Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 12/14/04 PUBLIC HEARING December 14, 2004 - esent: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Jack Ingstad Diane Mauriello Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Clerk to the Board Executive Session COlluuissioner Menconi moved that the Board go into Executive Session for th~ purpose of discussing annexation of certain airport property to the Town of Gypsum and for the purpose of discussing a potential sale or exchange of real property associated with the airport all of which are appropriate topics pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from executive session and Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion which passed unanimously. This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of COUilty Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying For the Weeks of December 13, December 20 and December 27, 2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of Payroll for December 22,2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department Co Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners MeetingFor December 7, 2004 Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder D. Resolution 2004-122 Concerning an Appointment to the Cedar Hill Cemetery Association District Board of Directors County Attorney's Office Representative Eo Resolution 2004-123 Concerning Two Appointments to the Eagle Valley Library District Board of Trustees County Attorney's Office Representative F. Resolution 2004-124 Authorizing the Submission on an Application to and Execution of a Contract with the Colorado River Water Conservation District for Water Supply for the Airport Runway Extension County Attorney's Office Representative G. Resolution 2004-125 Authorizing Signature and Grant Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for Receiving LEAF Grant Funding for the Enforcement of Laws Pertaining to Driving Under the Influence County Attorney's Office Representative H Approval ofBi-Weekly Payroll Schedule for 2005 Alicia Holder, Finance I I 12-14-04 1. Resolution 2004-126.for Order of Cancellation of Certain Uncollectible Taxes Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer J. Change Order No.1 between American Civil Constructors and Eagle County to Install Water and Sewer Syst Mains at Berry Creek for the Skatepark and Playground in Edwards, Colorado Michael Circovic, Facilities Management K. Agreement between Eagle County and Aspen Center for Women's Health for Prenatal Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services L. Agreement between Eagle County and EagleCare Medical Clinic for Prenatal Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services M. Request to Carry Forward Early Head Start ProgramGovernance Funds Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services N. Training and Technical Assistance Plan for Early Head Start Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services O. Agreernent between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for Immunization Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services P. Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County and the Eagle County School District for Early Childhood Partners Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & ~uman Services Q. Water Lease Agreement between Eagle County and 1. Craig and M. Brunilda Butters, for Water Use from the Neilson South Ditch Helen Migchelbrink, Facilities Management R. Water Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Bill and DeAnn Lammert for Water Use from the Neilson South Ditch Helen Migchelbrink, Facilities Management S. Agreement for Recycling Services between County of Eagle, State of Colorado and Waste Management of Colorado, me. Ron Rasnic, Landfill T. Resolution 2004-127 Authorizing the Distribution of Monies from the School Land Dedication Fund to Eagle County School District RE-50J Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer U. Animal Services Veterinary Contract Deb Brown, Animal Services V. Resolution 2004-128 Concerning Revolving Loan Fund Policies KT Gazunis & Barbara Peterson, housing W. Land Lease between Eagle County and Frontier (Dollar) Rental Chris Anderson, Airport X. Maintenance Agreement between ASMI and Eagle County Airport Chris Anderson, Airport 2 12-14-04 Y. Software Maintenance Agreement between Gatekeeper Systems, me. and Eagle County Airport Chris Anderson, Airport Z. Resolution 2004-129 Authorizing Execution of Withdrawal Letter from Central Mountain Regional Emergency Medical and Trauma Advisory Council and Application to the Northwest Regional Medical and Trauma Advisory Council Barry Smith, Emergency Management Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office ifthere were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated that there was one revision. She requested that Item R be pulled and re- scheduled when the signed copy is received. C01Il1Ilissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda for December 14,2004, Items A-Z, omitting Item R C01Il1Ilissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone spoke about the publication regarding the budget hearing. Mr. mgstad stated that the notice had indicated that the hearing would be held at 11 :00 a.m. and, as such, the Board should continue with this hearing as scheduled. Chairman Stone stated that Public Comment would be taken, but that a conclusion would be achieved later in the day, related to approval of the budget. Planuinga.nd Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda Cliff Simonton, Community Development A. Resolution 2004...130 Approving the Sketch Plan for the Edwards Design and Craft Center Planned Unit Development (Eagle County File No. PDS-00041). The Board considered this proposal on November 9th, 2004. .. . C01I11l1issionerGallagher moved to approve the Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda for .cember 14,2004, consisting ofItem A. Corrnnissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Minor Subdivision Plat Signing Cliff Simonton, Community Development 5MB-00345, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 10, Tract T, A Resubdivision of Tract T, A Minor Type B Subdivision, the putpose of which is to resubdivide Tract T, Filing 10, of the Cordillera Subdivision, creating three parcels, Tract Tl, Tract T2 and Tract T3. Commissioner Menconi 1110ved to approve 5MB-00345, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 10, Tract T, A Resubdivision of Tract T, A Minor Type B Subdivision, the purpose of which is to resubdivide Tract T, Filing 10, of the Cordillera Subdivision, creating three parcels, Tract Tl, Tract T2 and Tract T3. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00329, Sopris View Condominiums, Filing No.1, Sopris View Apartments, Parcell, A Minor Type B Subdivision, the purpose of which is to condominiumize an existing apartment building into eight (8) units and appurtenant common elements. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve 5MB-00329, Sopris Yi~\VCondominiums,Filing No.1, Sopris View Apartments, Parcell, A Minor Type B Subdivision, the purpose of which is to condominiumize an existing apartment building into eight (8) units and appurtenant common elements. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 12-14-04 Resolution 2004-131 Establishing Public Meeting Days for the Eagle Board of County Commissioners for Fiscal Year 2005 and Establishing Days and Office Hours for County Offices to Transact County Business for Fiscal Year 2005 and Designating Legal Holidays for Fiscal Year 2005 County Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner Menconi stated that, in the near future, these dates would be changed to accommodate more p opportunity for input. He stated he would currently vote in favor of the proposed schedule until agreement could be reached in the future to change the regular meeting dates. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2004-131 Establishing Public Meeting Days for the Eagle Board of County Commissioners for Fiscal Year 2005 and Establishing Days and Office Hours for County Offices to Transact County Business for Fiscal Year 2005cand Designating Legal Holidays for Fiscal Year 2005. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2004-132 Adopting a Fourth Supplemental Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2004 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies. Mike Roeper, Finance Mr. Roeper stated that this request represented a housekeeping issue to appropriate the necessary funds to cover the remaining 2004 debt service for the Maintenance Service Center. The transfers will be from the Road and Bridge Fund, ECO Transportation Fund, and Motor Pool Fund for their share of the debt service of $445,000. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2004-132 Adopting a Fourth Supplemental Budget arid Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2004 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies. Cotrunissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. CoI111Ilissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eag County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Don DuBois, Clerk and Recorder's Office Other Liquor A. Red Tape Merchant's Association Beaver Creek, CO APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: CONCERNS I ISSUES: Red Tape Merchants Association Michael Kloser, Event Manager Beaver Creek Resort Plaza Beaver Creek, CO None DESCRIPTION: This is a special events permit application for the Beaver Creek Talon's Weekend on January 8, 2005 from 3:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Staffhas had no problems in the past with events held by the applicant. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have bee~ paid. 2. The Sheriffs Department, Building Official, and Department of Environmental Health have stated no problems with this application. 4 12-14-04 3. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on December 3,. 2004, 11 days prior to the hearing. 4. There were no protests filed with the Clerk and Recorder's Office, as of 5:00 pm on December 13,2004. Mike Kloser of Beaver Creek Resort Company spoke to the Board. He informed the Board that the festival, including a concert, is an event geared around the Talon's terrain on Beaver Creek to promote interest in this area. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the Red Tape Merchant's Association. Mr. Kloser stated that Brian Nolan had named the organization and he wasn't sure what the reason was behind the name. Mr. DuBois stated that a certificate stating that the corporation was a non-profit organization and was in good standing was in the file. Mr. Kloser stated that 10 days of liquor permits are the limit for each organization. This procedure has been used in the past to secure the requested special event number of days. Commissioner Gallagher asked legal staff to look into the reason behind the limit of 10 days for each organization. He thanked the applicant for the changes made in the Alcohol Management Plan, also. Chairman Stone asked staff to look into different solutions for this type of situation in the future, like possibly an Optional Premises License. He agrees with Commissioner Gallagher that the transfer of Special Events days doesn't seem proper. Mr. DuBois stated that he had spoken to the State Officials and they informed him that this type of transfer is not uncOmll1on in other areas of the state. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. Cotnmissioner Menconi moved to approve the Special Events Permit application for the Red Tape Merchants Association for January 8, 2005 from 3;00 pm to 9;00 pm. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the ed of County Commissioners. . Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Presentation of Donation Check to Eagle County and ECO Trails by the Sonnenalp of Vail Foundation Nancy Knill ofthe Sonnenalp of Vail Foundation presented the check to the Board. Ellie Caryl ofECO Trails explained a little about the Sonnenalp of Vail Foundation and their involvement with the trails projects. She stated that this organization has adopted the ECO Trails as the beneficiary of the annual Casual Classic bike ride from Breckenridge to Vail. They put a lot of time and effort into the ride. This is the fourth year that they have chosen ECO Trails as the recipient of the proceeds of this ride. She thanked them for supporting the ECO trails efforts. Kim Blackford, Nancy Knill and Michelle Arsbaugh of the Sonnenalp were present for the presentation. PUblic Hearing - Set Mill Levy and Adopt 2005 Budget Mike Roeper, Finance and Various Department Directors Chairman Stone asked Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, if he had any comments. Mr. Ii1gstad asked for an update on the sales tax numbers related to the Capital and General Funds, as the Board has raised the projections to 10% over this year's receipts for next year. Mr. Roeper stated that change would increase Sales Tax Revenue $516,000. Ii1 the capital improvement fund an approximately $277,000 increase will be expected and ECO will receive about $329,000. Chairman Stone opened Public Comment. Prank Johnson, President of the VVTCB, spoke to the Board. He thanked the commissioners for their _. . cipation in the summer air program two years earlier. He stated that verbal commitments for about $350,000 in funds had been obtained to support summer flights. He stated that they would like to be able to add Chicago to tfi' st of origins. He assured the Board that they would continue to work with Vail Resorts and the business community for commitments. He asked for consideration of a specific dollar commitment to this summer's flight program. The 5 12-14-04 businesses have signed a pledge form to put money into a pool to support flight guarantees over and above what the county guaranteed. Commissioner Gallagher asked when the impact information might be available for the desired addition of Chicago to the list of origin/destination cities. Chairtnan Stone stated that it would be a false expectation to believe that any agreements might be entered in with the airlines prior to the Christmas season. Mr. Ingstad stated that the airlines tend to make oral agreements and it takes a great deal longer to make written agreements. He wondered if the Chamber was comfortable promoting flights with only oral agreements in place. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Ingstad to speak about the direction he had been given related to next summer's flights. Mr. Ingstad stated that he had been given direction to enter into agreements to continue the Denver and Dallas flights up to the amount committed to in the past. Chairman Stone stated that the county is already planning on making a substantial commitment. He understood that this represented additional commitments from the county. Mr. Ingstad stated that the risk is greater but the dollar amount might be less. The monies would not be appropriated but the risk could be increased. Commissioner Menconi clarified the amounts that were in play. The total Would be about $550,000. There Would be more underwriting of guarantees with the addition of the Chicago and second Denver flights. The possible out of pocket risk could cost the County money. Chairman Stone expressed that there should be more effort to strengthen the existing programs rather than expanding them. He hoped that the airlines would be stronger in the future. He has been disappointed with the lack of conununity enthusiasm over the joint marketing. Mr. Johnson stated that his organization had become involved to re-engage the community. He believes the new markets that would be opened by adding Chicago to the list of origins would be beneficial. Mr. Ii1gstad stated that there had been difficulty related to a clause that American Airlines had added atthe last minute. He asked if a third party could execute the agreement to eliminate this potential indemnification language. Chairman Stone wondered how another group could eliminate this liability. proper. Comrtussi61let Gallagher stated that asking a business organi7Ation to comrtut CoWlty money does not seem . Ms. Mauriello stated that there are a number of ways that this could be structured. Her office would continue to -" work on the indemnification issues. Mr. Johnson stated that in creating the group, they hoped the organization would be on the line for the guarantee contracts. Commissioner Gallagher asked whether the guarantees that the businesses had made would be to the County or the airlines. Mr. Johnson stated that these guarantees would be paid to the VVCTB so it could pay the airlines. Gabe Shalley, representing Vail Resorts, was present for the hearing. She stated that Vail Resorts is very active in working to expand the summer air program, as summer service has almost doubled in the past few years. They support continuing the United service and the American service from Dallas and expanding to include American service from Chicago. Commissioner Menconi added that a lot of connections come from the "Rust Belt" which can make the connections easier for the travelers. Ms. Shalley stated that there is some talk of Continental adding flights from Houston, but Vail Resorts does not support it. She encouraged the commissioners to participate as part of the community-based program as opposed to negotiating their own contracts with the airlines. Chairman Stone stated that this was misleading. He clarified that the Board has worked with Mr. Johnson and Vail Resorts, but the airlines would not sign a contract with the community organizations, only with the County. He added that Eagle County's money is always at risk first. Ms. Shalley encouraged future participation in the expanded summer service. Commissioner Gallagher asked about Ms. Shalley's vision for the County's participation. Eagle County has been working with the airlines since the airport has been open. Eagle County has also paid for marketing for the airport. He believes that the County should do the airline part of the business and let the business community handle the marketing. Ms. Shalley stated that her vision included Eagle County would be a participant in the guarantee program. . wo years ago e oun was grate u to partner with the business community. The County was able to have some backstop of second and third tier money. He believes the exposure was 6 12-14-04 minimal at that time, less than $50,000. He sees the third year as opportunity to go after a third market without cannibalizing existing markets. The business with the existing flights is not costing the county any dollars. Cot11ll1issioner Gallagher stated that he simply wanted to know what was being asked. He wondered how the nrogram for Eagle County would be any different than in the past. Cot11ll1issioner Menconi stated that the new business would be a Denver and a Chicago flight, as well as greater bined marketing. The county would not be required to spend more money on marketing. The County would have additional $300,000 - 400,000 pledge money in place in the event that all ofthe new flights did poorly. He stated that American Airlines was disenchanted with their contract with the County last year. He feels that if this program isn't marketed in the Christmas holidays it will represent a large missed opportunity. Mr. Ingstad stated that about $450,000 is included in next year's budget, but added that there was no money spent in2004 for these guarantees. He also stated that rent was reduced by $300,000 for the airlines. He stated that there is about $200,000 in revenue sharing that is usually reimbursed to the airlines at the end of the year. He is more concerned about the long-term debt for the Air Terminal COIporation. Jim Feldhaus, Vice-PreSident of Marketing for Colorado Mountain Express. He also requested the County's participation in the summer flight program. Increased traffic to the airport would obviously benefit CME, which also benefits the County in terms of increased employment opportunities and trickle down effect on the County's economy. Patricia McNamara of The Sonnenalp stated that she believes in the importance of pushing the Chicago flight addition. She feels that guests need new connection possibilities. The Sonnenalp is totally cOmrrlitted to this new program and would be very involved with marketing efforts. Brad Ghent, of Dollar Rent-a-Car spoke. He stated that the simplest way to look at the additional flights is to believe that if the airlines are willing to take the risk it must be a good risk for the rest of us. He felt that the joint marketing effort would be helpful. He felt that the greater the risk, then greater the effort to eliminate the risk through marketing efforts from all involved is necessary. Chairman Stone stated that he had been somewhat moved to support the addition of the Chicago flight, but not necessarily the addition of the second Denver flight. He stated that if the County lost three airlines and the subsequent loss oflease payments, the debt service would be difficult to satisfy. Mr. Ingstad stated that it is a big puzzle because of all of the different fees involved. The terminal portion was built without any participation of the tax payers, using private bond agreements. - ___lie Hearing - Set Mill Levy and Adopt 2005 Budget, Part II Mike Roeper, Finance and Various Department Directors Chairman Stone opened Public Comment. Dick Kessler, Fair and Rodeo Coordinator, spoke to the Board. He stated that his comments today would be addressed to Commissioner Menconi. He stated that the Master Plan had been part of his volunteer efforts for the past 14 years. He wondered if Commissioner Menconi didn't feel that there had been sufficient time dedicated to the fairground facility. Mr. Kessler disagreed with the perception, thoroughly. He assured the commissioners that the group involved had spent a lot of time and energy in going through the plan. The building, as proposed, is not for a single use purpose. It is the number one focal point of Fair and Rodeo that the building be used throughout the year. Commissioner Menconi thanked Mr. Kessler for his feedback. He stated that he had previous discussions with Mr. Kessler and was aware of his opinion related to this facility. They had also discussed the Red Barn and where to move it. In the last two months it had changed from moving the Red Barn to building a $1.9 million facility. He does not have.issue with any of these concepts - related to the Master Plan. He is in agreement about improving the existing exhibition facility. He stated that he likes the concept but that issues needed to be resolved in order for him to support this experiditure. He has yet to see a review of the cost of the operation and he offered to set aside $500,000 towards this facility; however, the major [actors for him are related to other priorities using the money available in the 2005 budget. He doesn't understand why this needs to happen today, as he feels he needs more information. This doesn't mean that he does not embrace the hard work that has been done up to this point. It is a question of priorities for the 2005 budget. He wonders why a 24,000 square foot facility is needed and who would be the facility manager. Chairman Stone stated that there was a meeting on December 13th with the architect, which included a visit to the Larimer County Fairgrounds. He felt that these meetings had helped clarify some issues. The possibility of building the facility for $1.8 million seemed reasonable and it would be likely available for the next summer's fair and rodeo. The .f $1.9 million was based on adding sprinkler systems to the interior of it. .. Brent Smith, outgoing President of the Fair Board, spoke to the Board. He addressed Commissioner Menconi specifically. He believes that the timeliness to get this going is directly related to having the building available for the 7 12-14-04 next fair and rodeo. After visiting the Larimer County Fairground, he was impressed with ideas for possible uses for such a building. The Fair Board feels that they have had the support of Commissioner Menconi in the past and would like to cOntinue to have it. Participation in the 4H program is growing and a facility is needed. Terry Gold, Eagle County resident, spoke to the Board, and stated she produces races around the area. She t the BOard that facilities that she uses are run by the Fairgrounds Manager, and Eagle County has such a person on sta This is simply another building which would be added to this person's responsibilities. Brian Nolan, Beaver Creek 'Merchant, spoke to the Board. He verbalized the continued support by the Beaver Creek Resort Association of the summer air program. . Robert Delany, Park Hyatt General Manager, reiterated the importance of air flights to the success of the sUlllltler business. He felt that the Chicago market should be tapped and would be a great addition to available flights. He thanked the Board for their continued support. Wendy Sacks of the Eagle County Fair Board asked Commissioner Menconi about the other priorities that he had that were more important to him than the Fair Grounds building. Commissioner Menconi stated that there is a Capital Expenditure Committee that reviews all requests for capital funds. There is only $3.6 million that can be allocated for these various projects. He stated that he doesn't understand the hurry up. He does not embrace the urgency of having this facility for the next fair season. This project has taken a very fast track in the past month and a half. He is concerned that the facility seats 2,000 people, but the chairs aren't being pu:rchased. He believes the County will ,end up buying equipment for this facility - and it will end up costing a lot more than $1.9 million. There are only 4 bathrooms available, which he feels is insufficient. He doesn't believe that anyone present would approve this type of expenditure without some type of operating cost analysis. His issues include the Gypsum Rec. Center, Senior Center Expansion, Child Care facility of Berry Creek, participation in the cost of the West Vail Fife Department, along with many other priorities. He would like flexibility in the Capital Budget for potential open space purchase in Edwards. Ms. Sacks objected to Commissioner Menconi's priorities. She suggested that the Town of Vail increase their mill levy to fund the West Vail Fire Department. Brent Smith informed the commissioners that there had always been a livestock barn in the Master Plan. The facility had always been there. CommiSSioner Menconi stated that only four weeks ago there was a presentation and now the money is being . appropriated. In the context ofthe lastfour years, it is much faster than many other expenditures. The discussion mov . quicklyftom where to move the Red Barn, to when should the new facility be built. He objects based on outstanding /' ISSUes. Mr. Smith stated that the facility could be put to bid and there would still be opportunity to do this. COIhmissioner Menconi stated it is a question of first in ftrst out - in terms of his priorities in managing budget expenditures. This has come up in the last month and a half and other requests have been in the works for much longer. He asked for. acceptance for other issues which are important to Eagle County. It took three and a half years to get a child care facility approved, which serves 1,500 children who are currently on a waiting list. He would also like to make sure that a dialogue is possible with the community related to where the money should be best spent - should it be an exhibit hall or in a barn near the river. When he looks at the Larimer County Fair Building he doesn't see it as an Eagle County Building. He wonders about the industrial design and what is being done to maintain the heritage of Eagle County related tothis type of facility. He also questions the fast track nature of this expenditure. He wonders why it can't be pushed forward to the 2006 budget because there isn't sufficient money in the 2005 budget to do all of the projects. Joann Horton stated that they want the facilities by 2005 so that the program doesn't have to be on hold. She needs the facility to raise animals, as well as having it available for other people. There are more children interested in 4H than are currently able to participate. Kaye Ferry and Tim Cochrane from the Eagle Valley and Vail Chambers of Commerce spoke to the board. They spoke to the Board about the information center at the Eagle County Airport. Chairman Stone asked for the final cost and staffing of the project. Mr. Cochrane stated that there would be a staff member present from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekdays and longer on weekends. This would cover peak arrival times, and at other times it would have a more interactive look. The Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce would staff this booth, and the Vail Chamber has also agreed to help. Ms. Ferry stated that Vail Resorts had committed to training and staff support. Chair.man Stone stated that since this is a bold new concept that it is important to have involvement from the . various chambers and business organization. .. 8 12-14-04 Mr. Cochrane stated that initial start up money for staff would be a little over $16,000. Various other operational expenses would be expected as well. The total is $34,600 for startup and he requested and additional $15,000 for future design and enhancements. Chairman Stone asked whether any of the counters could be changed around to make this area attractive. Chris Anderson, Eagle County Airport, spoke to the Board. He informed the Board that $25,000 was set aside for allation of the snack bar. The reason this expenditure was set aside was to fill a hole in guest service. He agreed that the location for the information desk was appropriate. Chairman Stone asked several questions related to the urgency of this request. Ms. Ferry stated that this would be similar to the Vail Information Center. She added thatshe would not choose the current location. She envisions a circular booth to provide ease of information dissemination. However, she stated that they would take what they could get. In an ideal world, a more sophisticated design would be preferable. Mr. Ingstad stated that the best location would not be in the middle ofthe traffic flow. Ms. Ferry asked for a two-sided counter as a secondary idea. Mr. Cochrane stated that it is key to getthis started immediately and to tweak the design at a later time. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Anderson about his vision for this service. Mr. Anderson responded to the question of limitations. He stated that there are no structural limitations to changing the counter. He stated that the potential of the Ii1formation Center is unknoWn. He stated that current ambassadors are very busy answering questions. On April 2nd, a thorough review of all aspects could be done. Mr. Cochrane stated that he wants it to be his employee, but if it is going to be a County employee, then the County should run the operation. Ms. Ferry stated that she concurred. Chairman Stone stated that he is in favor of appropriating $35,000 along with a one-year contract that could be cancelled after six months. Mr. Ii1gstad stated that this money could cOme out of the ECA T fund. Karen Carthy spoke to the Board. She stated that there was a lot of vision related to the Fairgrotuld pavilion project. She appreciates the fact that Commissioner Menconi is interested in looking at this in the future. She reminded Commissi(jner Menconi that this facility would bring in tax dollars to the county. She wondered where the people are that are slipporting the day care center. She wondered where these day care kids are going to go when they get older. Wendy Parker, 4-H leader spoke to the Board. She co-founded a new non-profit organization that puts on events, this facility could be used for many uses. The horse enthusiasts are growing, and there is currently only one indoor facility that can be used for livestock. This pavilion would allow for exciting events. She feels that the kids and the county need this faCility and believes the facility would pay for itself in a year or two. C01Il1Ilissioner Menconi clarified that his heart is in his job. He takes all of the comments very deeply. He respects that fact that everyone has taken time of out their day to be here. He is trying to put it into the context of the bu.dget. hearing and process. If this seems cold or unfair it has nothing to do with supporting kids. He didn't realize that this Would compete with the budget approval and other projects that had been previously given his support. He requests additiol1alinformation that has not been worked out in the last month. The emotion behind the urgency is the need to have it by next summer. Chairman Stone responded that he feels there is money in the budgetto cover the other priorities that Commissioner Menconi had spoken about. Commissioner Menconi stated that there are other issues that he has asked for commitment for over the past couple of years. He asked for a meeting with Kenny, which was ignored. He felt that sufficient feedback had been received to make a decision. Bennett Pollet, Fair Board member spoke to the Board. He understands the juggling act that each commissioner does. He wondered if it was a question of when, not if. C01Il1Ilissioner Menconi agreed that this was his position. Mr. Pollet stated that he has a great job on the Fair board. He believes that the 4-H program gives people a leg up on life. He suggests that perhaps the childcare facility and the 4-H facility could be combined. Dudley Irwin spoke to the Board. He asked Chairman Stone if this passed today, could it be reversed next year with a new Board. Chairman Stone stated that he believes there are legal ways that this could be scuttled or delayed. He apologized to the agricultural community that it has taken this long to get to this point. He believes the time is right. The facUity is .he size that the consultant had recommended. The proposed building would be broken up into easier to use sections. pressed support for this program. 9 12-14-04 Mr. Irwin asked to be allowed to ask Peter Runyon and Commissioner Menconi whether they would attempt to scuttle the project. Commissioner Menconi stated that he would have liked to have honor and respect in bringing him into this discussion previously, so that these words would not have to be used. He is charged with managing the budget and w' not deceive anyone about his intent, or his responsibilities. He has tried to work inclusively on this vision. He believ will cost more than $1.9 mil1io~ and he wants to find out how much more before he supports it. There is currently an operating loss at the Fair Grounds. He doesn't believe it is the thing to do in the 2005 budget. He feels the fiscal responsibility should be considered more than the emotional aspect. Mr. Irwin is asking, if it is approved today, will it be built or will it be killed when the new Board takes office. Commissioner Menconi stated he will not support the project based on the last hour of testimony. He feels that the urgency has been created due to next summer's fair board or the fact that two other commissioners feel that they currently have the votes and may not in the new year. Peter Runyon, incoming County Commissioner, spoke to Mr. Irwin's concerns. He reiterated that it is an issue of timing and the overall concept. He is afraid that if it is rushed it may not be as good as it might be. He suggested that the building looks like a big box store. He feels that a good-looking event building could be better for serving the Eagle County needs. He believes that if more money needs to be spent to get a better facility, then it should be. He suggested that the 4-H kids wouldn't be able to use it. He is concerned with getting the best possible building. Wendy Parker asked about naming rights. Chairman Stone stated that no conclusions had been made as of yet. Brian Nolan asked about the procedures related to finalizing the budget today. Chairman Stone stated that this indeed would occur today. Chairman Stone closed public comment. Commissioner Gallagher thanked Commissioner Menconi and future Commissioner Runyon for taking a stand and maintaining their position. For the public's information, he stated that there is money for the Sheriff's vehicle, the senior expansion, the child care facility, the West Vail Fire Station and the Eagle Park Pavilion. There is also money for a study for the 1-70 interchange and other capital expenditures. He stated that it is not a question of either/or, and all ofthe requests could be accommodated. He wondered about a marketing advantage tobuiIding it sooner than later. He stated that, in looking at agricultural buildings, they aren't cute little red barns they are steel structures. Chairman Stone asked to have a motion to set the mill levy. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2004-133 setting the mill levy at 8.499 mills for 2005. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone stated that during last week's meeting there was consent among the Board regarding many items. The following items were related to the Senior Center expansion of $340,000. Michael Cirkovic of Facilities Management spoke to the Board. Without plans or specifications, he stated the. number was determined to be $380,000.00. He stated that this included the offices for the Golden Eagle Apartments. Commissioner Menconi asked why the number had once again increased. Ms. Migchelbrink asked Mr. Cirkovic to review prior estimates and the nurnber was conftrmed to be $380,000. Carla Budd, Director of Human Resources, stated that the $380,000 includes costs for the new kitchen. Comrnissioner Menconi asked about the original figures. He wondered why, originally, new kitchen equipment had not been included. Ms. Budd stated tl)at it was thought that Alpine Area for Aging would be funding the kitchen improvements. there is also the possibility of obtaining grants to fund portions of this expense. All three commissioners expressed support for this revised figure. Chairman Stone spoke about the request to the Lake Creek Village Apartments for funding, but clarified that a vote was not taken. He stated that the money would not be coming out of the Lake Creek Budget for this year. Commissioner Menconi asked about a way that a County fund could pay a portion until the Lake Creek money comes m. Chairman Stone stated that there would be no guarantees for reimbur~ement of this money. Commissioner Menconi asked about the support of the shortfall in the past. Mr. Ingstad stated that this had come out of the General Fund. . Commissioner Gallagher asked about the fire facility for the BondlMcCoy area. ... All commissioners concurred that it would be best to wait until the inclusion elections took place. 10 12-14-04 Chainnan Stone stated that he was initially in favor of adding the Chicago flight origin to the flight schedule. He asked how much money had not been spent. Mr. Ii1gstad stated that there would be approximately a $450,000 Carry Forward which would more than cover the 'wo flights. The Chamber had asked for a commitment of $150,000. Commissioner Menconi clarified the allocation of the funds. Chainnan Stone stated that he is not in support of guarantees related to the additional Denver flight. Mr. Nolan suggested that dollars could be appropriated with further review of the addition of the United flight to Denver. He stated that if the funds could be committed then the decisions about which flights should be approved could be made later. Chairman Stone stated that the County had not had sufficient discussions with the airlines. Mr. Nolan stated that he is looking for a nod of support for the summer program. Commissioner Menconi stated that if the County committed to the dollar amounts, then the contracts with the airlines could be negotiated. He asked whether the marketing of Dallas and Chicago could begin with County initial approval. Commissioner Gallagher stated that he felt that ifthere might be County expenditures then the County should negotiate the contract. He requested the numbers to show that Chicago would not cannibalize the Dallas or Denver connections. He suggested that the money be used from the carryover to guarantee these flights. This would protect the County for sOlllething that might need to be reversed later. Chairman Stone wondered how much money might be used for existing flights. Mt. Ii1gstad stated that there is enough money in the carry forward to do the Chamber deal or to do the Dallas/Denver flights, but not enough for the County to do all four flights. Mr. Nolan stated that the community had come together to gather $350,000. Mr. Ii1gstad stated that the County money would be used first. He felt that if the Board is comfortable to support the Chicago flights then an oral agreement to begin marketing during the Christmas season could occur. Commissioner Gallagher asked to see t:p.e numbers. He is in favor of covering both the Denver and Chicago flight contingent upon the administrator's review of the numbers. He sees that the County is putting up the guarantee money, the marketing money, the administrative money, and the chambers are signing promissory notes. He thinks it is too one- s,;Ied. Mr. Nolan stated that the business cOrrlmunity is doing the marketing for this proposal. Conunissioner Gallagher asked about actual dollars received. Mr. Nolan stated 10% of the pledges are earmarked for Marketing. Commissioner Gallagher stated that he supports the operating expense for the information booth. Commissioner Menconi also expressed support. Chairman Stone clarified that the County would provide the following funds: $20,000 for Administrative fees, and $45,000 for marketing fees. Commissioner Menconi stated that the business community was doing $33,000 in administrative fees, and separate entities would be doing some marketing, as well. Mr. Nolan stated that he had come up with $20,000 in administration and budget fees. Commissioner Gallagher gave his support to the fees for this year. Mr. Ii1gstad stated that the Commissioners had agreed to fund $6,000 to underwrite the appearance of the Air Force Band. All commissioners agreed with that allocation. Chairman Stone spoke about the sound system for the rodeo arena. He wondered about the final fix for the arena loudspeakers. Mr. Cirkovic stated that the cost associated with this was $43,000, and there was another price to upgrade the system of $13,000. Mr. Ii1gstad stated that an agreement had been reached for replacing the speakers and fixing the grandstands and eliminating the fix for the Red Bani He felt that was about $40,000. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that she was being conservative in estimating $48,000. Dick Kessler stated that $5,000 had been committed from the Fair Board for this upgrade. Chairman Stone stated he would be in favor of approving $43,000, and the other commissioners concurred. Mr. Ii1gstad stated that they had a request for bringing power to the pond. a. Chairman Stone stated that there is already conduit there - and a pavilion could be added at some point in the Mr. Cirkovic stated that the cost would be around $16,000 for this conduit. 11 12-14-04 Mr. Ingstad stated the final item was the Freedom Ranch request. Commissioner Menconi spoke about Freedom Ranch and the fact that there would be a shortfall in order to run the shelter due to ending of some grants. Ms. Forinash stated that there was a federal startup grant for $195,000 for two years which was not renewed. her conversations with Bev Christianson, she indicated a shortfall of $35,000 for 2004 and that assuming re-funding I be available; it would probably be an additional $50,000 in the first part of 2005. Chairman Stone suggested adding a certain amount to Ms. Forinash's Health and Human Services grant in the amount of $50,000 contingent upon review of more details. COmrrlissioner Gallagher asked whether the shortfall for this year could be considered separately. Chairman Stone wondered about the Eaton Ranch. COmrrlissioner Menconi stated that there might be brought to the Board an amount of approximately $2.1 million from the County General Fund. He is anticipating that a request would be forthcoming. Chairman Stone stated that he is not in favor of spending any money from the County General Fund for purchase of open space since there is a tax collected for this precise purpose. The Open Space Advisory committee would not make their presentation until next year. Comrrlissioner Menconi asked whether the EI Jebel Tree Farm Road and Bridge shop would be allocated in next year's budget. Mr. Ingstad stated that he had not allocated any of these funds because specific costs were not available. The ADA upgrades to all county buildings, building improvements, E1 Jebel Tree Farm Road and Bridge shop, and the Bond- McCoy fIre facility are all unallocated. Commissioner Menconi wondered how much Mr. Ingstad thought the EI Jebel facility might cost. Mr. Ingstad stated that there had been some discussion of $80,000 to $100,000. Chairman Stone stated that the Board had not agreed to the expenditures for the Gypsum Recreation Center. He proposed that $250,000 be appropriated for this recreation center, conditional upon this money being returned to the County General Fund after the audit and that Gypsum have a policy that all Eagle County citizens be treated equally related to rate structures. This money will come from people living throughout the County. Commissioner Gallagher agreed with this proposal and added that the amount would not exceed $250,000. Commissioner Menconi stated that he would support $500,000 for this purpose. He stated that if he is not in agreement to the building of the Pavilion and some other smaller items, he won't be able to support the entire budget. stated that his agreeing to an amount for the Gypsum Recreation Center when he couldn't support everything in the budget would be a mute point. Chairman Stone stated that he is attempting to address some of Commissioner Menconi's request. He believes that changing the agreement for the livestock pavilion would set a bad precedent. He doesn't want to put this facility off any longer because it has happened for too long. He stated that the Gypsum Recreation Center has had no planning compared to 14 or 15 years for the livestock pavilion. The day care center did not have any operating estimates prior to its gaining approval. It was also not only a question of the cost but of the location of the building. Co1Il1Ilissioner Menconi stated that Chairman Stone was putting words into his mouth. Chairman Stone stated that it is his right to share his feelings and expectations about the integrity of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2004-134 approving the budget as presented and amended for fiscal year 2005 for Eagle County. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Stone voted in favor of the motion and Commissioner Menconi voted against the motion. Planning Files AFP-00204 Eagle Vail Commercial Center Excel Energy Site Adam Palmer, Community Development NOTE: ACTION: Request to table until January 18, 2005 Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1 ofthe Eagle Vail Commercial Center (formerly Excel Energy Site) are to be reconfigured such that Lot 7 will be subdivided and merged into lots 6 and 8 respectively; vacating previous intemallot lines to create two lots where currently three exist. Lot 6: 40847 US Highway 6 Lot 8: 40849 US Highway 6 12 12-14-04 . LOCATION: Commissioner Menconi was absent for this file. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table File AFP-00204, Eagle-Vail Commercial Center Excel Energy Site to ary 18, 2005 at the applicant's request. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00201 Lot 11, Block lCordiIlera Subdivision Filing 17 Adam Palmer, Community Development ACTION: To vacate 1665 sq. ft. of the platted building envelope towards the front of the lot and add 1667 sq. ft. of building envelope area toward the rear of the lot. The applicant is planning to extend the deck that is located off the northwest comer of the existing residence. LOCATION: 0226 Peregrine DriVe TITLE: Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 17, Lot II, Block I FILE NO./PROCESS: AFP-00201 /Amended Final Plat OWNER: Stephen and Janet Jones APPLICANT: Marcin Engineering REpRESENTATIVE: Steve Wujek STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: Art amended final plat which would vacate a portion of the existing building envelope towards the front of the lot and create a similar portion of building envelope towards the rear of the lot. The applicant is planning on extending the deck that is located offthe northwest comer of the existing residence. The area of building envelope that is ..... vacated is 1665 square feet and the area of building envelope that is being added is 1667 square feet. The Cordillera gn Review Board has approved this building envelope amendment request. CHRONOLOGY: 1994 ~ Cordillera Subdivision PUD, Filing 17 Blocks 1 and 2 recorded, creating 34 residential lots from previously unplatted property zoned Resource (R). 1997 - Single family home constructed within existing building envelope on Lot 11. 2002 ~ Amended Final Plat File #: AFP-00133 recorded for vacation of 1.062-acre Lot 12 and Lot 12 building envelope, including internal drainage/utility easements, to be part of 1.071-acre Lot 11 to create one 2. 133-acre parcel (Lot n). SITE DATA: Surroun.ding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Lot 10 Residential SF: Cordillera PUD West: Lot 13 Residential SF: Cordillera PUD North: Open Space: D Cordillera PUD South: Private road right of way: Cordillera PUD EXisting Zoning: PUD Proposed Units: 0 beyond existing single-family home Total Area: 2.133 acres Access: Peregrine Drive Water: Public Sewer: Public STAFF REPORT 13 12-14-04 STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has made the following findings: STANI>ARD: 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: Stag Gulch Partners, Brian and Melissa Delmonego, Girgil and Dorothy. Kreder Revocable Trust, Michael and Karen Mayell, William and Susan Kiely, Squaw Creek Metropolitan District. No responses have been received by the Community Development Department. [+] FINDING: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3a.] TheAmended Final Plat DOES NOT adversel affect adjacent owners. STANI>ARD: 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 pro osed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. STANDAIP>: 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 propose,d amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other ap licable re lations, policies and ide lines. STANDARD: Improvements Agreement [Section 5-290.G.3.d.] -Adequacy of the proposed improvements agreemen.. and/or off-site road improvements agreement when applicable. [+] FINDING: Improvements Agreement [Section 5-290.G.3.d.] An 1m rovements A eement IS NOT a licable. STANDAIU>: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.eJ -lfthe 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 thearea; or (2) That the proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community need. [-] FINDING: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3;e.] This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note. Adam Palmer of Community Development presented this file to the Board. He stated that the applicant was present earlier, but had to leave. He stated that the Cordillera Design Review Board has given its approval to this file. He said that all staff findings were positive and approval is recommended. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. He asked if feedback had been given by adjacent property owners. Mr. Palmer stated that no feedback had been received. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. AFP-00201, incorporating the Staff findings, and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUF-00009 Vagneur Subdivision and Subdivision Improvements Agreement Cliff Simonton, Community Development 14 12-14-04 ACTION: A final plat creating five (5) lots and an access road (Glassier Lane) on 1.0 acres located at the southeast comer of Sopris Village Subdivision in the community of EI Jebel. CATION: 0215 Willits Lane, Basalt TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: RltPRESENTATIVE: The Vagneur Subdivision SUP -00009 I Subdivision Final Plat Anthony Vagneur Same Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The Applicant/owner is requesting final plat approval for a five lot SUbdivision on a 1.0 acre parcel located adj acent to Willits Lane approximately 0.16 mils south of its intersection with State Highway 82 on the north edge of the ToWn of Basalt. Theproposed lots will range in size from 8,504 sq ft to 9,021 sq ft., and the largest of the five will accommodate an existing single family home. The zoning is Residential Suburban Medium Density (RSM) which allows lots of 8000 square feet or larger. Access will be via a new paved roadway (Glassier Lane) located a panhandle extension of Parcel D of the Glassier Acres Subdivision The use of this narrow extension for access has been approved by the owners of Parcel D, and public improvements will be assured through a subdivision improvement agreement. Water and sewer service will be provided via extension of Mid Valley Metropolitan District lines into the property. The property is within the service district and a Willing- to-serve letter has been received. .ONOLOGY: December 18,2000 Augu.st 6, 2002 May 6, 2003 Subdivision Sketch Plan for the Vagneur Subdivision (SUS-00008) and the accompanying Zone Change (ZC-00043) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Variance from Improvement Standards (VIS-0016) was granted that allowed a narrower ROW width on the proposed access road, a vertical curb and gutter on the south edge of the access road and a curb-and-gutter-attached four foot wide sidewalk on the north edge. The Vagne1.lr Subdivision Preliminary Plan, File SUP-00006, was approved SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: West: North: South: Zoning: Dwelling Units: Total Area: Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Gross Density: Water: .ewer: ccess: STAFF REPORT Proposed commercial/Willits Town Center PUD (Town of Basalt) Vacant unplatted (small parcel) I Resource (R) Residential/Residential Suburban Medium Density (RSM) ResidentiallResidential Suburban Low Density (RSL) RSM, Residential Suburban Medium Density Five (5) 1. 0 acres 8, 504 square feet 9, 021 square feet 1 dwelling unit per 8712 square feet, 5 per acre Mid Valley Metropolitan District Mid Valley Metropolitan District via Willits Lane and new road, Glassier Lane 15 12-14-04 REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering. A variety of technical correctiorts were requested. All items have been addressed, construction plans are satisfactory and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) is ready for signature. The Eagle County Surveyor A variety of technical corrections were requested. All items have been addressed. Eagle County Assessor No COITI1Ilent Eagle County Attorney ReViewed and approved the plat Adjacent property owners Adjacent property owners have been notified. No COITI1Ilents were received. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES: None. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant toSectiol1 5..280.B.5.b.(3) Final Plat for Subdivision - Action bv the Board of Countv Commissioners: A. This Final Plat for Subdivision conforms to the approval given to the Preliminary Plan for Subdivisiort. B. The required improvements are adequate. C. Areas dedicated for public use and easement are acceptable. . Pursuant to Section 5..280.B.3.e Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 1) Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan; 2) COl1siStent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all ofthe 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. An approved Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) will be executed concurrently with approval of the final plat. 3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS 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 ARE consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE 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. Utility extensions DO provide the entire range of necessary facilities. 4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. 5) Compatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding . area. J 16 12-14-04 Cliff Simonton of Community Development presented this file to the Board. He showed various slides to the Board showing the proposed access, parcels, and final plat. He stated that all findings were positive and outstanding conditions had been met. Staff does recommend approval. Tony Vagneur, the applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Stone opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Gallaghefmoved to approve File No. SUF-00009, incorporating Staffs Findings, and authorized the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PfiA..00056 Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek pun Bob Narracci, Community Development ACTION: Amendment of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development to: (1) shift twenty-one (21) single-family home sites from the Salt Creek property to the Frost Creek property; (2) add sixteen (16) additional single-family home sites on the Frost Creek property; (3) allow an equestrian center on the Salt Creek property; and (4) include one' existing home, located at 6902 Brush Creek Road, into the Planned Unit Development LOCATION: Both on the East and West sides of Brush Creek Road, approximately six (6) miles southeast from the Town of Eagle. TITLE: Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development Amendment FILENO./PROCESS: PDA-00056/ PUD Amendment FILE NO./PROCJj;SS: ZC-OOOS9/ Zone Change OWNER: Adam's Rib a Subsidiary ofHBE Corporation APPLICANT: Owner E::==:O:~d Prior to approval of this PUD Amendment by the BOlud of County Commissioners, the applicant must: 1) Provide a Housing Plan which meets with the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. Based upon the Housing Guidelines, Staff calculated the following: At a 10% mitigation rate, this development will generate a need for 15.18 affordable housing units or, a fee-in-lieu of $620,566.92. This represents ,an additional cost per square foot of residential and commercial combined square footage of $0.58. At the time of this writing the applicant has been working with staff in this regard; 2) Prior to approval of this PUD Amendment, the applicant must adequately address each of the comments detailed in the Engineering Department Memorandum dated November 23,2004, at the time ofthis writing, the applicant has been working with staff in this regard and; j 3) The Board must determine whether open space should be provided adjacent to thenorthehl project perimeter of the Frost Creek property to help create a more gradual land use pattern transition from the adjacent Agricultural Residential zoned properties OR whether a landscaped earthen berm constructed as a buffer between the proposed development and existing homes located north of the Frost Creek property co~ld serve the intended purpose. Upon completion of these three items, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed PUD Amendment, as conditioned. EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Ii1 a vote of 6 to 1, the Planning Conunission recommended approval of the proposed PUD Amendment with the conditions recommended by staff. The Planning Commission further noted that the housing plan should be addressed prior to Final Plat and that all Engineering De'"'artment concerns delineated in their memorandum of November 23,2004 be addressed prior to Final Plat and that a t preliminary plat be provided to the County prior to hearing by the Board. 17 12-14-04 With regard to providing open space in between the rear lot lines of the newly created lots and the northern perimeter of the Frost Creek property, several of the Planning Commissioners felt that it was unnecessary to increase compatibility with the adjacent Agricultural Residentially zoned lands. Further, several of the Planning Commissioners strongly questioned the earthen berm landscape buffer proposed by the applicant to serve the same end; stating that a berm wo not appear as a natural feature and would be out of character. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: F6r comparison purposes, the currently governing Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt ~reek PUD includes: · An 18-hole golf course, inclusive of ancillary golf clubhouse and maintenance facilities; · A private, gated golf-course community with 60 single- family lots and up to 30 accessory dwelling units (ADU) on the 1106.97 +/- acre Frost Creek property; · Twenty-one single-family residential lots on the 520.348 +/- acre Salt Creek property. The Frost and Salt Creek parcels are contiguous to one another and are oriented linearly, north to south, along the Brush Creek Valley. The Salt Creek parcel is located primarily to the east of Brush Creek Road and the Frost Creek parcel to the west. Existing Frost Creek Parcel Approval: . The specified tninimum residential lot size for the Frost Creek parcel is four (4) acres per residence. A one acre building envelope is established within each lot. The maximum habitable square footage for the primary residences is capped at 12,500 square feet per lot. Accessory Dwelling Units are capped ata maximum 1,000 .. (additional) square feet. The 30 ADU's may be located on any of the 60 residential lots within the Frost Creek portion of the project on a first come, first serve basis. The clubhouse component of the Frost Creek parcel is limited to 30,000 square feet and is intended to prOvide. typical golf course amenities: restaurant, bar, clubhouse, retail golf pro shop, health and athletic facilities and . swimming pool. The golf course maintenance facility parcel is shown on the plan consisting of 3 .933 acres between Brush Creek and Brush Creek Road. Not including the ADU's, the gross residential density of the Frost Creek parcel is one (1) DU per 18.45 acres, or 0.05 DU per acre. The applicant ha.s established a critical wildlife habitat protection zone for deer and elk winter range on the Frost Creek site. A Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been Developed for both the Frost and Salt Creek properties. Also, a monetary Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund is set up to offset any impacts to wildlife. Existing Salt Creek Parcel Approval: Minimum residential lot size for each of the 21 lots located on the Salt Creek parcel is four (4) acres. A one acre building envelope is established within each lot. The maximum habitable square footage for the residenceS is capped at 10,000 square feet per lot. Accessory dwelling units are not allowed within the Salt Creek portion of the development. The gross residential density of the Salt Creek parcel is one (1) DU per 24.78 acres, or 0.04 DU per acre. As currently approved, the gross residential density, not including the ADU's, for the total land area within the Frost and Salt Creek PUD boundaries equates to one (1) DU per 20.09 acres, or 0.049 DU per acre. Conservation Easements have been defined to protect wetland and riparian areas throughout the Salt Creek Parcel. ThiS. Conservation Easement is intended to preserve the riparian nesting/production area for small mammals, b. and deer. Again, a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been Developed for both the Frost and Salt . Creek properties. Also, a monetary Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund is proposed to offset any impacts to wildlife. 18 12-14-04 The PUD boundaries encompass 1174.3 acres ofland for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 72 percent of the entire land area of the subject property and may be further broken down as follows: 540.4 acres (33%) of common recreation and open space; 410.4 acres (25%) of hillside and open space, and; 223.5 acres (14%) of golf course. Potable water to serve the entirety of the PUD will be provided by the Town of Eagle. Raw water irrigation. will be used for the golf course, common landscaped areas, landscaping on individual lots and the clubhouse grounds. The Town's Water Treatment facility is located south of and adjacent to the Frost Creek parcel. Sewage treatment will be via individual sewage disposal systems. These septic systems shall be shared between two or more homes wherever possible. The Salt Creek portion of the PUD is accessed via two separate points of ingress/egress. Three of the 21 Salt Creek lots will be served by the new Salt Creek Road. The remaining 18 lots will be accessed off of the Old Salt Creek Road. Both the old and new Salt Creek Roads are county owned but are not maintained by the county. The applicant also is to install a bicycle path which will begin at the project's northernmost boundary and meander through the Salt Creek portion of the development heading south to a point where it will cross Brush Creek Roa.d and continue southward along Brush Creek Road to the southern most boundary of the Frost Creek portion of the development. Streets within the development are to be privately owned and maintained. thisPUD Amendment Ptoposal.' This PUD Amendment application proposes the following alterations to the originally approved Planned Unit Development: . Torelocate 20 of the previously approved 21 Salt Creek Single-Family Residential Lots to the Frost Creek property; To include 16 additional Single-Family Residential Lots which have not received prior approval; To encompass an existing home and property, located at 6902 Brush Creek Road, within thePUD boundary; To utilize five ofthe previously approved 30 Accessory Dwelling Units as 'Guest Cottages' located near the clubhouse; The addition of one Accessory Dwelling Unit designated specifically for the one Single-Family Residential Lot to remain on the Salt Creek property. Development of this single family residence and accessory dwelling unit is subject to subsequent Special Use Permit review and approval prior to any building permits being issued; To allow an Equestrian Facility, Shooting Club and Training Center on the Salt Creek property. These amenities are subject to subsequent Special Use Permit review and approval prior to any building pennits being issued . . . . . The application states that these proposed alterations are necessary and would be beneficial in order to protect the riparian and wetland areas on the Salt Creek property and to avoid potential high water table, rock fall, slope stability, debris flow and sediment yield hazards associated with the Salt Creek property. The proposed new layout on the Frost Creek property mostly utilizes the same roadway configuration originally established by filling in the open space between already approved lots with the 20 relocated lots and 16 newly proposed lots. The only notable differences include a new private road in the northwest comer of the Frost Creek property and a new, longer road alignment to serve several oftherelocated/new residential lots located in the northernmost portion of the site. The relocated/new residential lots have been situated so as to not encroach onto or into the hillsides, riparian areas and wetlands open space found on the Frost Creek property. Lots will range in size from 3.674 acres to 9.862 acres in area with one acre building envelopes. The golf course has also been modified to accommodate the additional residential density on Frost Creek. 19 12-14-04 All other governing standards are proposed to carry forward and remain unchanged. As proposed, the gross residential density of the Frost Creek parcel is one (1) DU per 11.47 acres, or 0.09 DU per acre not including the accessory dwelling units. This represents a decrease of 6.98 acres per residence on the Frost Creek property only, and; a decrease of 3.3 acres per residence onthe Frost and Creek properties combined. Comparative Summary Table: Salt Creek = 21 d.u. Salt Creek = 0 a.d.u. Golf course & anciJIary improvements on Frost Creek only. Frost Creek = 97 d.u. Frost Creek = 25 a.d.u. Frost Creek = Golf Course, 5 Guest Cottages. Salt Creek = I d.u. / 24.78 acres Frost Creek = I d.u. / 11.47 acres Frost Creek and Salt Creek Combined = 1 d.u. /20.09 acres Salt Creek = Equestrian, Shooting Club and Training Center Facility. Salt Creek = 1 d.u. / 520.348 acres Frost Creek and Salt Creek Combined = 1 d.u. /16.70 acres Salt Creek = 1 d.u. Salt Creek = 1 a.d.u. CHRONOLOGY: PD-138-82-S, Sketch Plan approval in 1982 for 640 acres of the Golf Course site at 140 units and the Ski Area and Village. PD-138-93-S, Golf Course site, 1150 acres, 1034 DU's, 20k ff commercial, 27 -hole golf course. Planning Commission recommended denial June 1, 1994, withdrawn on December 4, 1994 without hearing by the Boar PD-138-95-S1, Golf Course site, 1687 acres, 937 DU's, residential inn & hotel, 27-holes golf course, Planning Co1I1tnission recommended denial August 2, 1996, denied by the Board on January 2, 1996. PD-138-95-S2, Ranch Site, 1475 acres, two 18-hole golf courses, 1 public, 1 private, 400 DU's, Planning Commission recommended denial October 4, 1996, subsequently withdrawn without hearing by the Board. PDS-00006, Ski Area and Village, Golf and Ranch sites, 5279 acres, 2323 DU's, submitted April, 1997, withdrawn prior to any review and hearing. PDS-00009, "Ranch Site", 1569 acres, two 18-hole and two 9-hole par three golf courses, 1100 DU's, 125,000 ff commercial, Planning Commission recommended approval w/conditions February 4, 1998, Board approved w/conditions April 13, 1998. The Sketch plan has since been withdrawn by the applicant. PDS-OOOI8, "Frost Creek" Sketch Plan, 300 single family IQts, 15 accessory units, and a private 18-hole golf course on 1109 acres was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission and approved by the Board on April 17, 2000. 1041-0036 "Frost Creek" withdrawn at applicant's request on September 5,2002 PDP-OOOI5 "Frost Creek" PUD Preliminary Plan withdrawn at applicant's request on September 5,2002 ZC-00035 "Frost Creek" Zone Change withdrawn at applicant=s request on September 5, 2002. SD-00024 "Frost Creek" Service Plan withdrawn at applicant's request on September 5, 2002. 20 12-14-04 ZC-00059 and PDSP-00016 Zone Change and combined Sketch /Preliminary Plan approval was granted for the still in effect Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development. "~~EDATA: Total Area: Minimum Lot Area: Open Space: Gross Density: Water: Sewer: Access: Fire Protection: Surrounding ZoninglLand Use: East: Resource (R) and Agricultural Residential (AR - 10 acre min. lot size) / Residential and State Land Board. West: Resource and Agricultural Residential/Residential and Bureau of Land Management. North: Resource and Agricultural Residential/Residential and BLM. South: Resource / Residential and BLM. Existing Zoning: PUD Proposed Zoning: PUD Amended Proposed Use as Amended: 98 single family residences and up to 26 accessory dwelling units, 18 hole golf course, golf club house, open space and equestrian / shooting club / training center. 1633 acres. 3.674 acres. 1081.4 acres (with golf); 831.80 acres (excluding golf) One (1) DU per 16.70 acres, or 0.06 DU per acre (not including accessory units). Town of Eagle Ii1dividual Sewage Disposal Systems - Shared where possible. Via Brush Creek Road. Greater Eagle Fife Protection District. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Copies of all comments afe attached. Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached Memorandum dated November 23, 2004; e County Department of Environmental Health: (Verbal Response) The Environmental Health Department asks that all prior cothmitments for water quality monitoring carry forward with this proposal. It is noted that the proposed amendments will benefit the Salt Creek property and potentially serve to better protect wetland and riparian areas , associated with Salt Creek. Overall, this proposed amendment will result in a more manageable outcome than would the currently approved development from an environmental protection perspective. It is understood that the development of the Salt Creek parcel will be subject to subsequent Special Use permit review.' Environmental mitigations for that parcel will be considered at that time. The priva.te wastewater systems serving the development must be the same technology as originally approved (pressure- dosing and de-nitrification). State Site Approval for the Clubhouse wastewater system must also accompany an ISDS Permit from Eagle County for system construction. The water quality monitoring and mitigation plan submitted with the companion 1041 amendment application is considered as a draft and must be revised to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Health prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. It is further understood that the development will refrain from wood burning. A fugitive dust plan must be provided with application for a Grading Permit. Eagle County Housing Department: Please refer to the attached spreadsheet for the Requirement under the Local Resident Housing Guidelines. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist: Please refer to the attached e-mail dated November 22, 2004. ECO Trails: (Verbal Response) ECO Trails approves of the trail as shown and wishes to carry forward the requirement that the trail be constructed to county trail standards. .rado Department of Transportation (Grand Junction): Ii1dicated that an Access Permit will be needed fOf Brush . With Final Plat, COOT will again be referred this application. Colorado Geological Survey: Please reference the attached letter dated November 23, 2004. 21 12-14-04 Colorado State Forest Service: Please refer to the attached letter dated November 22, 2004. This application was referred to the following agencies with no response received: Eeo Transit Eagle County Historical Society Eagle COllnty Road & Bridge Department Eagle County School District RE-50J Administration and Transportation Eagle County Sheriffs Office Town of Eagle Colorado Department of Transportation (Local Office) Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado State Historical Society Bureau of Land Management Natural Resource Conservation Service U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Western Eagle County Ambulance District Greater Eagle Fire Protection District Holy Cross KN Energy Century Tel DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations ~ection 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Preliminary PUD: .Following is the list of applicable "standards" that will need to be met for this proposal to be approved. STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be cO'f,lSidered 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 tothe conditions and standards of the PUD. The entire site is owned in fee simple by one (1) corporate entity. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [SectioI15-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (I) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] B The uses that may be developed in the pun shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, 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 applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limo itations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations. shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. 22 12-14-04 [+J FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (2)] With the exception of the proposed Equestrian / Shooting Club / Training Center Facility, the uses that may be developed in the PUD, as proposed ARE uses that are designated as uses that are currently allowed, within the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development. Future review and approval of a Special Use Permit will be required prior to building permits being issued for the Equestrian / Shooting Club / Training Center Facility. [+J FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] All of the dimensional limitations proposed with this PUD Amendment ARE consistent with those specified in the currently governing Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)) B Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkin~ and Loadin~ Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (0:) 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 t}u; project will be met; or (b Actual Needs. The actual needs of the projects 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. [+J FINl>ING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)) It HAS been demonstrated that off~street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] B 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 whete the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient bltjfering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse im.pacts, Creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The hindscape concept supplied with the application is intended to achieve unity and 'common thread' throughout the development. The existing vegetation of the Brush Creek Valley dictates the philosophy of the proposed landscape plan. Presently within the Brush Creek Valley on the northern exposure alpine hillsides there are Aspen and Spruce and on the southern exposure alpine hillsides: Rocky Mountain Juniper, Gambrel Oak and r- ---- - -Serviceberry. It is the applicant's intent to follow this same natural theme within the golf course and community landscape. Essentially four landscape zones have been defined: Northern Exposure Alpine Hillsides; Southern Exposure Alpine Hillsides; Meadows, and; Stream sides. Provision of landscaping on individual lots will be through the restrictive covenant enforced by the Homeowners Association - not the County. A landscape plan has been submitted for the common areas and streetscape. Lighting and illumination standards are discussed in the PUD application and are intended to eliminate glare and light shining on adjacent sites and to maintain a low level of atmospheric light pollution to preserve the visibility of the night sky. A weed control plan was developed with the original application and will be implemented and enforced by the Homeowner's Association. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landsca in 23 12-14-04 I and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (6)] B 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., Signs Allowed in a Planne Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign planfor the PUD that is determined to suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The provision for signs, as stated in the PUD Guide, will comply with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Since this is predominately a residential/golf community, minimal signage is necessary, however it is anticipated that each residence will be required to have one entry/identification sign of at least one square foot in size and located at the driveway or entrance to the residence. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations or have been modified in the PUD to meet the intent of providing appropriate signage for the PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)) B The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police andfire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] Potable water SUTJTJlv - Potable water is proposed to be provided by the Town of Eagle pursuant to an agreement with the Town, inclusive of the additional 16 units proposed. The Office ofthe State Engineer does not comment on zoning matters; however, the State's response at the time of original approval indicates that the Town of Eagle does have sufficient water resources to supply this subdivision. It is the opinion ofthe State Division of Water Resources that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights. Non-'potable water will be used for irrigation on the golf course, common landscaped areas and on the residential lots. The companion 1041 application, Eagle County File No. 1041-0057, is being recommended for approval by staff. [+] Sewage disposal - Wastewater treatment is proposed to be provided by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. These systems will be shared by two or more lots wherever possible. Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the systems will be performed by the Homeowner's Association. The companion 1041 application, Eagle County File No. 1041-0057, is being recommended for approval by staff. [+] Solid waste disposal - Solid waste disposal will be contracted per the application and will occur at the County landfill. [+] Electrical supplv - Holy Cross Energy will provide electrical service to the development. [+] Fire protection - The development will be served by the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District. All homes and the clubhouse will have automated sprinkler systems and appropriately spaced fire hydrants occur throughout the site. [+/-) Roads - Access to both the Salt and Frost Creek portions of the site are to be via Brush Creek Road which connects to Highway 6 through the Town of Eagle. Eagle County Engineering Department referral response requests additional information regarding the Traffic Impact Study submitted. , All roads in the Frost Creek portion of the development are proposed to be privately owned and maintained by t e . homeowner's association. Applicant intends to maintain Salt Creek Road, even though it is owned by the County. 24 12-14-04 All other roads associated with the Salt Creek portion of the development will also be privately owned and maintained. [+) Proximitv to schools - No school site is proposed within this development. The nearest public schools are located in Eagle and Gypsum. As of this writing, the School District had not yet responded to this proposal. Given the distance from any existing and/or proposed school facilities, the students would have to be transported to school. An existing school bus route currently runs adjacent to the proposal. [+] Proximitv to Police. Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services - The Eagle County Sheriffs office will be the provider of police protection and Western Eagle County Ambulance District will provide emergency seTVlce. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] As conditioned, the application BAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for electrical supply, solid waste disposal, fire protection, schools, and police and emergency provisions; but HAS NOT demonstrated adequate roads. STANDARD: Improvemellts. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] B The improvements standards applicable to. the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-ol- way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standatds of the American Association of State Highway OffiCials (AASHTO)for that functional classification of rOadway. (h) 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) Emergellcy 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 mcyor 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 netwotk. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. [+/-) Safe. Efficient Access - The internal private road system will provide access to all development within the proposal. Pursuant to the Engineering Department Memorandum dated November 23,2004, additional information has been requested relative to the traffic impact study and the proposed roadways. . [+/-] Internal Pathways - As originally approved, the applicant is responsible for constructing an 8 foot wide trail for the entire north to south length of the project. As the applicant's land located north of the subject property develops, the trail will eventually be connected to the Town. ECO desires the trail to be constructed per the ECLUR and be collateralized. ECO requests that the trail be separated at least 10 feet from all roadways. The county does not accept spur trails for maintenance and in fact has a very minimal program of trails maintenance involving only the Eagle Valley Core Trail. A public parking lot and access to Trail Gulch will be provided by the applicant on the Salt Creek site. 25 12-14-04 Pursuant to the Engineering Department Memorandum dated November 23,2004, no detailed plans ofthe Brush Creek Trail, as revised, have been provided. Detailed plans for the trail should be submitted prior to approval of the PUD Amendment to ensure all alignment, beginning and end locations and grading issues are resolved. [+] Emergency Vehicles - As long as roads and driveways are designed and constructed to County Standards, emergency vehicles should be able to traverse the project. Also, the applicant is proposing to provide secondary emergency points of ingress/egress for the development. [+] Principle Access Points - One access point is proposed to connect the Frost Creek property to Brush Creek Road. As mentioned previously, access to the Salt Creek property will be gained via both old and new Salt Creek ~~. . [+] Snow Storage - The applicant anticipates snow storage on individual lots and common areas throughout the entirety of the PUD in order to avoid transporting plowed snow elsewhere. [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It lIAS NOT been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Ii1temal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Laud Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] B The development e. proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. As proposed with this amendment, the gross density proposed for the development would be one dwelling unit per 16.7 acres which exceeds the minimum 10 acre Agricultural Residential zoning present to the east and West of the subject property. Several of the Resource zoned parcels in the immediate vicinity do not meet the minimum required lot size of 35 acres. As such, the gross density proposed for the Frost and Salt Creek properties combined may be considered compatible with existing and allowed adjacent land uses. As proposed, the gross residential density of the Frost Creek parcel is one (l)DU per 11.47 acres, or 0.09 DU per acre not including the accessory dwelling units. When compared to the currently governing Frost Creek & Salt Creek Planned Unit Development, this represents a decrease of 6.98 acres per residence on the Frost Creek property only, and; a. decrease of 3.3 acres per reSidence on the Frost and Salt Creek properties combined. As stated above, the applicant submits that thiSifearrangement of already approved residential density and proposed increase in residential density is necessary and would be beneficial in order to protect the riparian and wetland areas on the Salt Creek property and to avoid potential high water table, rock fall, slope stability, debris flow and sediment yield hazards associated with the Salt Creek property. Staff concurs that the preservation of Salt Creek in a more natural condition is preferable for the identified reasons. Some of the adjacent properties allow one unit per ten acres and this proposal would result in a gross density of less than one unit per ten acres (11.47 acres). The applicant maintains that this proposal represents a cluster development and, as such, warrants the additional density. Staff concurs that the gross density of 1 dwelling unit per 11.47 acres on Frost Creek is consistent with allowed gross density in the adjacent Agricultural Residential zone district; however, with each home site encompassing approximately four acres, the 16 newly proposed a. residential lots will consume 64 acres that would otherwise remain as open space. By situating the 16 addition~ lots between the originally approved 60 lots, and 20 lots relocated from Salt Creek, the overall effect will result in 26 12-14-04 a less compatible homogenous pattern of evenly spaced homes across the majority of the Frost Creek property ~ not a cluster development. In order to better justify compatibility of the additional density, open space should be provided adjacent to the northern project perimeter of the Frost Creek property to help create a more gradual land use pattern tran'sition from the adjacent Agricultural Residential zoned properties. (+/-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] With proper buffering adjacent to the northern project perimeter of the Prost Creek property, the proposed PUD Amendment will result in a development that IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] B The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its ,confotmance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. Open Svace / Recreation. The applicant is proposing a variety of approaches to preserving land as open space and active recreation facilities. Development. As found with the original application, this proposal will increase and diversify the economic base, including: Tourism, recreation, and retirement, and promote its further diversification. This proposal also manages growth while striking a balance between protection of natural environmental assets, enhancement of the quality of life for residents and visitors and economic development. Development of the subject property, as is currently proposed, was a key part of the Water Service Agreement for the Frost Creek Property that the applicant and the Town entered into. The relocated density and proposed new density also conforms to an Amended Water Service Agreement that the TQwn and the applicant entered into. . Based upon the total acreage of this proposed development (1633 acres), there currently exists the potential for the creation of 46 lots, each 35 acres in size. Upon each of these 35 acre lots, a home of unlimited size, an accessory dwelling unit up to 1,800 square feet and a variety of agricultural out-buildings could be located without any type of County review or approval other than building permits. In total, there could be 92 'by-right' residential units on the subject property and none of the land would be preserved as open space or improved as recreational area. This PUD amendment proposal for a total of 129 dwelling units (97 primary residences, five guest cottages and up to 26 accessory dwelling units) represents a density bonus of 37 residential dwelling units in trade for 66% of 27 12-14-04 the overall land area remaining as open space and recreation area. As a direct result, sensitive areas will be better protected in perpetuity. Affordable Housing: This proposal lacks integration of affordable housing within the community. The original application contai. condition of approval requiring that, in the event that the Housing Regulations do not get adopted, or are not adopted prior to the approval of the Frost and Salt Creek PUD Final Plat, then the application should comply with an alternative affordable housing plan, which is acceptable to the County. Based upon the Housing Guidelines, Staff calculated the following: At a 10% mitigation rate, this development will generate a needfor 15.18 affordable housing units or, afee-in-lieu of $620. 566.92. This represents an additional cost per residential and commercial combined square footage proposed of $0.58. Community Services. . This proposal contemplates fIre and ambulance facilities on the Clubhouse parcel. Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed development is in general conformance to the Future Land Use Map. Most of the development area is in an area on the FLUM with a maximum density indicated of 1 dwelling unit per 35 acres plus a caretakers unit. It is anticipated that the applicant, who owns a substantial amount ofland between the Town and the subject property, will continue to develop the Brush Creek Valley, southward from the Town thereby eventually closipg the ga.p between. The FLUM does specifically identify the Frost Creek site with a star designating a resort commllnity . Community Size & Character Development of the subject property, as is currently proposed, is bolstered by the formal Water Service Agreements that the applicant and the Town have entered into. The proposed development of the Salt Creek Property also conforn1s to a separate Water Service Agreement for the Brush Creek Property that the Town and the applicant entered into. The same discussion as set forth above under 'Development' for the Master Plan evaluation is again applicable here. Open Space & Recreation This proposed development would serve to protect the Brush Creek Valley area from being broken up into small development parcels. As mentioned previously, the proposed PUD boundaries encompass 1081.40 acres of land for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 66 percent of the entire land area of the subj ect property. Environment & Sensitive Areas With the original approval, the applicant and the Colorado Division of Wildlife reached agreement on a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the proposed development. The applicant agreed to create a critical Wild. habitat protection zone for deer and elk winter range on the Frost Creek site and to define Conservation Easeme to protect wetland and riparian areas throughout the Salt Creek Parcel. This Conservation Easement is intended to 28 12-14-04 preserve the riparian nesting/production area for small mammals, birds and deer. The applicant has also agreed to a wildlife impact fee program. The applicant has prepared and submitted a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan. This plan sets forth requirements for: . Controlling dogs and the enforcement mechanism for non-compliance. . The plan includes standards for fencing which is consistent with CDOW's recommendations. . Livestock and horses are to be expressly prohibited anywhere within the PUD. . Requirements for Bear and Mountain LionslTrash RemovallNuisance Wildlife are included and enforcement mechanism. . The plan addresses management of the RiparianIW etlands areas and indicates that riparian areas along Prost and Brush Creek will be enhanced, thereby improving wildlife potential, non-game and fishery values. Permanent impacts to wetlands will be avoided. Permanent impacts to riparian areas will also be avoided except for impacts due to proposed roadway, golf crossings and development where impacts will be minimized. Golf education and appropriate signage will be in place to inform golfers of the rules and regulations on avoiding wetlands and sensitive areas. . The plan indemnifies the Colorado Division of Wildlife against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage within the PUD. . the plan discusses procedures for Golf CourSe and/or Open Space Management including, wildlife protection measures, as well as, practical means to protect sensitive golf course improvements from wildlife. . Best Management Practices will be incorporated into a Management Plan for the Golf Course MaintenaAce and Operations. These BMP's shall be developed prior to approval of the Pinal Plat for this proposal. . It is proposed that the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement be incorporated by reference into the Master Homeowners Association's Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the PUD. Ifthis proposal is approved, the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement will be incorporated into the PUD Guide by way of Exhibit. . The plan proposes that new homeoWIler's be educated about the wildlife mitigation measures via a booklet and/or brochures to be presented to all new homeowners. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be duly promulgated and enforced by the Master H01l1eoWIlers Association and Board of Directors. . The plall sets forth extensive enforcement and penalty procedures to be enforced by the Master HomeoWIlers Association. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has not responded to this PUD Amendment proposal as of this writing; however, with the original approval, the Army Corp indicated that the Corp has not verified whether wetlands on the subject property are jurisdictional or not. Without verification, the applicant bears the burden of proof for avoidance as well as any potential future violations of the Clean Water Act. the Corp determined that the project may not require a Department of the Army permit but, recommends that a qualified wetland scientist or ecologist be present during all phases of the project to assist in preventing potential violations of the Clean Water Act. A condition of approval was placed upon the original approval to satisfy this concern. Further, by relocating 20 residential lots from Salt Creek to Frost Creek, most of the Army Corp's concerns should be negated. Economic Development Contributing to conforri1ance is diversification ofthe local economy. Affordable Housing: Please see the discussion with regard to Affordable Housing above. Circulation & Transportation Contributing to conformance is the inclusion of a proposed bike/pedestrian trail the length of the subject property. Future Land Use Plan Map The FLUP identifies the subject property as appropriate for Residential development at one dwelling unit per 35 acres plus a caretakers unit. The FLUP does further state that, "Density is I dul35+ acres except where higher density zoning exists or where open space conservation /incentives/techniques may yield a higher density". In this instance, the overall proposed gross residential density, not including the ADU's, for the total land area within the Frost and Salt Creek PUD boundaries equates to one (1) DU per 16.7 acres. Further, the PUD 29 12-14-04 boundaries encompass 1081.40 acres of land for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 66 percent ofthe entire land area of the subject property. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Open Space Provision. Contributing to conformance are [1] providing open space and recreation land and [2] preserving areas along streams in a natural condition to the greatest extent practicable while still meeting the applicant's development goals. Development Patterns. With the original approval, it was found that this proposal will increase and diversify the economic base. Development of the subject property, as is currently proposed, is a key part of the Amended Water Service Agreement for the Frost Creek Property that the applicant and the Town entered into. The proposed development of the Salt Creek Property also conforms toa separate Watef Service Agreement for the Brush Creek Property that the Town and the applicant entered into. In terms of conformance with the Plan, the Town has already negotiatp..1 acceptable uses and development density with the applicant, neither of which completely satisfies the Plan's literal reco1Il1Ilenda.tions. Wildlife. Reasonable protection of sensitive wildlife habitats is being proposed. As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not yet provided comment. EAGLKRIVERW ATERSHED PLAN x x x x x This proposal satisfies the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a w:.' variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who wo here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: · Housing is a community-wide issue 30 12-14-04 . 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 wilI result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the muniCipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunitieS for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . x 8. The County will seek to make la.nd available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments inappropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue While the proposed development may not fully conform in all respects to the letter of the Eagle County Master Plan, it does satisfy many of the stated policies. Moreover, Master Plans in general attempt to recommend an overall pattern for development within areas that such plans are concerned with. Given the Water Service Agreements which were entered into by the Town of Eagle and the applicant this proposed development and land use pattern appears to generally satisfY the spirit and intent of the Eagle County Master Plan and subordinate documents. A condition proposed with regard to Affordable Housing will make this PUD proposal consistent with the Master Plan and ancillary documents. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] As conditioned, the proposed PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited 31 12-14-04 I to, the Future Land Use Map (PLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (II)] The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plar 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, . that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. A phasing plan is not necessary for this proposal, as the applicant intends to improve the entire project in one- step. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (II) A phasing plan IS NOT NECESSARY for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] B The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shaU be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. 1. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ol-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. 2. AreaS that COllnt 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 pteserved 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 aU occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreationalfacilities shallbe shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common ope"n space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall he placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. The PUD boundaries encompass 1081.40 acres of land for recreational purposes and open space. This equates to 66 percent of the entire land area of the subject property and may be further broken down as follows: 831.8 ace (51 %) of common recreation and open space and 249.6 acres (15%) of golf course. 32 12-14-04 The private golf course, as originally approved will allow public playas follows: During the shoulder seasons (prior to June l5t and after September 15th) Adam's Rib will reserve four tee times for a total of sixteen golfers, Monday through Thursday, for local residents to play. The cost of play for Eagle County residents will be discounted 40% from the members' fees in place at the time of play. Adam's Rib will make the course available for one charity tournament prior to June pt and one charity tournament after September 15th, holidays and weekends excluded. There win be no charge for the use of the course, golf carts or golf course staff, however, Adam's Rib reserVes the right to select the charity groups, tournament format, tournament dates and times. (+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (12)] The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: 1. Minimum area; Improvements required; Continuing use and maintenance; or Organization. . STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (13)] B The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agenCies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. It appears the Applicant has generally considered the recommendations and comments of the analysis documents, technical reports, and referral agency comments. The proposal incorporates a variety of natural resource protection measures. such as lot Conservation Easements and Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone, avoidance of 100 yeatfl60dplains, water quality monitoring and building envelope avoidahce 01 wildlife/winter habitat,wetland and riparian areas. The PUD Guide specifies a minimum 75 foot setback from the high water mark of Brush and Salt Creeks and avoidance of the 100 year floodplain for all structures (bridges, paths, and utilities may encroach). The 50 foot stream setback for the golf courSe will be complied with. NWCCOG's response to the original application indicated that the proposal complies with the policies and recommendations of the 208 Plan and that the originally approved project is considerably more protective of wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas than previous versions reviewed by NWCCOG. Recommendations regarding grading, drainage, erosion control and water quality were incorporated as conditions of approval with the original application and will carry forward with this PUD Amendmertt. With the original application, the applicant worked cooperatively with the CDOWand, as stated above, reached agreement on a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the existing PUD. Also, the applicant has created a critical wildlife habitat protection zone for deer and elk winter range on the Frost Creek site and agreed to define Conservation Easements to protect wetland and riparian areas throughout the project on the Final Plat. This. Conservation Easement is intended topreserve the riparian nesting/production area for small mammals, birds and deer. The applicant has also previously agreed to a wildlife impact fee. With the original application, all required geologic information was provided. Based on the report and the referral response from the Colorado Geological Survey, it is believed that the original development can be successfully rendered as approved with little or no geology-related problems so long as sound engineering practice and proper grading and drainage are employed. CGS set forth several recommendations that were incorporated as conditions for the original PUD approval. Based upon CGS' s response to this PUD Amendment proposal by removing the bulk of the originally approved development from the Salt Creek property, most of the CGS concerns have been alleviated. CGS, however, requests an opportunity to review the construction drawings and the grading plans during the Final Plat process to verify that potential debris flow hazards have been mitigated and also to verify that recommended cut and fill angles and heights presented in HP Geotech's July 29,2002 geotechnical report have been adhered to. Also, CGS identified Lot 97, on the east side of Brush Creek Road as a being situated directly within the mouth of a drainage and recommend that this lot be deleted. The Army Corp of Engineers had not responded to the PUD Amendment proposal at the time of this writing; however, with the original approval, the Corp had not verified whether or not wetlands on the subject property are 33 12-14-04 jurisdictional or not. Without verification, the applicant bears the burden of proof for avoidance as well as any potential future violations of the Clean Water Act. The Corp determined that the project may not require a Department of the Army permit as proposed but, recorrltnends that a qualified wetland scientist or ecologist be present during all phases of the project to assist preventing potential violations of the Clean Water Act. This was included as a condition of the currentPUD approval It is anticipated that by virtue of relocating most of the development approved for Salt Creek onto the Prost Creek property, that many of the Army Corp's concerns will be negated. Eagle County's Wildfire Mitigation Specialist indicates that this proposed amendment will place 11 additional lots into areas with a wildfire hazard rating of 'moderate' and two additional lots into areas that would have a wildfire hazard rating of 'high'. The response also provides several recommendations for mitigating and reducing the wildfire hazard ratings. In any event, at the time of building permit, Eagle County's wildfire hazard mitigation regulations will be applicable to any lot that does not achieve a wildfrre hazard rating of 'low'. Based upon the referral responses received as of this writing, the proposed additional density will not adversely affect the requirements specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5..240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD Amendment DOES incorporate many elements designed to protect natural resources. All anticipated referral responses have not been received as of this writing. Any forthcoming referral agency corinnent pertaining to Natural Resource Protection Standards must be adequately addressed by the applicant prior to approval. PurSuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan. fOr Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consiStent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+/.;.] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.P.3.e (10)] With the exception ofthe newly proposed density, the proposed PUD Amendment will result in a development that IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The applicant may, however, be able to justify an increase of 16 additional four acre single-family residential lots. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standatds. ' Article 3, Zone Districts The proposed development is a PUD and as such is consistent with the standards as set forth in the PUD Guide. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) See discussion above in PUD standards, Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.eA] [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) See discussion above in PUD standards, Landscaping and Illumination. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.5] 34 12-14-04 [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) See discussion above in PUD standards, Sign Regulations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.6] [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) Please refer to the above discussion in PUD standards. Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - With the original application, all required geologic information was provided. Based on the report and the referral response from the Colorado Geological Survey, it is believed that the original development can be successfully rendered as approved with little or no geology-related problems so long as sound engineering practice and proper grading and drainage are employed. CGS set forth several recommendations that were incorporated as conditions for the original PUD approvaL By virtue of removing the bulk of the originally approved development from the Salt Creek property, most of the CGS concerns have been alleviated. Please reference the attached letter dated November 23, 2004. . Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - Eagle County's Wildfire Mitigation Specialist indicates that this proposed amendment will place 11 additional lots into areas with a wildfire hazard rating of 'moderate' and two additional lots into areas that would have a wildfire hazard rating of 'high'. The response also provides several recommendations for mitigating and reducing the wildfire hazard ratings. In any event, at the time of building permit, Eagle County's wildftre hazard mitigation regulations will be applicable to any lotthat does not achieve a wildfire hazard rating of 'low'. the existing approved PUD Guide contains specific wildfire mitigation measUreS. The wildfire mitigation plan has been made part of the PUD Guide and PUD Agreement by way of Exhibit. At Final Plat, the wildfire mitigation plan will be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The applicant has committed to not allowing any wood burning fireplaces anywhere within the PUD boundaries. Ridgeline Protectiofl (Section 4-450) - The site is not located in an area identified for protection on the Ridgeline Protection Map referred to in the Land Use Regulation. Consequently, this Section is not applicable to this application. Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The required components of the Environmental Impact Report for the existing approved PUDprovide all information required by the Land Use Regulations. COrrlmercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) - The primary element of the application associated with this standard is the golf course maintenance facility. All applicable standards of Division 4-5, Eagle County Land Use Regulations will apply. Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) the internal private road system will provide access to all development within the proposal. 35 12-14-04 Pursuant to the Engineering Department Memorandum dated November 23,2004, additional information has been requested relative to the traffic impact study and the proposed roadways. Conditions that require the applicant to provide certain improvements on Brush Creek Road, participate in the funding of a traffic signal at the intersection of Brush Creek RoadlBull Past Road and Capitol Street and an agreement to repair any damage to Brush Creek Road caused by increased heavy truck traffic were included with the original POO approval. Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - Pursuant to the Engineering Department Memorandum dated November 23, 2004, the trail alignment has been altered with this request and the trail plans need to be updated to reflect the changes. Art acceptable concept trails plan was provided with the original application. Construction and collateral for trail and trail appurtenance construction was required as a condition of approval for the existing PUD. Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - Irrigation is proposed to be used throughout the development including the golf course and certain residential lots. Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Preliminary drainage plans and a drainage analysis have been submitted to the EngineeringDepartment. The Engineering Department referral memo dated November 23,2004, indicates that the original approval had provided stormwater drainage detention ponds. This revised PUD Amendment does not. Engineering requests that the applicant utilize the same methods and analyses for analyzing the drainage calculations as were llsed with the original approval. Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - Grading information was provided by the applicant. Pursuant to the Engineering Department Memorandum dated November 23, 20.' additional grading plan information is required due to th~ changes proposed. . .. Utility and lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The PUD does address utilities and lighting, however, Engineering has requested additional info1lnation regarding lighting of the roadway network. Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) See discussion above in PUD standards, Adequate Facilities [Section 5-240.F.3.e.7] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) See discussion above in PUD standards, Adequate Facilities [Section 5-240.F.3.e.7) Im{>act Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) This development will be assessed road impact fees at the time of building permit. In addition, either school land dedication or fees-in-lieu will be required for this project. If fees-in-lieu are required they shall be determined based upon a current Summary Appraisal Report submitted at the time of Final Plat. (+) FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] As conditioned, this application WILL fully demonstrate that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. . STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)) B The proposed subdivision shall be I located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, 36 12-14-04 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 Eal!le County Road Caoital Imorovements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoidfuture land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilitiffS can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. All public infrastructure necessary to serve the subject property already exists in the Brush Creek Valley immediately adjacent to the site. The 1041. review utilizing the applicable standards within Chapter 6 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations has resulted in a staff recommendation of approval. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] Based upon the approval of the existing PUD, the proposed subdivision IS 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" patteI11 of development. The companion 1041 application is being rebommended for approval by staff. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B The pro petty proposed to be subdivided shall be suitablefor development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural Or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Most ofthat portion of the site on which development is to occur appears to be suitable for development. There appears to be no natural Or manmade hazards that cannot be successfully avoided or mitigated by the developer, which would substantially affect the development of the property. [+) FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)J The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resourceS and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. stANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the chatacter of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. As proposed with this amendment, the gross density proposed for the development would be one dwelling unit per 16.7 acres which exceeds the minimum 10 acre Agricultural Residential zoning present to the east and west of the subject property. Several of the Resource zoned parcels in the immediate vicinity do not meet the minimum required lot size of 35 acres. As such, the gross density proposed for the Frost and Salt Creek properties combined may be considered compatible wlth existing and allowed adjacent land uses. As proposed, the gross residential density of the Frost Creek parcel is one (1) DU per 11.47 acres, or 0.09 DU per acre not including the accessory dwelling units. When compared to the currently governing Frost Creek & Salt Creek Planned Unit Development, this represents a decrease of 6.98 acres per residence on the Frost Creek property only, and; a decrease of 3.3 acres per residence on the Frost and Salt Creek properties combined. 37 12-14-04 As stated above, the applicant submits that this rearrangement of already approved residential density and proposed increase in residential density is necessary and would be beneficial in order to protect the riparian and wetland areas on the Salt Creek property and to avoid potential high water table, rock fall, slope stability, debris flow and sediment yield hazards associated with the Salt Creek property. Staff concurs that the preservation Salt Creek in a more natural condition is preferable for the identified reasons. Some ofthe adjacent properties allow one unit per ten acres and this proposal would result in a gross density of less than one unit per ten acres (11.47 acres). The applicant maintains that this proposal represents a cluster development and, as such, warrants the additional density. Staff concurs that the gross density of 1 dwelling unit per 11.47 acres on Frost Creek is consistent with allowed gross density in the adjacent AgriculturalResidential zone district; however, with each home site encompassing approximately 4 acres, the 16 newly proposed residential lots will consume. approximately 64 acres that would otherwise remain as open space. By situating the 16 additional lots between the originally approved 60 lots, and 20 lots relocated from Salt Creek, the overall effect will Jesult in a less compatible homogenous pattern of evenly spaced homes across the majority of the Frost Creek property - not a cluster development. In order to better justify compatibility of the additional density, open space should be provided adjacent to the northern project perimeter of the Frost Creek property to help create a more gradual land use pattern transition from the adjacent Agricultural Residential zoned properties. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] With proper buffering adjacent to the northern project perimeter of the Frost Creek property, the proposed PUD Amendment will result in a development that IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: :Pursuant to Eagle C(}untyLand Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." A draft amended Planned Unit Development Guide is provided. [+]FlNDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] The Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates that the re uiremei1ts of this Section are full met. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section S-240.F. 3.m Amendment to Preliminarv Plan for POO: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] -No substantial modification, removal, or telease of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon afinding by the CountyJollowing a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67-104(1)( e) Colorado Revised Statutes that: (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or the public interest; (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. In addition to the above requirements a Preliminary Plan for PUD may be amended, extended, varied or altered only pursuant to the standards and procedures established for its original approval. With the possible exception of the proposed additional density, the modifications proposed by this amendment are consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD. The PUD Amendment does not eff in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD although compatibility with adjacent uses would be improved if the 16 additional residential lots are not included. 38 12-14-04 The proposed amendment is consistent with the desired outcome of the existing PUD. The addition of 16 residential lots may, however, confer a special benefit on the property owner. /_] FINDING Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] With the ception of the proposed additional density, the proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with .he efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Pursuant to the Frost Creek & Salt Creek Planned Unit Development Guide, VIL Modification. B. Other Amendments: In considering an amendment to the Adam's Rib Frost Creek & Salt Creek Development Plan, Eagle County Commissioners shall follow the standards for review of the Preliminary Plan and the intent and purposes of this Guide;pr()vided however: 1. Application for modifications shall cover only those areas of Adam's Rib Frost Creek & Salt Creek Development affected by any proposed change; and 2. The Commissioner may waive any Preliminary Plan requirements upon a showing by the applicant that Preliminary Plan requirements have been previously met. In this instance, the modifications proposed encompass the entirety of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek & Salt Creek Development, as such, staffhas requested all information pertinent to the evaluation of a preliminary Plan in order to thoroughly evaluate said amendment request. The applicant has been working closely with staff to provide the requested information; however, the following items remain outstanding and should be submitted prior to the Board of County COImnissioners rendering a decision on this POO Amendment request. Alternatively, the Board may find that the Preliminary Plan requirements have been previously met. t:". h.re~ardto.the.salt.cr.eekPorti.OIl O. f~he developmen., t, the c.oncePt .ofrel~c~ting 20 ofth~ previously approve. d 2.1 entlallots to the Frost Creek parcells a preferable lmprovement. At thlS tIme, the apphcant does not have firm sign plans for the proposed Equestrian Facility, Shooting Club and Training Center and, as such, has agreed to make final development of the Salt Creek property subject to a subsequent Special Use Permit process prior to the County issuing any building permits on that property. With regard to the Frost Creek portion of the development this proposal entails a net gain of 37 additional residential lots, one of which is pre-existing. Integration of36 additional lots between the originally approved 60 four acre lots on the Frost Creek property necessitated modifications of the golf course, as well as, lot placement within drainages that were left as open space with the original approval. Therefore, grading and drainage patterns must be altered to accommodate the additional 36 lots. Staff feels that this proposed amendment is substantial enough to warrant requesting a revised Preliminary Plan, as wen as, Grading and Drainage Plans at a Preliminary Plan level of detail. Also, no detailed plans of the Brush Creek Trail have been provided. The trail alignment nas been modified from the original approval and the plans Ileed to be adjusted accordingly. Again, the applicant has been diligently working with the County's Engineering Department to satisfy these concerns. PROPOSED MOTION: Prior to approval of this PUD Amendment by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant must: I) Provide a Housing Plan which meets with the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. Based upon the Housing Guidelines, Staff calculated the following: At a 10% mitigation rate, this development will generate a need for 15.18 affordable housing units or, a fee-in-lieu of $620,566.92. This represents an additional cost per residential and commercial combined square footage proposed of $0.58, and; 2) Prior to approval of this fOO Amendment, the applicant must adequately address each of the comments detailed in the Engineering Department Memorandum dated November 23,2004; 3) The Board must determine whether open space should be provided adjacent to the northern project perimeter of the Frost Creek property to help create a more gradual land use pattern transition from the adjacent Agricultural Residential zoned properties OR whether a landscaped earthen berm constructed as a buffer between the proposed development and existing homes located north of the Frost Creek property could s the intended purpose. Mr. NaITacci showed several slides of site plans and usage parcels. He also showed several pictures of the proposed area. He highlighted an area on Eaton Lane which would have .a berm, if approved. The Planning Commission reco1Il1Ilended approval by a vote of 6 to I, and, as conditioned, the proposal would be in complete conformance with regulations. Chairman Stone asked about housing plans. Mr. Narracci stated that the applicant and K.T. Gazunis had worked on a housing proposal. The only question is a trigger point related to the 15 homes the developer has agreed to provide. He went over some additional conditions that were added after the. delivery of the staff report. Chairman Stone asked about the wetlands related to Salt Creek. Mr. Narracci stated that the wetlands condition for Salt Creek would no longer be necessary, as they are moving the development out of that area. Corrlmissioner Menconi asked about the building in Salt Creek. Mr. Narracci stated that conditions could be applied in the future, if necessary. Chairman Stone stated that a map with the areas and lots with these conditions had been previously provided. Randy Cloyd, representing Adam's Rib, was present to answer the Board's questions. He informed the Board that the decision to move the lots to Salt Creek was made because it was decided that an equestrian center was needed as an amenity. He stated that they don't have a lot of credibility based on the fact that they had been there for 33 years and had not built anything. He showed the Board a map showing the old approval and the new approval. They didn't start with. a number of lots desirable, rather they laid out the development and then counted how many there were. They increased the wildlife impact by .5 acres. It is their intent to build the golf course, the infrastructure, and four homes to build some credibility. They have kept aU lots 50 feet away from the wetlands and riparian areas. The guest cottages win acco1l1111odate the several homes that are only 4000 square feet, and they also propose adding a nature park. He then .. requested some flexibility for the building envelopes, to avoid repeated meetings with the Board. He addressed the op space and berming issues brought up by staff. Chairman Stone asked about the stage of the negotiations with the Town. Mr. Cloyd stated that they had a pre-annexation agreement with the Town. Chairman Stone asked for a solution if this agreement did not work out. He stated that he is uncomfortable putting a requirement on a county development plan which requires approval from a different entity. He felt that it was in everyone's best interest to have a fail-safe option. Mr. Cloyd stated that they had not come up with one. Chairman Stone offered the Vail Resorts experience with Red Sky Ranch as an example. Ms. Gazuuis stated that Mi. Cloyd had offered to have it done in five years. The only way that the requirement Was enforceable was due to an amended PUD application. Chairman Stone stated that there was some enforceability. Ms. Gazunis stated that the Bluffs had been proposed to meet the housing requirements. Subsequent to this agreement, this development was sold to another developer and turned out very differently. She is concerned that the my parcel could also end up looking very different. Chairman Stone stated he would like to work with the developer to.come up with an enforceable plan. Ms. Gazunis discussed the possibility of the developer posting a bond. Mr. Cloyd added that one of the conditions related to a conservation easement was placed in effect when the development was surrounding Salt Creek, and this situation has since changed. COrrlmissioner Gallagher asked about F9 and if there were no more wetlands. Mr. Cloyd stated that this condition was there to protect the wetlands in the Salt Creek area and now there is planned an equestrian center, exclusively. Chairman Stone opened public comment. Rosie Shearwood, resident of Brush Creek Road, spoke to the Board. She thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to speak to the Board. She attended the planning and zoning meeting and finds it interesting that a lot of things have been altered to the applicant's benefit. The first of these issues is regarding the cash in lieu of housing. In the original application the request was for 20 units or cash in lieu at $955,500. Today, the requirement is only for 15 units for $620,500, and she wonders how this happened. There are several issues that were significant at the Planning and Zoning approval level. The storm water retention plan has not been addressed. As far as wetlands go, Frost Creek also has wetlands. She disagrees that, simply by eliminating Salt Creek, the need for an on-site wetlands expert is eliminated. She read some comments to the commissioners. She can understand the argument for moving dwelling units out of the tlands. She asks that the commissioners not approve the additional 16 units or guest cottages. She believes that the ages would be rented, and not used for guests. Ii1 several other meetings, Ms. Shearwood has brought up the fact that .aere are other properties in the area which are ripe for development. She requested that Adam's Rib accept responsibility for future traffic issues. She added that according to two reports in the amendment application it was suggested that the house that exists should not be included. She concluded by saying that an equestrian facility available to the public would be a welcome addition. She is not in favor of the shooting club, though. Annie Egan, resident of Brush Creek Road, spoke to the Board. She agrees with everything that Ms. Shearwood stated. She referred to comments made by Commissioner Stone related to the need for a wetland scientist, especially based on the fact that there had been changes made to the request. Chairman Stone stated that he agreed with her in this regard. He was simply trying to remember the location of the wetlands. Ms. Egan added that she also felt that the rod and gun club would not be a good idea so close to homes and horse facilities, C01Il1Ilissioner Gallagher asked her opinion of berm versus trees. Ms. Egan stated that her preference would be to have open space. Ms. Shearwood stated that the Planning and Zoning CommissionerprefeITed no berm. She stated that Mr. Cloyd' made a big deal of a natural park in the same area, and it is a.mere 7 acres. Glen Miller, a resident of Salt Creek Court, spo}(e to the Board. He doesn't feel that Adam's Rib is responsible for Brush Creek Road. He believes the commissioners are responsible for this road, as it is in disrepair. He feels this issue need.s to be addressed. He doesn't feel that Adam's Rib is responsible for this maintenance. Chairman Stone closed public comment. He asked staff and the applicant to address the C01Il1Ilents made. Mr. Cloyd stated that upon review with K.T. Gazunis it was determined that the initial number of 20 required units Was too high. He stated that the County Engineer had recommended adjustment of the retention ponds. They have not backed off of the wetlands issues, and they are aware that these need to be protected. He showed the Board the areas t Ms. Shearwood had stated could be developed and spoke about some of the issues related to this future development. y had planned on the shooting facility being an indoor facility. This would be requested in a future proposal, but . .. ned presently. He showed the Board the reason that the bike path COuld not be added at the present time. lie requested . time to layout the access and the possibilities for the bike path. Philip Bowm.an, Eagle County Engineering, spoke to the Board about the traffic on Brush Creek Road. He stated that the County Engineering Department is satisfied with the negotiations with the applicant. They would have liked to see more detail but are satisfied that the remaining issues can be addressed at Final Plat. He stated that a traffic report was submitted initially and some ofthe findings have been discussed with the Town of Eagle Engineer. It represents a unique situation because the Town has future projects that would improve traffic patterns. Issues that remain are when and to what degree the Town plans to complete these improvements. Ms. Gazunis clarified that the alternative to things working out On the JHY parcel would be for the applicant to offer a bond which would be redeemable in the case that their commitments weren't followed through on. She stated that there are two types of housing requirements. The first is the inclusionary, based on the number of houses, and this hasn't changed. The square footage changed and this had a subsequent adjustment to the calculation for linkage, which also reduced the payment in lieu. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Narracci whether a condition existed related to the size restrictions of the proposed homes. Mr. Narracci responded that it is not included. This size limitation could be handled in the PUD application. COmrrlissioner Menconi asked about some type of guarantee as to size limits. Mr. Cloyd stated that the units on the calculation would not be many. COmrrlissioner Menconi asked if the applicant would put this condition into the approval. He wondered if there were 60 dwelling units as it stands currently and there are an additional 16 being added, there are 20 being moved and one still remaining at Salt Creek, five cottages, and 25 accessory dwelling units, and whether the formula was being based on 129 units. Ms. Gazunis stated that the formula is being based on the dwelling units solely and not the accessory dwelling s. She did not believe that ADU's related to calculation for housing allowances was addressed. Mr. Narracci stated that ADU's are encouraged to help with providing housing, so they are not included in the calculation, so as not to discourage them being built. Commissioner Menconi wondered about the size of the clubhouse. Ms. Gazunis stated the club house was planned for 30,000 square feet and the golf maintenance facility at 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Menconi asked how the guidelines were laid out related to the developer building off-site. Ms. Gazunis stated that the developer proposed to build within a certain time frame, or pay a penalty. Corrltnissioner Menconi stated that if a developer chooses to build off-site, are they required to post a bond u the units are built, and can these units be built wherever they choose. Chairman Stone stated that he agreed. Commissioner Menconi stated that he liked that the new proposal did not include building on Salt Creek. He was also concerned with the housing requirements, but this has since changed. The final issue was related to square footage allowed. He would also like to see if there could be some floating average added as a condition of the PUD. Mr. Cloyd stated that there would be no way to guarantee this limit. Commissioner Menconi asked if the square foot limitation would affect the cash in lieu calculations. Ms. Gazunis stated thatit would indeed affect this calculation. The square footage based on the estimates requires 1.14 houses to be built. But, if these houses are built at the maximum allowable size, it would require 3.7 houses. Chairman Stone stated that the housing regulations were called guidelines specifically based on this type of situation. He asked whether Ms. Gazunis believed that 5,000 square feet would be reasonable. Ms. Gazunis recommended that it would be possible for the applicant to submit each house at final plat. She gaessed that in the end the average would be around 5,000 square feet. Corrltnissioner Menconi stated that the smaller units in Eagle Ranch are in the 4,000-5,000 square foot range. He asked Mr. Narracci about the density compared to Eagle Ranch. Mr. Cloyd stated that Eagle Ranch has 1, I 00 acres and 1,100 homes for an average of one acre per home. Commissioner Gallagher stated that he would like to have information from the Building Department orthe AsseSsor to compare similar developments to find out what the average home size ended up being. He wondered about the wisdom of a conservation easement, but he is aware that horses can beat up riparian areas more than people can. He wondered about the horse density. Chairman Stone asked whether the applicant would agree to a restriction of use to protect the riparian areas. The applicant agreed to this condition. Commissioner Gallagher cOrrlmittedto coming up with an ultimate plan for Brush Creek Road improvements. Mr. Bowman responded that condition Bl was placed there to address the condition of Brush Creek Road. CommiSSioner Gallagher wondered what bringing the road up to level C would be contributing to the overall effort or would it just provide a Band-Aid to a more serious problem. Mr. Bowman stated that actions by the Town would significantly impact traffic patterns. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there was a Brush Creek Road plan that addressed needs based on Sylvan Lake, Prost Creek, and future developments. Mr. Bowman stated that there was not. Chairman Stone stated that it is very difficult to coordinate efforts with the Town because the County is unaware of what a developer is going to do. If there is any qamage to the road based on increased heavy truck traffic, the applicant would be responsible for repairs. Commissioner Gallagher challenged staff to surprise the new Board to come up with a plan to provide planning for road improvements going forward. Mr. Bowman stated that a new capital improvement plan is planned for presentation to the Board in the future. Chairman Stone stated that the State needed to be made aware of the impacts to this road based on the development of Sylvan Lake State Park. He added that his concerns had been addressed. He liked the level of density and then asked the applicant about the berm and if it was a response to an item brought up. Mr. Cloyd stated that this was something they had decided to do on their own. Commissioner Menconi asked the applicant to address the interest in having an easement to the BLM land by members ofthe public. Mr. Cloyd stated that he had met with the BLM and the Town. The Town has required this access already and so they had committed to it. He stated that the problem is that during the summer, kids are using it for motorized recreation. They are not currently able to control this access. Mr. Narracci stated that the Commissioners would be agreeing that an equestrian center would be an appropriate use for the Salt Creek property. Based upon the assumption that these items will be adequately addressed prior to decision by the Board of CountY Commissioners: Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. PDA-00056 with the following conditions: A. All material representations made by the applicant in submitted materials and in public meetings shall be adhered. to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. B. Based upon the original conditions of approval, the following conditions are still deemed necessary: 1) At application for Final Plat, the applicant must provide a specific plan of improvements to Brush Creek Road in order to maintain a level of service C that is acceptable to the County; 2) Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant should agree to participate in the funding of a traffic signal at the intersection of Brush Creek Road / Bull Pasture Road and Capitol Street; 3) Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant should agree to a specific plan to mitigate and or repair any damage to that portion of Brush Creek Road, agreeable to County Staff that would be caused by increased heavy truck traffic in relation to the development of the infrastructure with this development, as to be different from increased heavy truck traffic that would be seen by building of homes. C. Prior to recording the Final Plat,. fees-in-lieu of School Land Dedication will be paid by the applicant. Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the fees will be calculated based upon a current Summary Appraisal Report to be submitted at the time of Final Plat. D. The Final Plat shall incorporate a plat note requiring that: "A qualified wetland scientist or ecologist must be present only for infrastructure improvements OR, that the wetland areas be accurately demarcated in the field by a qualified wetland scientist or ecologist prior to constructing infrastructure improvements to assist in preventing potential violations of the Clean Water Act". In addition, all building envelopes will be redesigned where necessary to comply with a 50-foot setback from wetland or riparian areas. E. The Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan must be carried forward with this PUD Amendment, by way of exhibit, into the PUD Guide prior to recording; F. The following chec~st of items must be adequately addressed during the Final Plat process: I) At application for Final Plat, the additional detailed rockfall, slope stability and sediment yield studies and the development of appropriate mitigation design for the sediment basin and water tank on Frost Creek will be provided; 2) At application for Final Plat, the applicant should provide criteria of when each sediment and debris flow basin must be cleaned and maintained; 3) At application for Final Plat, the applicant's hydrologist will prepare debris flow mitigation plans and mitigation structure maintenance procedures for the water tank and Frost Creek Lots 83 - 85 and Lot 96. Debris flow mitigation will not be the responsibility ofthe individual lot and facility owners; 4) At application for Final Plat, additional drainage analysis and design needs to be done to ensure that flows from culverts do not impact building envelopes and analysis of all proposed interceptor ditch details should include calculations on volumes, flow velocities, shear stress and sediment yields to each ditch and lot; 5) The Final Plat shall incorporate a plat note requiring that: "Prior to Building Permit Issuance, lot specific geologic analyses should include an evaluation for sinkholes"; 6) The Final Plat shall incorporate a plat note requiring that: "Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a soils and foundation investigation be submitted with each building permit, which includes a test boring indicating the depth to ground water. Ground water levels should be taken when the ground water table is normally at its highest level. Lot specific hydrologic analysis should include potential mitigation for any ground water impacts on foundations and/or basements." 7) The Pinal Plat shall incorporate a plat note requiring that: "Prior to Building Permit Issuance, detailed grading plans for each lot shall be submitted for approval by the County including an evaluation of slope stability by a geotechnical engineer"; 8) Prior to Pinal Plat approval a schedule for the wildlife impact mitigation fee should be developed; 9) At application for Pinal Plat, Best Management Practices must be incorporated into a Management Plan for the Golf Course Maintenance and Operations; 10) The BicycleIPedestrian Trail for Frost Creek will be collateralized and constructed at the same time as all infrastructure associated with the Frost Creek development and will be constructed to the standards set forth in the Land Use Regulations and the Brush Creek Road crossing location analyzed to ensure the most desirable crossing location is utilized. Design for the Salt Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail will be provided in the construction plans to be submitted for development of the Salt Creek site. The Salt Creek BicyclelPedestrian Trail must also be constructed to County standards at the time when the Equestrian Center is developed or within 3-years from the date of Final Plat approval, whichever is less. A temporary trailhead will be constructed at Trail Gulch with gravel parking sufficient in size to accommodate trucks and horse trailers. The Trail Gulch trailhead must be constructed when the Frost Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail is built. 11) The Final Plat must clearly identify the location of the historic cabin, which is to be preserved. Responsibilities for the on-going preservation and maintenance ofthe historic cabin must also be adequately addressed. 14) Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant must revise the proposed roadway system to meet all Land Use Regulations including turnout spacing, or provide written documentation from all emergency service providers accepting the currently proposed layout. All roadway construction plans will be subject to the review and approval of the County Engineer. G. The Water Quality Management Plan shall include Best Management Practices designed for individual lot development directed at curtailing water quality impacts commonly seen from residential lots. Such Best Management Practices shall address lawn maintenance, including the use of fertilizers and pesticides, as well as, control of pet wastes. H. Adam's Rib will make its golf course available for three charity tournaments during the golfing season. There will be no charge to the individual charities for the use of the course, golf carts or golf course staff; however, Adam's Rib reserves the right to select the charity groups, tournament format and tournament dates and times. Said policy shall be implemented on the opening day of each season. I. The applicant shall comply with the local resident housing plan and shall submit collateral at recording of final plat. If applicant is unable to complete housing plan within five years of date of final plat recordation, the collateral shall be forfeited to Eagle County. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0057 Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek pun Bob Narracci, Community Development ACTION: To amend the 1041 permit originally approved for the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development. This amendment is necessary to coincide with a companion Planned Unit Development amendment application to shift and increase density within the boundaries of the development. LOCATION: Both on the East and West sides of Brush Creek Road, approximately six (6) miles southeast from the Town of Eagle. FILE NO: TITLE: OWNER: APPLICANT: CONSULTANT: REQUEST: 1041-0057 Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek 1041 Adam's Rib a Subsidiary of HBE Corporation Owner Randy Cloyd / Vem Brock Amendment of the approved and recorded 1041 Permit (1041-0044) for the Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The original 1041 Petmit (1041-0044) was granted to allow water service and individual sewage disp'osal systems for a residential golf course community situated on 1,627 acres of land. Current Preliminary Plan approval of the development consists of: . A private gated golf course cOIDmunity with 60 single-family residential lots and up to 30 accessory dwelling units on the Frost Creek property, inclusive of all ancillary facilities pertinent to golf course operations; . A5.796 acre parcel fot the Town of Eagle's Water pre-treatment facility, and; . Twenty-one single-family residential lots situated on the Salt Creek property; . As cUlTently approved, all individual residential lots encompass four acres with one acre building envelopes; . A raw water irrigation system will bt; installed for the golf course and individual home sites; . Public water service will be provided by the Town of Eagle. Water will be pumped from the Town's water treatment facility and the Brush Creek Water Tank up to a 250,000 gallon storage tank located on the western portion of the Frost Creek property; · Irtdividual sewage disposal systems will serVe the entire project. The Pl..rt"Pose of this.1 041 Pewit Amendment application is to accommodate the adjustments proposed in the companion PUD Amertdmentapplication (File No. PDA-00056). The PUD Amendment application proposes the following modifications: . To relocate 20 of the previously approved 21 Salt Creek Single-Family Residential Lots to the Frost Creek property; . To include 16 aqditional Single-Family Residential Lots which have not received prior approval; . To encompass an existing home -and property, located at 6902 Brush Creek Road, within the PUD boundary; . To utilize five of the previously approved 30 Accessory Dwelling Units as 'Guest Cottages , located near the clubhouse; . The addition of one Accessory Dwelling Unit designated specifically for the one Single-Family Residential Lot to remain on the Salt Creek property. Development of this single family residence and accessory dwelling unit is subject to subsequent Special Use Permit review and approval prior to any building permits being issued; . To allow an Equestrian Facility, Shooting Club and Training Center on the Salt Creek property. These amenities are subject to subsequent Special Use Permit review and approval prior to any building permits being issued The companion PUD Amendment application states that these proposed alterations are necessary and would be beneficial in order to protect the riparian and wetland areas on the Salt Creek property and to avoid potential high water table, rock fall, slope stability, debris flow and sediment yield hazards associated with the Salt Creek property. The proposed new layout on the Frost Creek property mostly utilizes the same roadway configuration originally established by filling in the open space between already approved lots with the 20 relocated lots and 16 newly proposed lots. The only notable differences include a new private road in the northwest comer of the Prost Creek property and a new, longer road alignment to serve several of the relocated/new residential lots located in the northernmost portion of the site. The relocated/new residential lots have been situated so as to not encroach onto or into the hillsides, riparian areas and wetlands open space fOUI1d on the Frost Creek property. The residential lots range in size from 3.674 acres to 9.862 acres, with one acre building envelopes. The golf course has also been modified to accommodate the additional residential density on Frost Creek. All other governing standards of both the original PUD Preliminary Plan and 1041 approvals are proposed to carry forward and remain unchanged; water will still be provided by the Town of Eagle and sewage disposal will still occur via individual sewage disposal systems. Please reference the attached amended water service agreements between the Town of Eagle and the Kummer Development Corporation (First Amendment to Water Service Agreement Frost Creek Property and First Amendment to Water Service Agreement Brush Creek Property). These amended documents set forth specificity for water service to accommodate the proposed shift and increase in residential density, the five guest cottages and the equestrian center / shooting range facilities. REFERRALS: This 1041 proposal was referred to the following departments, agencies for review and comment. Eagle County Engineering Eagle County Envirohrrlental Health Colorado Geological Survey Division '5' Water Resources Colorado Water Quality and Air Pollution Control Divisions Colorado Division of Wildlife U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Bureau of Land Management Natural Resource Conservation Service Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Eagle County Historical Society Eagle County Planning Co1Il1Ilission Western Eagle County Ambulance District Greater Eagle Pire Protection District ToWh of Eagle As of the writing of this report, the following agencies had responded: Colorado Geological Survey: Please reference the attached letter dated November 23, 2004. Eagle County Engineering: Please reference the attached memorandum dated November 23, 2004. Eagle County Environmental Health: (Verbal Response) The Environmental Health Department asks that all prior commitments for water quality monitoring carry forward with this proposal. It is noted that the proposed amendments will benefit the Salt Creek property and potentially serve to better protect wetland and riparian areas associated with Salt Creek. Overall, this proposed amendment will result in a more manageable outcome than would the currently approved development from an environmental protection perspective. It is understood that the development of the Salt Creek parcel will be subject to subsequent Special Use permit review. Environmental mitigations for that parcel will be considered at that time. The private wastewater systems serving the development must be the same technology as originally approved (pressure- dosing and de-nitrification). State Site Approval for the Clubhouse wastewater system must also accompany an ISDS Permit from Eagle County for system construction. The water quality monitoring and mitigation plan submitted with the 1041 amendment application is considered as a draft and must be revised to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Health prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. It is further understood that the development will refrain from wood burning. A fugitive dust plan must be provided with application for a Grading Permit. Eagle County Planning Commission (Verbal response at work session of December 1, 2004): Upon completion of t. hearing for the companion PUD Amendment application; the Planning Commission determined that the proposed development is also in complete conformance with the criteria for this 1041 application inclusive of the proposed 16 additional residential lots, the shift in residential density and the equine / shooting range facility. EINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest, and as more specifically described in the application for the Frost Creek and Salt Creek 1041, the following analysis is provided. Note: The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. The Applicant's response to each criterion is summarized in standard text. Staff comments and/or responses are summarized in italicized text. The resultant recommendation is indicated in the findings box. (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are obtained. The applicant owns the subject property fee simple. The final platfor this subdivision, which will create easements and right of ways for construction and maintenance of water and sewage disposal systems, will be approved and filed prior to any site disturbance. All required project permits will be obtained from all applicable agencies prior to site disturbance. The Applicant has secured Water Service Agreements from the Town of Eagle. Sanitation services will be via individual sewage disposal systems. Staff concurs with the representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (1) Rif!hts. Permits andAIJProvals The Applicant BAS provided the necessary documentation to assure that all necessary property rights, permits and approvals will be in place prior to site disturbance. '-.J The project will not impair property rights held by others. The applicant owns the property proposed for development and the proposed development will not impair the property rights of others. Staff concurs with the representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (2) Property rif!hts ufothers As proposed, the project WILL NOT impair property rights held by others. (3) The project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. The project is consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan, the Eagle Area Community Plan and the Eagle River Watershed Plan. The proposal is also consistent with the policies and goals of the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan. Water quality impacts associated with this project will be minimized by applying best management practices to minimize environmental impacts. Also, as originally approved, the development must adhere to the water quality monitoring and mitigation plan submitted with the 1041 amendment application. As with the originall 041 Permit approval, this plan is still considered as a draft and must be revised to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Health prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. .virtue of shifting the residential density from the Salt Creek property to the Frost Creek property, impact to riparian will be reduced from two acres to 0.88 acres. An additional 0.50 acres of wildlife habitat will be impacted. The proposed project is consistent with the policies, recommendations and FLUM of the Master Plan and all ancillary plans and documents. [+] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with plans The project IS consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. - ) Adam's Rib possesses the financial capability to install the water system and the Town of Eagle has the expertise and financial capability to operate the water system. As with the original 1041 Permit approval, a water quality monitoring and mitigation plan will be implemented for this project. Staff concurs with the representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial capabilitv The applicant and the Town of Eagle DOES HA VE the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and opetate the Project consistent with a.ll requitements and conditions. . (S) The Project is technically and financially feasible. The project is technically and financially feasible. The preliminary engineering plans have been submitted to Eagle County for review. The project has been designed to meet or exceed the County requirements and standard engineering practices. The construction dra.wings have been prepared by a qualified Civil Engineer and must also satisfy the Town of Eagle's. design requirements. Staff con cuts with the representations made by the applicant in this regatd. [+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv The Project IS technically and financially feasible. (6) The project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazard. The project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. The Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist evaluated the proposed amendments and has set forth recorirmendations to mitigate those portions of the subject property which have a 'moderate' to 'high' wildfire hazard rating. The Colorado State Forest Service response is consistent with the Wildfire Mitigation Specialist's conclusions. The Colorado Geological Survey response indicates that the majority of its concerns regarding the site's geological conditions have been ameliorated by deleting the 20 residential lots from the Salt Creek property. [+] FINDING: (6) Risk from Hazards As proposed and mitigated, the project IS NOT subject to significant risk from natural hazard. . Traffic generated by this development will be mitigated through various road improvements, as appropriate, with input from the Town of Eagle. ' The ptoposed project is consistent with the policies, recommendations and FLUM of the Master Plan and all ancillary plans and documents. The proposed PUD Amendment will not compromise compatibility of the resulting development with surrounding/and uses. [+] FINDING: (7) Land use Patterns The project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. (8) The Project will n.ot have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The project is located nearexistihg homes and therefore will not significantly or adversely affect the capability of local governments affected by the project to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The proposed project will not have an adverse affect on local government services. Access to the site is through the Town of Eagle and via Brush Creek Road. . The cost of improvements necessary to equitably offtet the development's traffic impacts will be the responsibility of the applicant. Utility services required for this project exist atyacent to the site with the exception of the sewer service. The developer will incur the cost of extending all necessary utilities to the subject property. [+] FINDING: (8) SerVice capacities The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse, effect on the capability oflocal governments affected by the project to provide services, NOR WILL it exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. " . (9) The Project will not create' an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. The deve~oper is paying all costs to construct the infrastructure and is hot forming a Special District to levy additional taxes on existing or future residents of the County. All costs associated with the extension of and improvements to existing infrastructure to serve the site will be borne by the applicant. [+] F1NDING: (9) Financial Burden The operation and maintenance of a private sewer system WILL NOT create an undue financial burden on future residents. (10) The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector ofthe local economy. The project will not significantly degrade the local economy. The project will enhance and improve the local economy with the new residents who will be shopping, dining and otherwise patronizing local businesses. In the short term construction phase of the project infrastructure and during home construction, the development will bolstet the local economy. In the long term, staff concurs that the inhabitants of the new development will create .tional need for services. [+] FINDING: (10) Protection of Local Economv The project WILL NOT significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and experience. The proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. The proposed project will provide a bicycle / pedestrian trail for the public that will traverse the length ofthe subject property from north to south. Further, the development will provide trail head parking and access to Trail Gulch on the Salt Creek property to provide access to existing BLM and trails across private land. The applicant has been in conversation with Cordillera to allow public access across trails within Cordillera in trade for secondary emergency egress for Cordillera residents. A total of 188 golf course memberships will be offered to the public. Also, during the shoulder seasons (prior to June 1st and afterSepternber 15th, Adam's Rib will reserve four tee times for a total of 16 golfers, Monday through Thursday, for local residents to play. The cost of play for Eagle County residents will be discounted 40% from the members' fee ~ place atthe time of play. Adam's Rib will make the course available for one charity tournament prior to June 1 st and one cha.rity tournament after September 15th, holidays and weekends excluded. There will be no charge for the use of the course, golf carts or golf course staff, however, Adam's Rib reserves the right to select the charity groups, tournament format, tournament dates and times. . Lastly, an equestrian / shooting range facility is proposed. Overall, recreational opportunities will be increased as a result of the development. [+]FINI>ING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and expenenc~. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Theplanhiilg, design and operation of the project shall reflect principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Best management practices will be implemented in the construction and operations of the development. The development will utilize raw water for its irrigation on the individual lots, golf course and open spaces. Irrigated landscaping will be allowed on the golf course, clubhouse parcel, maintenance facility, entryway and intersection features and will be limited to areas within the building envelopes on the residential lots. The remaining area of the lots outside of the building envelopes and the remaining open spaces with the development will use a native grass mixture and wi11 not be irrigated, though trees and shrubs in these areas may be drip irrigated. Staff concurs with the re resentations made b the a licant in this re ard. [+] FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation The planning, design and operation of the Project SHALL reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit DevelOP. Atmospheric Evaluation dated August 2004 (refer to Exhibit G of the 1041 Permit Amendment application) concluded that examination of the present Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD related emissions indicates that the activities associated with the PUD will not cause a violation of any ambient air quality standards or be in violation of any air quality related regulations. Staff concurs with the representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (13) Air Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The building architecture will be such as to maintain the visual quality oftM County. The site design incorporates open areas between buildings to maintain visual corridors through the site. All exterior lighting within the development will be minimized and downcast to reduce nighttime light pollution. Upon completion of construction and reclamation of disturbed areas, there will be negligible visual degradation. Revegetation, earthen berms and landscaping buffers will be employed to minimize off site visual impacts. Staff concurs with the representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+)FINDING: (14) Visual Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade existing visual quality. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. As originally approved, the development is subject to strict adherence to a water quality monitoring and mitigation plan that must meet with the satisfaction of the Eagle County Environmental Health Department. Staff concurs with the reptesentations made by the applicant in this regard. [+) FINDING: (15)SurfaceWater Oualitv The project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface water quality. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade ground water quality. The Project will not significantly degrade ground water quality. As originally approved, the development is subject to strict adherence to a water quality monitoring and mitigation plan that must meet with the satisfaction of the Eagle County Environmental Health Department. Sta concurs with the re resentations made by the a /icanl in this re ard. [+) FINDING: (16) Ground Water Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade ground water quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. All building envelopes defined within the proj ect will maintain a minimum 50 foot setback from wetland and riparian areas. A 75 foot structural stream setback has been specified in the PUD Guide. Staff concurs with the representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and Rioarian Areas As conditioned, the Project WILL NOT significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. During construction, short term increases in suspended sediment in Brush Creek will be minimized through use of sedimentation control devices such as silt fences and straw bales. These construction practices, along with revegetation after construction should minimize and filter runoff from construction sites. These practices should also limit erosion and stream sedimentation to negligible amounts. Rip rap at culvert inlets and outlets and revegetation of disturbed areas will provide permanent erosion control for the area. Where the development will impact wildlife habitat, the applicant has committed to a wildlife mitigation plan that was developed with input fromthe Colorado Division of Wildlife with the original application and modified accordingly based upon this proposed amendment. Staff concurs with the representations inade by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial or Aquatic Animal life The Project as proposed WILL NOT significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Pr()jeet will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. The project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plan habitat. The development area has historically operated as a working ranch being hayed and grazed for many years. This development will significantly reduce impacts u.pon terrestrial plant life and plant habitat with particular emphasis on the wetland and riparian areas found on the Salt Creek and Prost Creek properties. The wetland and riparian areas will naturally rejuvenate. Staff concurs with the representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial Plant Life The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. (20) The Project will not significllntly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. Soils and geologic conditions on the subject property have been studied by HP Geotech and their report concludes that the Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. The response from the Colorado Geological Su.rvey indicates that the majority of its comments from the original approval have been satisfied with this amended request. The Colorado Geological Survey did not identifY any specific geologic or soils conditions that cannot be mitigated. Staff concurs with all other representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (20) Soils and GeoloJ!ic Conditions The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. (21) The project will not create a nuisance. The project will not cause a nuisance to the surrounding community. Minimal nuisance factors will be encountered and ~.'ressed during the construction phase of the project. An increase in nuisance factors including noise, dust and struction traffic will be the most noticeable. Reclamation of disturbed areas will immediately follow construction. After construction and reclamation of disturbed areas, there will be negligible impact. All potentially negative impacts associated with the type of development proposed will be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. Staff concurs with all other representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (21) Nuisance The proposed project WILL NOT cause a nuisance. (22) The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. A cultural resource study has been performed by Western Cultural Resource and concluded that there is only one historic structure of which Adam's Rib will preserve. Staff concurs With the reptesentations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (22) Paleontolo/lical. Historic or Archaeolo/lical areas The project WILL NOT significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not reSult in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. The project will not result inumeasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials.. No hazardous materials will be associated with normal dperations of the site. If any hazardous materials are required during construction these materials will be stored approved locations. Any accidental spillage will be i1Il1Ilediately confined and mitigated pursuant to EP A regulations. Staff COncurs with all representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous Materials The project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens form the project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such t!llrces. The loss of agricultural lands is outweighed by the resulting benefits the Frost and Salt Creek properties. oval of the cattle will allow the riparian, wetland and other native vegetation along Brush Creek to rejuvenate t e'eby enhancing wildlife habitat in the open spaces due to lack of competition: There is no loss of any natural resource within the project but rather they will be enhanced. Some of the benefits related to the proposed development include amenities such as hiking, bicycle / pedestrian trails, cross country skiing, ponds, golf course, clubhouse and preservation of substantial open space. Staff concurs with all representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (24) Benefits Outweif!h Losses The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the project DO outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resoUrces. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria ATmlicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Projects. and as more specifically described in the application, the following additional analysis is provided. 1. The project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, inCluding the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. The project shall emphasize the mOst efficient use of water and conservation of water. The planning, design and operation of the project shall reflect priJlciples ofresource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Bestmanagement practices will be implemented in the construction and operations of the development. The development will utilize raw water for its irrigation on the individual lots, golf course and open spaces. Irrigated landscaping will be allowed on the golfcotltse, chibhouse parcel, maintenance facility, entryway and intersectionfeatifres and will be limited to areas within the building envelopes on the residential lots. The remaining area of the lots outside of the building envelopes and the re'inairting open spaces with the development will use a native grass mixture and will not be irrigated, though trees arId shrubs in. these areas may be drip irrigated. Staff conCUrs with all representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+]FINDING: (l)Efficient Use The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. 2. The Project shall n.ot result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The project shall not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate semces. [+J FINDING: (2) Excess Capacitv/Duplicate Services The Project SHALL NOT result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate semces. 3. The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. Eagle County's population increased 445% from 1970 to 2000. The rapid population growth has made Eagle County the tenth fastest growing county in the country and the second fastest growing county in Colorado. The Colorado State Demographer has predicted Eagle County's population will double to approximately 86,000 people by the year 2030. . This increase in population will create a demand residential development and recreational amenities. The Town of Eagle Water System Master Plan estimates that the Town will experience a population of7,933 by the year 2015 which equates to a 5.7% annual growth rate. Staff concurs with all representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (3) NecessitV The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project. 4. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm wl!ter a..d sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of stormwater and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. The development will be subject to the ongoing provisions of a water quality management and mitigation plan which will serve to prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. Staff concuts with all representations made by the applicant in this tegard. [+] FINDING: (4) Protection of Aquifer RecharJ!e Areas Urban development, population de11sities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems SHALL BE accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer r~charge areas. Pursuant to Eagle Comity Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03, Additional Criteria Applicable to Maior New Domestic Water and Wastewatet Treatment S stems and Ma 'or Extensions 0 Existin Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment . ms and as more specifically described in the application, the following additional analysis is provided. 1. The :Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet the projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. Eagle County's population increased 445% from 1970 to 2000. The rapid population growth has made Eagle County the tenth fastest growing county in the country and the second fastest growing COlInty in Colorado. The Colorado State Demographer has predicted Eagle County's population will double to approximately 86,000 people by the year 2030. This increase inpopulation will create a deInand residential development and recreational amenities. The Town of Eagle Water System Master Plan estimates that the ToWn will experience a population of7,933 by the year 2015 which equates to a 5.7% annual growth rate. Staff concurs with all representations made by the applicant in this regard. [+] FINDING: (1) Pro;ected c{)mmunitV development and /JolJulationdemands. The ProjectSHALL BE reasonably necessary to meet the projected cOrrlmunity development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. 2. To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. .we water facilities serving the subject property will be owned and operated by the Town of Eagle. [+] FINDING: (2) Consolidation with existin!! facilities. To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities SHALL BE consolidated with existing facilities within the area. 3. New domestic Water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in. the proper utilization. of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacen.t commun.ities. Watet to the development will be provided by the Town of Eagle. The Town is the sole operator ofa public water treatment plant and system in this vicinity of Eagle County. [+] FINDING: (3) Proper utilization of existin!! treatment plants. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems SHALL BE constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. 4. The Project shall be permitted in. those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustahuuch growth and development. The development is in an area in which the anticipated growth is to occur. Extension of services to the development can be acco1I11Ilodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. [+)FINDING: (4) Fitl an cial and environmental capacitv. The Project SHALL BE permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. . All Commissioners agreed that all findings listed were, as recommended by the staff, to be positive. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve File No. 1041-0057, incoiporating Staffs findings, carrying forward the following applicable conditions as specified in the original 1041 Permit approval: 1) That except as otherwise modi:fiedby the Per:mit, all material representations of the applicant in this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 2) The leach fields associated with the septic systems be pressure-dosed and include de-nitrification in the treatment process; 3) The water quality monitoring and mitigation plan must be revised to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Health prior to issuance of a Grading Permit; 4) The applicant must submit a Fugitive Dust Plan or Dust Suppression Plan for County approval with any grading per:mit application. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0051- Amendment to the Floodplain Regulation and Building Resolution Justin Hildreth, Engineering Department ACTION: To amend the Land Use Regulations to adopt new floodplain maps, move the floodplain regulations from Chapter 6 to Chapter 2 and make minor changes to the grading drainage regulations. Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendments (ECLUR) LUR-0051; Amendment to the ECLUR Unincorporated Eagle County Eagle County TITLE: ,E #/PROCESS: CATION: APPLICANT: Conunissioner Menconi moved to table File LUR-0051 until January 4,2005, at the applicant's request. CommisSioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. EAGLE COUNTY JAIL INSPECTION There being no further business to be br~]~ht~efore the Board the meeting was adjourned until January 4, 2005.. ~iiJ,;~"T "C'hG-t/;: (~;i\. Attest: ')' ~~ Chai" an I