Mr. Plyman stated putting the units upstairs addresses a couple of questions. They did not include residential uses in the application above the commercial property. Commissioner Stone commented one of the areas of interest is access. It seems once this all gets built out there is an entrance directly across Highway 6 across the street from the church that will call for a stop light. There will have to be some kind of control. Justin Hildrith, Engineering, stated there will more than likely have to be a stop light. Commissioner Stone spoke to the Spur Road and Highway 6 comer. He stated that facility does not have two points of access. He questioned if two points of access makes sense for this development. Mr. Hildrith stated it may make more sense because of the property line and the close proximity of Hillcrest Drive. Commissioner Stone stated they will need to control the access. This also may have to be a shared access. Mr. Hildrith stated right in and right out would be difficult to obtain. He stated they are proposing to share facilities with the church. That intersection does not meet the requirements ofthe code with respect to the left turn out, which is at a level of service E and the code requires a level of service D. There would have to do some mitigations to bring the road to a level of service D. Mr. Plyman stated the traffic report does address accell and decelllanes. Commissioner Stone stated he was bringing it up to give the applicant good direction. He stated this will alleviate congestion on Hillcrest Drive and Squaw Creek Road. Mr. Hi1drith stated that was correct. Commissioner Stone questioned the access to the proposed cemetery / open space site. Mr. Hildrith stated a cemetery does not have too much traffic and does meet the driveway requirements. Commissioner Stone spoke to pedestrian access to the site. He asked about providing a path to different parts of the site. Mr. Hildrith stated the trail goes to Hillcrest Drive and there is a sidewalk on the bridge. The core trail would cross the river on Hillcrest Drive and continue on the north side of the river. There is a concern of pedestrian traffic from the commercial site. The applicant is proposing some pedestrian improvements along the entire length but not along Highway 6. He stated staff would like to see the improvements next to Highway 6 in front of the school. Commissioner Stone stated he is questioning public improvements being minimized. He stated their plan does show interior pathways. Are those meant to be completed. Mr. Plyman spoke to the sidewalks and trails and pointed out the current ECO trail. He stated the eco trail will most likely want to go down along the opposite side of the river. He stated they show a sidewalk that goes through the school property. They have started to take a harder look at that. There is a stretch that would be a very hard build. There could be some ways that it would work along the Highway. They will come up with the best plans they can. They may come back and relate they need financial assistance. Commissioner Stone stated he will not want to hear that answer. He stated the Haney corner will be an attraction to the school and the pedestrians will need a way to get from point A to point B. Chairman Gallagher echoed Commissioner Stone's comments. He stated the State will most likely want the trail adjacent to the Highway when plowing snow. 34 September 30, 2003 Commissioner Stone stated he would like the applicant to explain at a later date, how they will address the beauty of the riverfront properties. He would like to see the applicant explain how they can improve the river banks, particularly around the commercial site. Chairman Gallagher asked about the football fields on the cemetery site. Mr. Narracci stated that was part of the original application. Mr. Plyman stated they have agreed to not do that. Chairman Gallagher thanked the Cordillera people for coming to the rescue and helping out. Mr. Plyman stated they are in agreement with conditions 1 through 5. Condition 6 addresses the access and they will work with the Engineering Department and the State Highway Department. Commissioner Stone suggested a full traffic light. Commissioner Stone asked how they would change condition number 6. Mr. Narracci stated "application with a full traffic light with a pedestrian crossing at the main entrance." Mr. Plyman stated they agreed to number 7 but question if it is worded correctly. Chairman Gallagher stated he would limit the housing plan to area B. Mr. Plyman spoke to condition 8 and stated they spoke ofthis earlier. Chairman Gallagher asked about emergency vehicle access. He suggested one of the entrances be for emergency vehicles only. Commissioner Stone that could be the first access to the east. Mr. Plyman questioned condition number 9, and stated they would love to have a bus stop and agreed that would be appropriate. He asked if the cost is borne by the applicant. Mr. Hildrith stated the shelter would be paid for by ECO but the turn out will be paid for by the applicant. The Board concurred Mr. Plyman stated the applicant agrees with the rest of the conditions. Commissioner Stone asked about a water service plan. Mr. Narracci stated it will be covered by the 1041. Mr. Hildrith stated the applicant will have to meet the State Highway Access Code for the pedestrian crossing and the access permit. Mr. Plyman stated they do understand that. He stated they may have a question on the emergency access only and would like to work with the engineers to determine that. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number PDS-00037, Vail Christian School, incorporating staff findings and with the following conditions: 1. Adequate planting strips should be provided adjacent to all property lines where a street right- of-way is located adjacent to the parking area. All planting materials used for landscaping must be compatible with the local climate and the soils, drainage and water conditions ofthe site. The planting materials should consist of native, drought-resistant varieties. Landscaping shall be installed within the next growing season following completion of each building. 2. Internal illumination of 'canned signs' should not be permitted in an effort to minimize nighttime light pollution. All non-security lighting shall be turned offby 11 :00 p.m. unless for a special event. 3. The PUD Guide should be modified to eliminate contractor's storage yards as a use-by-right as it is not compatible with existing and allowed uses in all directions from the subject property. 4. The PUD Guide should incorporate language which clearly states that all existing contractor's storage uses on the commercial parcel will cease no later than the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Sports fields will not be allowed on Parcel D, which is the Squaw Creek Bench. 6. Application for a full traffic light with pedestrian crossing signals on U.S. Highway 6 at the main entrance to the property where the church and schools are must be made to the Colorado Department of Transportation by the time the school opens, in accordance with the State of Colorado Standards. 35 September 30, 2003 7. At preliminary plan application, a housing plan shall be proposed for the commercial use on Planning Parcel B only. No other requirement for housing will be made for the balance of the property. 8. All comments of the Eagle County Engineering Department in their memorandum dated August 21, 2003 must be resolved with the Preliminary Plan application. 9. Pursuant to the recommendations of ECO Transit in their e-mailed response dated August 22, 2003 a bus shelter should be installed on the north side of U.S. Highway 6 in close proximity to the proposed crosswalk / traffic light. It is understood that ECO pays for the shelter however the pad for the turn out will be a requirement for the applicant. 10. The recommendations ofNWCCOG delineated in their letter dated August 18, 2003 must be incorporated into the Preliminary Plan application. 11. The applicant shall continue working with ECO Trails to a satisfactory solution of trail and sidewalk orientation for the project. 12. The comments of the Eagle River Fire Protection District in their memorandum dated August 25, 2003 must be incorporated into the Preliminary Plan application. 13. That all material representations made by the Applicant in submitted materials and in public meetings and in oral response, shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 14. The comments of the Colorado Geological Survey in their letter dated August 29,2003 must be incorporated into the Preliminary Plan application. 15. The comments of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in their letter dated August 26,2003 must be incorporated into a wildlife mitigation plan at the time of Preliminary Plan application. 16. The PUD Guide shall include the 'restaurant' use as a Special Use and the term 'garage' shall be clarified as 'parking garage' for Planning Parcel 'B'. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Colorado Cares Volunteer Recognition / Celebration of Community Volunteers Chairman Gallagher stated the next matter before the Board was the Colorado Cares Volunteer Recognition / Celebration of Community Volunteers. He thanked all for helping recognize, celebrate, and promote the importance ofvolunteerism in Eagle County. Colorado Cares Dav was first celebrated in 1999, to celebrate our state with a special day designed for residents to re-establish community. In 2001, Gov. Owens added the Colorado Cares Volunteer Service Awards to honor those who give back to our community year-round. Our winners, today, were nominated by individuals and organizations in the area. Each will receive two (2) certificates: one from our county commissioners and one from Governor Owens. The certificates will be presented by last year's local and state winner in "Education", Ann Muncaster . Chairman Gallagher presented the first winner, Johnnette Phillips for the category SENIORS. He stated Ms. Phillips was nominated by Eagle based senior Gloria Reed. Ms. Phillips receives the Seniors Award. She has served Eagle County for numerous years. Following her public service as an Eagle County Commissioner, Ms. Phillips became an advocate for our seniors on housing issues and coordinated the senior trip to Washington DC and Philadelphia's Independence Hall. In fact, this visit was so cherished, that many seniors were moved to tears to see these areas, first-hand. She also spends many hours preparing and serving meals at the Eagle Senior Nutrition site. Congratulations Johnnette Phillips! Commissioner Stone presented the next award for Paula Palmateer for the category EDUCATION. He stated Ms. Palmateer is this year's designate for the Education Award. Nominee, Beth Reilly, refers to Paula as the "cornerstone" of the Red Ribbon Project in the county. The RRP, as it's called, focuses on HIV and AIDS prevention and education. Ms. Palmateer was the connection in the RRP reaching 600 English speaking Eagle County youth through educational presentations and over 36 September 30, 2003 400 Spanish speaking youth through the development of a Spanish language curriculum. Ms. Palmateer also schedules board meetings and hosts trainers in her own home, The RRP does not have a paid staff but they have Paula, and we all benefit because they do. Ms. Palmateer could not be present and Beth Bailey accepted in her place. Chairman Gallagher stated the next award goes to Amy Philips for the category GOOD SAMARITAN. He stated it's easy to see why Gwen Scalpello nominated Amy Philips for this year's Good Samaritan award. Her dedication, commitment and enthusiasm for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens have motivated other volunteers to come forward and serve. A multi-talented volunteer, Amy serves as the secretary to the Board of the Gardens. She has also worked to increase membership, to make the annual fund raiser the success that it has become, and has filled a void in the administrative office. Amy has also been a spokesperson for the Gardens. We congratulate Amy for her outstanding volunteerism. Commissioner Stone stated the next award goes to Rick Scalpello in the category of EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS. Sometimes it takes a family member to let us know about an extraordinary person in their own home. So when Gwen Scalpello nominated her husband Rick for the Exceptional Events award, we could see why. Rick Scalpello created and organized "Vail Today", a non-profit group, to promote vitality in the town. He did that by successfully petitioning the council for additional lighting, activity information signs, street entertainment and special events. Rick helped to create the guided art walks in Vail, a Sunday Farmer's Market and an Italian festival. The key to Rick's success has been his innate ability to get everyone to work together for the common goal of business improvement in Vail .Congratulations Rick! Chairman Gallagher stated the next award goes to The Girl Scout Eagle Patrol in the category of RISING STARS. Nominated by Cynthia Sibley and Dixie Burmeister, The Girl Scout Eagle Patrol is commended today for the Rising Star Award. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, President Bush challenged the youth of our country to help children in need in Afghanistan. The girls produced a "patch program" with a focus to learn more about children all over the world. The Patrol also designed a patch of their own, researching and learning more about the culture, traditions and lifestyle of Afghanistan. Soon, they began to sell their patches. Near Christmas, last year, they proudly sent a check for $1000 in to Hope International to support nearly 200 Afghani families for three months. The Girl Scout Eagle Patrol is truly a "Rising Star" in our book. Commissioner Stone stated the next award goes to Peggy Randall Buckau for the category CENTENNIAL. He stated Jacki Allen-Benson nominated Peggy for the Centennial Award for her many and varied volunteer talents. Peg has given so much in time and talent in so many areas.. .at the Golden Eagle Senior Site, where she prepares tables and reads to those who have lost the ability to see; at the Eagle County Chapter of the Red Cross, where she helped out in the recent Vail "sinkhole" crisis; as an active member of the Eagle County Historical Society; and as an assistant for the National Family Caregivers and the Rural Resort RSVP office. Peg brings a warm heart, a loving nature, and a willingness to work hard in each of the volunteer jobs she performs. Our congratulations to Peg on her Centennial award today. Chairman Gallagher stated the next award goes to Paul Steinfort for the category HEALTH. Our thanks to Ed Smith for nominating Paul who receives the Health Award today for his coordination of the 9News Health Fair in Eagle County. Not only has Paul been the chairperson for this event for the last 16 years, but he has been a key player as its chairperson for the last 16 years. Perseverance pays off, and with Paul at the helm, the Health Fair grew from 76 participants to 700. Paul is also active in the Lions Club who helped get this event off the ground. Paul's willingness to serve for so many years, and his amazing talent caught the Governor's eye too. He will be honored at a special reception at the Governor's mansion in October. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication as a volunteer in Eagle County and congratulations on winning the Colorado Cares State Award in Health this year. Commissioner Stone stated the next award goes to Bob & June Vanourek for the category YOUTH/CHILDREN. Joining Paul at the Governor's reception for the state winners this year in the "Youth and Children" category are Eagle County volunteers, Bob and June Vanourek, who were 37 September 30, 2003 nominated by Nicole Kelsay. In the course of serving as an "adoptive family", Bob and June have contributed to the highest well being for the family's children through academic guidance, enrolling the children in camps and sports, taking them to sporting events, camping and amusement parks, and making their home available to these children as a weekend retreat. Bob and June have also bought clothes and school supplies for the children. Through both the tough times and the good times, Bob and June have not only made a commitment to their adoptive family, but have made an invaluable connection with the children that proves family is not always defined by biology. Our thanks to Bob and June for their love and devotion to their adoptive family and congratulations on being Governor Owen's choice in the Youth and Children's category. Commissioner Stone stated the next award goes to Jan Connors for the category ENVIRONMENT. He stated our thanks to Sylvan Lake State Park for nominating Jan Connors for the Environment Award this year. Jan has volunteered at the park for over a year and was one of the first volunteers at Sylvan Lake when the new Visitor Center opened. Her knowledge of nature and her enthusiasm for the outdoors has been a tremendous asset at the park. She quickly learned the particulars and loves to share her knowledge with the public. Even though J an has had some health issues this past year, she kept coming back to help out at Sylvan Lake. Her persistence and joy in being a part ofthe park has brought other volunteers there to serve. Jan has become a favorite of both visitors and employees at Sylvan Lake State Park. Well-done, Jan. Chairman Gallagher stated the next award goes to Gilda Kaplan in the OTHER CATEGORY. The recipient of a Colorado Cares Volunteer Service award in the collective category is Gilda Kaplan. Nominated by the Vail Police Department, Gilda is their volunteer coordinator. She works numerous hours without compensation, preparing for projects with enthusiasm, pride and diligence, Gilda sees what is needed, develops new concepts and carries out responsibilities without hesitation. As just one example of her dedication, right after having a hip replacement, she hobbled around on crutches, working hundreds of hours to help put on a benefit auction for the infant daughter of a Vail police officer killed in the line of duty. Because Gilda recruits so many volunteers for non-enforcement support, officers are able to handle countless situations requiring critical police attention. Our congratulations, Gilda! Chairman Gallagher thanked all those who do what they do for Eagle County. If it is an hour a week or an hour a month, it is giving of ourselves that brings the greatest blessing. These people are our greatest blessing. Commissioner Stone stated not only could they not afford this type of service if the County had to pay for all the volunteer hours but it is the quality of the care the volunteers give. He thanked all the volunteers for all that they do and how well they do it. Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services, invited everyone for a light supper at the Eagle Park. PR-00024, Berry Creek Miller Ranch Recreation Fields, Phase II Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PR-00024, Berry Creek Miller Ranch Recreation Fields Phase II. He stated this proposal is for the second phase of recreation field improvements which add [1] a natural grass softball field with a 200 foot foul line and backstop, [2] a natural grass softball field with a 300 foot foul line and backstop, [3] a natural grass multi-purpose field (partially overlapping the two softball fields), [4] an irrigation system to support the fields and open space in between, [5] a path from recreation fields to the adjacent residential neighborhood, [6] eighty additional parking spaces (gravel), and [7] a 20 by 30 foot maintenance building. The Planning Commissioner deliberations consisted of the following: Type and number of restroom facilities, and whether reliance on portable facilities is a lowering of standards; disappointment that there are no permanent restroom facilities. ADA accessibility. 38 September 30, 2003 Location of water and sewer lines to serve a permanent restroom facility. Whether conduit will be installed for eventual lighting of fields. Whether there will be Phase III improvements. Disappointment that a grading permit was issued prior to review by the Planning Commission. The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report: 1999 - The Eagle County Recreation Authority (whose interests were later to be transferred to Eagle County) and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J) entered into a Intergovernmental Agreement to develop the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch site on a joint basis. 2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - A Combined PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan Berry Creek / Miller Ranch was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March. The final plat for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD was approved in May. 2002 - Site Specific Development Plan approved for Phase I improvements on Tract C which included three multi-purpose athletic fields; a passive park area to include a picnic shelter, seating and playground apparatus; landscaping, including a berm along Miller Ranch Road; and drainage and detention improvements. 2003 - Site Specific Development Plan approved for a multi-purpose pond on Tract C to provide storm water detention, water supply for irrigation (including operational storage), recreation and aesthetics. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Department Various technical comments regarding the construction plans. (Copy attached.) Eagle River Water and Sanitation District No concerns with this project as there are no associated water or sanitation services Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA) No comments. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO Trails), Eagle County School District, Partnership for Education, Colorado Mountain College, Berry Creek Metro District, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Approval of this phase of improvements to the Berry Creek Recreation Tract may occur after consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board that the development is consistent with the PUD Guide, the PUD Preliminary Plan, the Master Circulation Plan, and the Master Drainage Plan for the PUD. Consistency with the PUD Guide The PUD Guide establishes that the purpose for this Tract is to "provide sites for indoor and outdoor recreation, including active and passive recreation areas, parking facilities, and other community-oriented facilities." Permitted uses, specifically as they relate to this planning review file, include, among other things: sports fields, ball fields and hard court areas, parks and playgrounds, picnic areas, trails, and utility facilities. All of the uses proposed in this application are uses permitted by the PUD Guide. The number and design of on-site parking spaces is to be established through this site specific development review. Phase I recreation field improvements, which included three soccer fields, included parking for 128 vehicles. The rationale was to provide spaces for 30 vehicles for participants on each of the three fields, plus 38 additional spaces for transition times between games. A limited amount of this parking would also be required to accommodate visitors to the multi-purpose pond at the west end of the Recreation Tract. Phase II improvements are to include 80 additional spaces. Staff is satisfied with the proposed number of parking spaces for Phase II development. 39 September 30, 2003 The proposed uses, including the proposed maintenance building south of and adjacent to the parking area, fall well within the dimensional limitations prescribed in the PUD Guide as it relates to minimum setbacks (20 feet from perimeter), maximum lot coverage (buildings: 50%; all impervious materials: 80%), and building height (45 feet). [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Guide [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Guide. Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan The Preliminary Plan approved for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD contemplates the development of this Tract as a recreation site. An overall landscape plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, which was approved with the PUD Preliminary Plan, includes a streetscape/landscape plan for the Miller Ranch Road right-of-way. Landscaping detail was shown along that part of Miller Ranch Road immediately east of its intersection with the Edwards Spur Road, in the vicinity of the Housing Tract D, and in the vicinity of the Berry Creek Middle School. Irrigation is proposed to be primarily by use of non-potable water. The overall landscape plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD provided that landscaping and irrigation of individual sites are to be reviewed during the site specific development review for each site. No additional landscaping is proposed with the development of the pond. Landscaping for Phase II of the recreation fields consists of bluegrass sod for the recreation fields, with an infield mix for the two softball infields, plus native seed mix adjacent to the bike path to the south. The landscape plan submitted for this phase of the recreation site development is consistent with the overall landscape plan. Restroom facilities for the recreation fields have been provided by two "sanolets ", or portable restrooms, within a screened area. A third sanolet will be provided as a part of the Phase 11 improvements. As the needs arise, additional sanolets will be put in place to accommodate users of the recreation fields. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3. The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan. Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan The Master Circulation Plan approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan provides a primary access point into the Recreation Tract at the location currently being used to access the existing parking lot. This access point is intended to serve both the Recreation Tract to the south of Miller Ranch Road and the proposed High School Tract to the north of Miller Ranch Road. Ultimately a single lane traffic circle is contemplated to serve both Tracts. A traffic study was provided for the Phase I recreation field improvements reflecting a T- intersection where the access to the parking area for this site enters Miller Ranch Road. The traffic study indicated that the T -intersection is sufficient to handle the traffic generated by the three recreation fields of Phase I at an "A" level of service. The additional traffic generated by Phase II is not expected to generate enough traffic to warrant a traffic circle at this time. The Land Use Regulations require that road impact fees be collected prior to development of new traffic generating development. Even though Eagle County is both the developer of the site and the collected of the road impact fees, it is necessary to transfer the calculated fee to the appropriate road impact fee account. Road impact fees were not paid prior to development of the Phase I recreation fields, so the calculation should reflect both Phase I and Phase II development. As a condition of approval, an appropriate road impact fee for Phase I and Phase II recreation field improvements should be paid prior to issuing a grading or other permit for these improvements. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Circulation Plan. Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan A portion of the non-potable water flowing to the Tract from the east will be used for irrigation of the athletic fields. Run-off from irrigation will be directed to the multi-purpose pond being developed near the west end of the Recreation Tract. 40 September 30, 2003 Eagle County Engineering has noted several items with respect to the construction plans for the fields and related drainage features that will need to be addressed prior to construction. As a condition of approval, final construction drawings, satisfactory to the County Engineer, should be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit and the beginning of construction of the recreation fields and related improvements. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Drainage Plan. Rich Cunningham, representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Stone asked about the Road Impact Fee. He stated he is confused that some governmental entities have to pay a road impact fee and some do not. Mr. Forinash stated they would pursue that and come back to the Board with an answer. Chairman Gallagher questioned restroom facilities. He stated staff should consider roughing in plumbing when constructing the ball fields so they will not have to be disturbed when building the restrooms at a later date. Commissioner Stone stated the location of the water and sewer lines are such that they can be accessed from the west and the fields will not have to be disturbed. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. PR-00024, , Berry Creek Miller Ranch Recreation Fields Phase II, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. An appropriate road impact fee for Phase I and Phase II recreation field improvements shall be paid prior to approval of a resolution for this File. 2. Final construction drawings, satisfactory to the County Engineer, shall be provided prior to approval of a resolution for this File. 3. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and in all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00167, Miller Ranch Road Tracts E & F, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD Joe Forinash presented file number AFP-00167, Miller Ranch Road and Tracts E & F, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD. He stated this was an amended final plat which would [1] amend the alignment of Miller Ranch Road right-of-way, effecting Tracts E and F; [2] amend the easements located in Tracts E and F, previously created by the plat of Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development; [3] amend the right-of-way monument location to the centerline of the right-of-ways; and [4] create the bicycle and pedestrian easement lying within Tract F, the elementary school tract lying west of Miller Ranch Rd. The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report: 2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD approved. 2002 - Combined PUD Sketch/Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD approved. 2002 final Plat approved for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has made the following findings: STANDARD: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3.a.] -- Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment adversely affects adjacent property owners. The following adjacent property owners have been notified: Edwards Interchange; Edwards Station, LLC; Millers Creek on the Eagle River; Hugo Parra & Carmen Vasquez; SPI Golf, Inc.; Eagle 41 September 30, 2003 County; Jason & Marie Chilton; Partnership for Education; and Eagle County School District (RE50J). No letters have been received by the Community Development Department. [+] FINDING: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3.a.] The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversely affect adjacent property owners. STANDARD: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. [+] FINDING: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] The proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat as provided in a restrictive plat note. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-290.G.3.c.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. [+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-90.G.3.c.] The proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. STANDARD: Improvements Agreement [Section 5-290.G.3.d.] - Adequacy of the proposed improvements agreements and/or off-site road improvements agreement when applicable. [+] FINDING: Improvements Agreement [Section 5-290.G.3.d.] An Improvements Agreement IS NOT applicable. STANDARD: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] - If the amendment is an alteration of a restrictive plat note at least one of the following criteria must be met: 1. That area for which the amendment is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area; or 2. That the proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community need. [n/a] FINDING: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note. Peter Sulmeisters, Engineering Department representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. Chairman Gallagher asked if the right-of-way was sufficient to accommodate bikes and such. Mr. Sulmesiters answered it is five foot wide and fifty feet long and goes to the regional trail. Chairman Gallagher stated he was concerned with the pedestrians from Berry Creek to the lower trail. Mr. Sulmeisters stated that is why they added that particular easement. Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve the amended final flat for Miller Ranch Road and Charter School Road, and Tracts E and F in the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD and authorize the Chairman to sign the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. AFP-00167, Miller Ranch Road, incorporating the Staff findings, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ' ':~.... There being no further busin o~VGl' ~'~. t before the Board the meeting was adjonrned until October 7,2003. .. * ~ C'ol.oa,,9o ~. ~l)~ ~ 42 September 30, 2003