No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/29/05 PUBLIC HEARING March 29, 2005 >resent: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Keith Montag Diane Mauriello TeakSimonton Don DUBois Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Assistant County Administrator County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County ConUnissionets for their consideration: Exe'cfitive Session Co1I1tnissioner Runyon moved that the Board of COlinty Comnrissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning Colorado River Water Allocation and Development Issues and the ColoradoR1vetBasin Proposal, as well as for the purpose of discussing pendinglitigation in Case No. 95 C'W 272- Homestake Project and Case No. 03 CW 292-Camp Hale/Eagle Park Reservoir Company, as well as the Cotton Ranch Water Case, all,ofwhich are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to CRS 24-6..402(4)(b). Commissioner Stone s'eMnded the motion, which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion, Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from Executive Session and Comnrissioner Runyon seconded the motion, whichpassedlinafiimously. Consent Agenda! Chaiftnan Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda a,s follows: . A. Approval ofl3ill Paying for the Week of March 28,2005 (Subject to review by the County Administrator) Mike goeper, Finance Department B. Approval ofthe Payroll for March 31, 2005 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department . . C. Approval of the. Minutes ofthe Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for March 15, 200S Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder D.Public Itnptovements Agreement between Eagle County and West Eagle Ranch, LLC for the Sylvan Lake Road Roundabout and Public Railroad Crossing Phillip BO\V1l1an, Engineering E. ResolutIoil 20,05-034 Authorizing Diane H. Mauriello, County Attorney, to Make Application to the Public Utilities COmnllssion for Designation of a Railroad Crossing at Eagle County Road EA5 (Violet Lane) and for Authority to Install a Crossbuck Sign, Stop Signs and Related Pavement Markings at Said Crossing Phillip Bowman, Engineering F. (2) 2005 Backhoe Loaders. Trade In #6627, #6493 Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge G. (3) 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe 4-Wheel Drive Special Service. Trade In #8230: 2002 Dodge Durango, #8216: 2002 Dodge Durango, (I) No Trade In Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge H. (1) 2005 Trash Compactor 1 3/29/05 K. L. M. R o. P. Q. R. S. J D. v. w. x. y. Z. Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge I. (2) 2005 4x4 Fo.ur boor Utility Vehicles Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge 1. (2) 2005 % Ton, Heavy Duty Standard Cab 4x4 Cab 7 Chassis with Utility Work Bed Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge (1) zOOS 4x4 FoUr Door Full Size Sport Utility Vehicle Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge (1) 2005 Compact 4x4 Pickup with Snow Plow Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge (1) 2005 Chevrolet Itnpala Police Package. Trade In #8234: 2002 Chevrolet Impala Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge (1) 200S Chevrolet Tahoe 4~Wheel Drive Special Service, Silver. Trade In #8208 Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Addendum to the Agreement between Eagle County and Julia K.ozusko Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Service Addendum to the Agreement between Eagle County and Catherine.Zakoia1'1, MAPC Kathleen Forinash, Health & Humart Services Addendl1It1 to the Agreement between Eagle County and Jane West, Heart of theW est Cotmseiing, LLC Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Addendum to the Agreement between Eagle County and Sara Pybl1a1'1 Kathleen Forinash, Health 8f Human Services Addendum totp.e Agreement between Eagle County and Olga Wilkins Kath1e'ert Forinash, Health & Human Services Addertdl:1rn to the Agreement between Eagle C01lhty and Kristi Grems Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Addendum to the Agreementbetween Eagle County and Jeanne McQueeney Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Agreement between Eagle County and Chris Morton for Family Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Agreement between Eagle County and Pamela Whittington-Serba for Early Childhood Partner Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services . Agreement between Eagle County and Valley View Hospital Association Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Service Agreement between Carol N. Vaughan Designs and Jeff Johnson Architectural and Eagle County for Remodeling and Addition at the Golden Eagle Senior Center Jason Hasenberg, Facilities Management Resolution 2005-035 for Second Supplemental and Restated Annual Appointments Resolution County Attorney's Offtce Representative 2 3/29/05 AA. Amendment to Land Lease and Option Agreement between Eagle County and Berry Creek Limited Liability Company County Attorney's OffIce Representative BB. Advertising Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Colorado Mountain News Media County Attorney's Offtce Representative CC. Consulting Agreement With Chapin Valuation COUfltyAssessor's Ofnce Representative Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Offtce if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that Item AA should be pulled and talked about on the record. Commissidner Stone asked Kathleen Fotinash of Health and Human Services about Itel11S Q;-X and the Administration Consultation on the Miller Ranch Childcare listed on each of these items under the project contract descriptidn. Ms. Forinash stated help has been given on the design questions that they have had. She exphHned that not all of these items were paying that fee and then explained where Some of the consulting fees where comingftoilI. CommissionetStone asked for clarification that it applied to the entire program; but not to the individual people and is not all related to Miller Ranch. Ms. Forinash replied that WaS the caSe. Cofi11t1issionet'Stone askedjfthe Board approved administrative consultation for Miller Ranch Childcare. Ms. Forinash stated that the Board hadn't, but she did arrange for it. Commissioner Stone stated that she should not have the latitude to do that and explained his reaSons behind his thoughts. Ms. Forinash stated that the total amount was $600. Commissionet Stone stated it waS the principal of the matter, and he was not nhancially motivated for his disagreement. He would like to see the County. form its own SOl-C-3 to have administrative ovetsightover the hildcare facility. He then asked about Item CC on the Consent Agenda. He does not approVe of it, as he believes it is not needed. He believes that it may by a conflict of interest for Mark Chapin, a former County employee and currently a fee appraiser, and, as a result, he should not be hired. He finds the fee of $125 per hour is outrageous, at best. Recall not vote in favor of it and would like to pull it for future discussion. Chairman Menconi asked if this was sent in by Joy<;e Mack, the COUflty Assessor, and asked if it was in the budget Ms. Mauriello stated the docUlIlent was examined by the Attorney's OffIce and was, part of the Assessor's Budget. She then attempted to explain what the re-appraisal process was. CorntnissionerStone reiterated that this was all unnecessary waste of taxpayer's money as the re.;.appraiSa] process is virtually completed, and feels Mr. Chapin is the wrong person for the job, as well. This is not a personal reflection ofMt. Chapin, but Commissioner Stone feels it is a conflict of interest for Mr. Chapin to be able td go. through the confIdential information. Chainnan Menconi asked to pull Item CC from the Consent Agenda. He then asked Ms. Forinash to explain to Commissioner Runyon about the 50l-C-3 that was formed for Bright Horizons. He understands Commissioner Stone's points, but given the small extent of Jeannie McQueeny's work, it would be valuable to get her opinions as compared to the architect's scope of work. He asked her to set up a future meeting. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-CC, omitting Items AA and CC. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. CC. Consulting Agreement with Chapin Valuation Joyce Mack, County Assessor, explained what Mr. Chapin's duties would be as a consultant. She stated .t hat there is no conflict Of. interest, as he is working outside of the County where his busines. s is located. She talked ith state about it and they concurred. Chairman Menconi asked about the need for a consultant, as the re-appraisal had been done. 3 3/29/05 Ms. Mack stated there is a need as there are problems with their vendor when they recalculate. As a result, a person needs to be available and understand the ramifications if there is a problem. Recalculating needs to be done three or four times. Chairman Menconi asked if there was a cap on the fees paid to the consultant. Ms. Mack stated there is a $12,000 cap and this money has been budgeted. She chose Mr. Chapin because of his experience and availability. Chairman Menconi askedMs. Mauriello if Bryan Treu, Assistant County Attorney, Was comfortable with the hiring of Mr. Chapin. Ms. Mauriello stated that she did not speak to him about it directly, but knows that Mr. Treu Was aware of Mr. Chapin's past histoty with Eagle County and he did sign off on it. . Commissioner Stone questioned if Ms. Mack didn't have the expertise on her staffto check the numbers, thus justifying the hiring of a consultant. Ms. Mack stated that there has been a change of opinion as to what numbers they need to fall within. They are ttyingto not tweak any numbers and Mr. Chapin has that specifIc orchestration. Commissioner Stone re-asked if Ms. Mack's staff could ably do this. Couldn't they ask the Division of Property Taxation in. Denver for help, when n.eeded? Ms. Mack stated that potentially, it could be done, but her appraisers are targeted for specinc areaS arid lack the total arena of the re..appraisal program. She stated that the Division of Property Taxation has to oversee 64 counties in Colorado and is very busy. Cortm1issioner Stone asked abotitMr. Thimgan and ifhis scope of work could be expanded ata lower rate than Mt. Chapin.' s. Ms. Mack stated that Mr. Thirngan waS modeling for specifIc areas of the re-appraisal, condominiutns and residential. Chairman Menconi asked how much property was being appraised this year. Ms. Mack stated that over $2 billion was being appraised. Chairman Menconi feels that this issue is best managed and handled by Ms. Mack's department and feels! that he can approve this agreement. He feels that this is not a reflection on her staff. Comrnissioner8tone asked ifMr. Chapin has already been doin.g work. He then asked that no Work be doneptiof to being approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Mack acknowledged his request. Cotntnissioner Runyon asked when Mr. Chapin left the COlll1ty, and ifthe fact that he worked for the County made it easier and quicker for him to do the job. Ms. Mack stated that Was a defInite factor and made him a good candidate. Commissioner Runyon stated that it is annoying to see an employee leave and come back to work for the. County as a consultant at 3x his pay, using his knowledge gained at the County level. But, he feels that it is Ms. Mack's department to do as she sees. Commissioner Runyon asked to approve Item CC listed on the Consent Agenda. Chairman Menconi seconded the motion. Commissioner Runyon and Chairman Menconi voted in favor, and Commissioner Stone voted against. AA. Amendment to Land Lease and Option Agreement between Eagle County and Berry Cree:k Limited Liability Company Ms. Mauriello stilted she removed this item from the Consent Agenda, as Commissioner Stone typically abstains from the votes involving Berry Creek Limited Liability Company. She then explained the amendment to the Board members Commissioner Runyon asked if this item was separate from the PUD and if it was a housekeeping item. Ms. Mauriello explained the process and agreed with Commissioner Runyon's statements. Keith Montag, Director of Community Development added that it is still part of the PUD. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Item AA of the Consent Agenda. Chairman Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous, with Commissioner Stone abstaining. Planl1il1g and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development 4 3/29/05 A. Resolution'2005-036 To Approve A Permit To Construct Major Extensions ofExistingDomesticWatct Systems, and For The Efflcient Utilization of A Municipal Water Project, fu Order To Move and Up-Size A Water Line To Serve The Town of Eagle (Eagle County File Number 1 041-00S 8) 13. Resolution 2005-037 Which Pertains To The Matter of Amending The Eagle County Land Use Regulations, ToR.evise Language Pertaining to Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matter of State Interest (Eagle County File Number LUR-0053) CotntnissionerStone moved to approve the Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda, consisting ofIteilis A-B. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declated unanimous. Minor StibdiVisi'onPJat Signing lena Skinner-Markowitz, COlnmunity Development There were nOIninor subdivision plats for the Board's consideration this week . Oth~t----VehiCle Bids Chairman Menconi asked the County Attorney asked if all contracts could be looked at sinlllltaneouslyor shotildthey be looked at separately. Ms. Mauriello asked that they be taken individually in case some m~mber of the public WaS present to . corttthent. . Brad Higgins, Director ofR.oad and Bridge, explained that these items represent bid recommendations that . were not the lowest bidder. . ,3) 2005Cbmpactors (Vibrating Smooth Drum Roller). Trade In #7710, #7711, #7712 BradHiggins, Gi} Gilbert, Road & Bridge Oil dilbert of Road and Bridge explained that,in spite of the different prices than budgeted, theywill still be under budget, For the compactors, he stated that they chose Ferris Machinery because their high buy back process will bring the t)rice of the machine down below the other bidders. He explained that agUatantee'd buyback is essentially a guaranteed trade...in. .. Cot1tt11.issioner Stone asked why the County doesn't make guafanteed buy backs part of the bid ptocessand spectncations. . Mr. Higgins explained the process in accepting bids and how they look at the up"front costs. ConUnissionerStone asked ifthere was an understanding among vendors that the County will bemakfuga bid based upon the total Life Cycle Costs. Mr. Higgins concutred. Chairman Menconi opened public cortllIlel1t. There Was hone. Chairman Menconi closed public coIfiIn.ent. Commissioner R.unyon nIoved to approve the purchase of the three Compactors, Trade rn'#77l0,.77l1,and. 1712. CdtntnissidnerStone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (1) 2005 Motor Grader. Trade In #7019 Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbert made his recommendation based on the lower operational and repair costs, especially with tires and fuel. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public coinIt1ent. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Motor Grader, Trade in #7019. Cotntnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (1) 2005 4x4 Dump TruckIPlow. Trade In #7145 5 3/29/05 Brad Higgins, Oil Gilbert, Road & Bridge IvIt. Gilbert made his recortnnendation based on the recommendation of its body builder, McDonald Equipment, due to problems with plows attached to GMC Trucks. Chairman Menconi asked if there had been any problems with the plows. Mr. Gilbert replied that there were none. Chairman Menconi aSked if there were any plows that work well with OMC trucks. Mr. Gilhertstated that there are, but the costs are excessive. Chaitifian .Men.coni opened public cortnnent. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public COIl1Iflent. Cotntnissioner Runyon moved to approve the 4x4 Truck/Plow, Trade In #7145. Cotritnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (2)4 x2DumpTrnckJPloWs. Trade III #7043, #7067 Brad Higgins, Oil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbett stated the recomri1endation was based on.the reasons given for the previous item. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There WaS none. Chairman Menconi closed public coinIt1ent. C('jtntnissionet Stone moved to approve the 4x2 Dump Truck/Plows, Trade In #7043 and 7067. Cotfirtiissioner}Utnyon seconded the motion. The vote.was declared unanimous. (1)2005 MoblleAir Compressot.'ftadeIn #6467 Brad Higgins, Oil Gilbert, Road & Bridge IvIt. Gilbert stated that the low bidder did not meet specifIcations, so he chOSe the next low bid. Chaifrfiart Menconi opened public colllhient. There was none. ChaintIart Menconi closedpuhlic cOrtl1I1eht. CO:rhtrtiss10fierRwyort moved to approve the 2005 Mobile Air Compressor, Trade In #6467. Cotn:I'nissionef stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (1)2005 utility TraHer.Trade In #6492 Brad Higgins, Oil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbert stated that he specined a higher GVW trailer than: before and the low bidder did not trieet the specifications. Chairman Menconi. opened public co:in1I1ent. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public corrtrt1ent. Co:in1I1issionerStone asked about the change of the budget fIgures from $10,000 to the higher amount. Mt; Higgins admitted that he was wrong on his original budget amount. Restated that he is $436,000 Uhdef budget. CotntnissionerRunyon moved to approve the 2005 Utility Trailer, Trade In #6492. Cotntnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (1)2005 % Ton 4x4 Pickup Club Cab or Extended Cab. Trade In #8144 Brad Higgins, GilGilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbert stated that only two bids met specifIcations and he chose the lower of the two bids. Chairman Menconi opened public cortnnent. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public cortnnetit. Cotnnrissioner Stone moved to approve % Ton 4x4 Pickup Club Cab or Extended Cab, Trade In #8144. ConUnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (1)20054 In 1 ArenaCultiva.tot. No Trade In Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbert stated only one company manufactures this equipment, so the bid was easy. Chairma.n Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Chaiiman Menconi closed public comment. Commissioner Runyon asked if they proposed to pick it up in Ohio. Mr. Gilbert stated that they will pick it up in Denver for $1,000 freight costs, as opposed to $2,000 to have it shipped to Eagle County.. 6 3/29/05 CoinIt1issioner Runyon moved to approve 4 in 1 Arena Cultivator, No Trade In. CoinIt1issioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (1) Rome Disk Type Plow Ripper, No Trade In Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbert stated there was only one bid for this special piece of equipment. Chaitil1an Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public cotntnent. CoIIlinissionerStone moved to approve Rome Disk Type Plow Ripper, No Trade In. Cotntnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote waS declared unanimous. (1)2005l\1111e Utility Vehicle. No Trade In Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbert stated that bid specifications were sent out and only one bid was returned. Chairman IvIenconi opened public cotntnent. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public cotntnent. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve 2005 Mule Utility Vehicle, No Trade In. Cotntnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. (1)2005 Rubber Tracked Excavator. Trade In #6491 Brad Higgins, Gil Gilbert, Road & Bridge Mr. Gilbert stated that this replaces a backhoe and they are still $72,000 under budget for replacing all three back hoes. He chose the Komatsu over the Gayle because the Gayle doesn't meet specifIcations. Commissioner Runyon stated that the Cat was also lower. Mt. Gilbert stated that the. Cat did not meet specs, either. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public cotnlfient. Commissioner Stone moved to approve 2005 Rubber Tracked Excavator, Trade In #6491. CofutnissionetRUfiyon seconded the.motion:. The vote was declared unanimous. A.batement HeariIlgs Bryan Treu, Cou.nty Aftofney'sbffice RobertD. Schultz, Jr. Schedule No. R055773 Bryan Treu of the Attorney's OffIce presented this hearing. He stated that Mr. Schultz sent a fax stating that he could not be present for this hearing and that his lease would be expiring April 17th. Mr. TreuStatedihat this has no bearing on his 2004 taxes. Ruth Berglund ofthe Assessor's Offtce stated the appeal is based upon Mr. Schultz's impending lease tetifiination by the town of Vail. The value ofthe property for 2004 taxes is based upon 2003 fees paid. They are recotntnending a smalladjusttnent; hoWever, based upon neW numbers of actual fees paid. She stated that Mr. Schultz is recommended an abatement of taxes paid in the amount of$I.44. She noted that Mr. Schultz WiiI aJSdbe receiVing a possessory iriterest assessment in 2005 and 2006 based on the fees he paid in 2004 and the portiOn of the year he was there in200S. .) Chairman Menconi opened public cotntnent. There Was none. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Comtnissioner Stone moved the petition or Robert D. Schultz, Jr. for abatement/refund of taxes for Schedule No. R055773be approved for the tax year 2004 in the amounts and for the reasons set forth in the Assessor's recommendation. Cotntnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ;D-0030 - Amended Service Plan for Cordillera Metro District and Squaw Creek Metro District Bob Narracci, Planner, Community Development 7 3/29/05 NOTE: ACTION: Request to be tabled to April 5, 2005. Consolidation of the functions of the Cordillera Metro District and the Squaw Creek Metro District Mr..Narracci stated this was because of failure to meet statutory requirements that the applicant is requesting this tabling. They have since sent the notices out. Commissioner Runyon moved to table File SD-0030, Amended Service Plan for Cordillera Metro District and Squaw Creek Metro District, at the applicant's request, until AprilS, 2005. Commissioner Ston.e seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA.00059-:--BertvCreekMiller RanchPUD......CME Van Parkin2 Joe Forinash~ Community Development There was discussion as to whether Chairman Menconi would be able to sit in on this fIle since he waS not ptes'ent at the fIrst hearing on March 15th. It was determined that, since Chairman Menconi had nbt listened to the tapes or read the lIlinl1tes that he would have to excuse himself from the hearing of this fIle. Sid Fox, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would be willing to table this file another Week inotder to give Chairman. Menconi the opportunity to read the lIlinl1tes and falIliliarize hilIlselfwith the fIle. Commissioner Runyon moved to table File No. PDA-00059, Berry Creek Miller RanchPlJD-.:-CME Van Parking, at the applicant's request, until AprilS, 2005. Commissioner Stone seconded. The vote was declared unanimous. Chaiman Mehconi apologized to the applicant for the inconvenience that he had cau.sed and thanked them for allowing the tabling. .:PDS...00043. ...... Vines at" ail Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planner, Community Development NOTE: ACTION: Tabledt'tom 2/22/05 To create a mixed use ptJD on 39.0 acres in Wolcott including: a winery complete Withtasting room; lodge/inn; community pavilion; educational spaces, coinIt1ercial, retail and lightindustrial spaces (including but not limited to showrooms; appliance repair; restaurants; arts and crafts studios; warehouse; shop spaces; cottage industries; resort sUpport services, etc.); conference facilities; both free market residential and employee housing; offlce; recreational and agricultural and landscape features. , Accessedfromlfwy 131; Wolcott, Section 15, Township 4S, Range 83 W. LOCATION: FILE,NO.IP.ROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPUSENTA1'M: PDS-00043/PUD Sketch Plan Accessed from HWy 131; Wolcott. Section 15, Township 4S, Range 83W Kiwa Associates, LLC OWner. Sid Fox, Fox & Company STAFFRECO:l\1MENDATION: Approval with Conditions PROJECT DESCRIPTION SuMMARY: This development proposes to create a lIlixed use Pun on approximately 39.0 acres in, Wolcott. The Vines at Vail Sketch Plan envisions, "... a village atmosphere..." with, "... simple architecture, generous public walking paths and sun-dappled plazas and gardens. .." The subject property is located in close proxilIlity to an area zoned for "Rural Center" (a town-like zone district which allows for both residential and commercial uses). Proposed uses for this project may include: A working winery complete with tasting room (focal aspect of the proposal); a lodgelinn with independent suites for guests; a community pavilion; educational spaces, commercial retail and light industrial spaces including but not limited to showrooms; restaurants; arts and crafts studios; shop 8 3/29/05 spaces; resort support services; etc.; conference facilities; free market residential units; employee housing units; offtce space; recreational; agricultural, and; landscape features. The development will occur within several planning areas, with each area accommodating a variety of uses. C1:lRONOLOGY: 2004- ~ The property was purchased from Holy Cross Electric, by the applicant. SITE. DATA: Surrounding Land Vses / Zoning: East: ELM / Unplatted / Resource West: ROW: Hwy 131 / BFI (Waste Management) Property /Resource North: BLM / Unplatted / Resource South: "Commercial" Gallegos Property / Unplatted / Resource EXisting Zoning: Pun Tot~l Area: 39.0 acres Water: Private- Well / Augmentation water from the Eagle River SeWer: Private- Onsite wastewater treatrtlentsystem Access: Frorl1 Hwy 131. PI..ANNlNGCOMMISSIONDELIBERATION: The J>lanning COmmission had concerns primarily regarding both the viability of the proposed, future fesidencesin Area F (and related issues such as aCcess and loss of significant habitat as detetfuined by the draft Wildlife MltigationPlanassubtiiitted by theapplicant); and the current level ofplannifig detail included as part of this Sketch Plan for two other areas: Areas Band C (Area B contains cOIiUnercial and residential uses; Area C contain.s either residences. Of the "lodge expansion"). These areaS cohtain uses which will. be pertnitted without future PUD amendments or site speciflc development applications (please note that Area F is permitted via a future PUD . \..th:endment orily); As soch, one (1) additional condition was added to Staff's list of 23 conditions. The additional, sUggested condition is as follows: 24. By Prelifuinary Plan more defmition must be lliade (to the application) in tettns of location, type, uses, character and the architecture of buildings in Areas Band C. PLANNINGCoMMlSSION.RECOMMENDATION: Motion: [3: 1 ] the Planning Commission Recommended approval of ftle pDS-00043, incorporating all Staff findings and conditions, with one additional condition. Please note: The Planning Commission specifIcally asked Staff'to convey the following information to the Boatd of County Commissioners regarding the 3: I vote: . The one (1) vote for denial is based on a lack of suffIcient detail ofthe proposal and a critical loss of habitat for wildlife. STAFF REPORT REFltRRAL RESPONSES: (see attached) Greater Eagle Fire Protection District memo, dated March 15th, 2005: . Access: . With review of the plans that we have received, we will need to have emergency vehicle aCCess with an acceptable turn-a-round to the suites around the lodge; we will be receptive to reviewing viable alternatives to providing vehicle access to the units and providing water to them in an emergency situation. 9 3/29/05 . We will need better accesS to the pavilion building; we wiUhe receptive to reviewing viable alternatives to providing vehicle access to the units and providing water to themin an emergency situation. . The minimum road widths, turhing radius and turn-arounds need to meet International Fire Code (IFC) and our apparatus requirements. . The road.should have at least two (2), 12 foot wide lanes with additional space on each side for on stre~t parking. When we receive more detailed plans We can give a motedetailedteview. . The lower parking lot will need an acceptabletum-a-round near the suite. Several options were discussed; access from the lower parking lot to the main road or an a.cceptable tutll-a-roUt1d a.t the end of the parking lot. . Fireflow: . With the stipulation that the strUctures will have fIre sprinkler & fIre alarm systems andthatthe peak water use will he 42,600 gal/day, a water storage tank of 250,000 gallons should be rea.sonable for planning purposes; it will be necessary to review the plans as they are submitted. . I did not read any specifIc comments on infrastrUcture to ptovide fIre hydrants; minimum spacing requirements perIFC 2003 with 1500 gal/min (GPM) will be required. Eagle Fire ProtecnonDistrict memo, dated January 31st, 2004: . We l,lpologize for not getting these cofntrtents to YOUSddner but We did notreceive the iriformati'Oil until recently. . Greater Eagle Fire Protection District will be providing emergency services to at least % of theptoject thatis in our District. As for the site plan review, We have not been in contact with anyone from Kiwa. Associates or Fox & Company to help with the review. These co1I1:tnents and concerns listed below are hased ollohly the information submitted by the county fot a site plan revieW. We will give a mote. detail teviewas the plans and information becomes available. . Access: . We have cbficetns with the one a.ccess into the project and irttothe residential area to the east for: emergency vehicles and civilian vehicles. . During 3.11 emergency these access points could be blocked or too coilgestedfof emergency vehiCles to be able to respond or would delay their response. ., There is a reference loan emergency access through Gallegos Corporation, this has tobe aVailable a.ll year and easily ~ccessible. The second access across the gully needs tbbeablet() holdthe weight of our emergency apparatus. THIS HAS BEENGENERALL Y ADORES SED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #7. . There ate cOllcetnswith the entrance being on the sharp bend inthe road Where there is a history of several accidents. TIiIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY IDA AND IS UNDER REVIEW.BY EAGLE COUNTY AND CDOT. lit The minimum rda.d widths, turning radius and turn-arounds need to meet the International Fire Code (IFe) and our apparatus requirements. . W ecan give copies of our vehicle specifications so that Auto Tracking or a similar program, can be used to detefmine proper turning radius.W e can then properly revieW the Preliminary Plal1s for road widths, turning radius and needed turn-atounds in the project. TIllS lIAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #7. . Fireflow: . Sufficient water storage and pressures required for fire fIghting requirements of the project our generally address in the Zancnella and Associates, INC letter. . Depending on how the buildings are constrUcted, over 1 million gallons of water could be required to be stored for fIre protection only per the IFC. TillS HAS ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #18. . I did not read any specifIc comments on an infrastrUcture to supply or to provide fIre hydrants. THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #18. . Per the IFC 2003 adopted both by Eagle County, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and Eagle River Fire Protection District, there will be buildings in this project that will have to be sprinkled. 10 3/29/05 . I did not read about any reference to an infrastructure that could support a spririkler system. EnVironmental :IIealthDepartment, verbal with Ray Merry, Director, January 24th, 2005: . The development should prepare and submit a Hazards Mitigation Plan (HMP) which addresses what enVironmental impacts can be expected from this level of development along with how those impacts will be mitigated and what sanctions the developer subjects himselflherselfto should the mitigation measures not be implemented or be insufficient to control the impact. . Assorneofthe proposed uses may utilize hazardous materials, a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan including what materials will be used, how they are stored, what actions to take should there be a release and who to call for notifIcation and help should be included as a subset to the overall HMP. A couple of obVious impacts are dust and erosion during constructioh. Plans to mitigate these impacts should also be subsets of the HMP. . A 1041 permit will be necessary for the major new domestic water and sewer systems and the efficient utilization ofthe domestic water. . Water and/or Wastewater supply: . Due to the number of taps and end use of the drinking water, the systetn willlikelybe deemed a public Watef supply and subject to State review and Safe Drinking Water Actrequitements. Groundwater is ofpddr quality in this area. A surface water diversion for drinking wa:terptirposes Would likely be more reliable and of better quality than well water. ' . . Due to the quantity of WasteWater expected to be generated from the development, the. system chosen to treat wastewater will likely require state ,site approval along with a poiot so1ltce discharge petnrit, regardless of whether the discharge is to surface or ground water. If the discharge is to groundwater, the developer must assure there is adequate area designated fof primary and secondary drain fIeld locations. . The applicant may consider a phasing piau for development ceutered aroUnd water and wasteWater system capacities. This may allow the development to be served by an IridiVidual Sewage Disposal System less than 2,000gallons/day capacity until stich titne as a regional Wastewater facility is available or the developer constrUcts his/herown state approved system. C6lota.doDiVision ofWildllfe memo, dated January 21 st, 2005: . The project is located in critical mule deer habitat and the sketch plan, as presented, would have signifIcant impacts from developing in mule deer winter range, severe winter range, and migration corridor. . Impacts could be reduced or eliminated if the project or parts of the project was moved out of the critical habitat; if part of the project cannot be moved, affiitigation plan should be developed to reduce or offset the impacts. . The enVironmental impact report states that, "... the site is relatively inaccessible to' mule deer because of the constraints from I-70, Hwy 6, Hwy 131. and the river.. ." is incorrect. The mule deer migration corridor is on the north side ofI -70 and the Eagle River. Mule deer migrate from east to west in the winter and west to east in the spring. . The extensive browse lines on the pinion pine and juniper trees and the frequency of road kills on Hwy 131 are indicators of the extensive use of the project site by mule deer. . Prior contact with the DOW and the completion of a wildlife report would have identified most of the concerns. . For the County's and the applicant's use for future discussions, we have listed the main items of concern: . Fences for security and screening will most likely exclude big game from using these areas. Any areas with this type of fencing should be added in the mitigation plan. . The project is plal1hed in big game winter range and the DOW would suggest that landscaping trees and shrubs be selected for their low palatability to big game. It may be necessary to fence these areas as well. . The DOW has not mapped this area for black bears; however, the Wolcott area is a crossing for black bears. As such, black bears use this area and any new food sources will be readily used by them as they travel through the area. While the sketch plan does discuss wildlife proof refuse containers and dumpster, there is no discussion on how grapes brought in will be stored or how the 11 3/29/05 Wastes from the winemaking will qe stored to prevent wildlife from getting into them. In addition, the use of fruit or berry producing trees in landscaping should be minimized in order to reduce the attraction for heats. . The sketch plan does not address the impacts from residents or guest dogs on wildlife. . The sketch plan speaks to providing recreation within the site and possibly out onto BLM lands to the east and north. How will wildlife impacts from this be avoided or mitigated? Winterrecreatibn within/outside this site should be limited or considered for a seasonal closure to reduce impacts to critical winter habitat. Has the BLM been contacted for any concerns issues they may have with this proposal? . Building envelopes for the sites adjacent to BLM lands should be set back far enough to prevent this PUD fr6m having negative wildlife impacts 6n the surrounding public lands. Without setbacks, the impacts to wildlife from the development and recreation will extend outside the boundaries of the PUD onto the surrounding public lands and negatively affect wildlife using these critical areas. . Eagle River Concerns: . The sketch plan the DOW received did not contain the sections on where that water for this PUD will come from. In speaking to Sid Fox, he stated the Pun was looking at a.cquiring Water from Eagle Park Reservoir, moving that water down the Eagle River and then withdrawing that watetat Wolcott. While this aspect of the project doesn't appear to be a problem, we are concerned thatthe temperature ofthe treated water being released at Squ~w Creek will be too high and will contribute to the near annual outhreaks of furunculosis in trout that is seen on the Eagle River. . If there is to he a 200-300 car parking lot for this project, how will the additional runoff from this parking lot and landscaped areaS be handled? If recreational trails are created within this Pun what type of surface win they have to prevent erosion? The soils in this area a.re poor and rUfioff. Engineetingmemo, dated January 21St, 2005: . The Engineering Department is in receipt of a State Highway Access Permit Application for this site, a.nd has been reviewing the access permit application separately from the planning ftle. . The applicant has submitted all information requested, and additional processing and revieW by CDOT is still required before the access permit can be approved. . The Engineering Department will continue to work with the applicant and CDOT with the goal of approving the access permit prior to POO Preliminary Plan application for the site. . this site appears to be directly impacted by the possible alignment of the future "Wolcott Bypass & Spur Road Extension." While no official preferred alignment for this toadwa.y has been identifled, consideration could be given to this potential project by designating a portion of the eastern end of the.. site as open space to allow the road to cross the property, and to allow for a second access to the development in the future. . A review of the site conditions indicates that severe slopes exist on the site in areas of proposed residential and lodge development. . It is anticipated that construction of access roads to these areas will be very difftcult when eXisting ground slopes are in excess of 20 to 30%. This issue must be addressed with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. . The Drainage Analysis submitted with the application is adequate for this Sketch Plan submittal. Hdwever, a more detailed analysis, including debris flow analysis and mitigation, must be included with the PUD Preliminary Plan. . The Geologic Evaluation performed by CTL Thompson indicates that the eastern half of the site has potential Debris Flow and Rockfall Hazard areas. Based on a review of the Arroyo Engineering "30% Slope Map" (sheet C-l, dated 11/24/04), similar slopes exist off-site to the north of the main development area of the proposal. . These off-site areas should be included in the Geologic Evaluation, including Debris Flow and Rockfall Hazards, with the fIndings and mitigation measures included with the pun Preliminary Plan application. . The PUD Preliminary Plan application should incorporate all Variance(s) from Improvement Standards that will be required for the site. This will at a minimum include a variance for only one point of access, and any others that are identifIed as design of the site proceed 12 3/29/05 Colorado Geological Survey, memo dated January 18th, 2005: . In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited the site and reviewed the site plan on January 10,2005. . The site consists of approximately 39 acres. The proposed subdivision includes a winery; lodge, commercial retail and light industrial spaces and residential housing. . Water will be supplied either by wells or a direct diversion from the Eagle River. Sanitation services will be provided by a central wastewater treatment facility to be built on the property. . Soils and subsurface properties. The geotechnical investigation by CTLThompson states that the soils and underlying bedrock found on the property are predominantly sandy clays which are moderately to highly expansive. . CTL Thompson recommends site-specifIc soil investigations as well as direct observationofthe . foundation excavation in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. The site occurs on a debris fan, which may have some hydro-compaction issues associated With the sutface soils. . Some type offoundation mitigation will have to occur in order to avoid damage from expansive andcompactive soils. . Ddinage. The preliminary drainage plan by Arroyo Engineering is too simplifIed for this project. A detailed drainage plan must be conducted that takes into acc.ount storm tun-off potential, sheet floW and debris flow. . Some of the drainage arroWs on sheet Cl show the drainage diverted 90 degrees. These diversions will have to be engineered in order to accommodate storm run-off and potential stream bulking. Specifically the "Lodge" and the "Pavilion" are located in the paths of small. drainages. . These drainages will eitherrequire mitigation, such as engineered diversions or these buildings will need to be relocated. The fIlled-in berms at the south border of the property need to be taken into account in the drainage plan. These bettnS Will divert water to areas that are not shown on the preliminary drainage plan. . The western-most drainage will discharge water into the adjacent property (Gallegos Corp.). There should be a mutual understanding between the developer and Gallegos Corp. regarding how this rundffwill move through the Gallegos Corp. property. . . Rockfall. Much ofthe area to be developed lies beneath steep (>30%) slopes with outcrops of Dakota sandstone to the north of the property. . The CTL Thompson report shoWs an area deemed as rockfall hazard but did not conduct a rockfall study to determine this. Because of the amount of loose rock at the top of the steep slopes above the property, there is the possibility that rockfall will affect an area greater than that shown in the . CTL Thompson report. This is especially evident on the west side of the property. . I suggest that a CRSP study (or equivalent) be conducted to evaluate the rockfall potential for the upper (northern) part of the property. . These concerns should be addressed at the preliminary plat approval stage. Wildt'ireMitigation Specialist, memo dated December 30, 2004: . The cortnrtercial areas on the western portion of the property are well served by a single point of acCess and an emergency egress, but the future residential area to the east has only one point of access that appears to be served by a bridge. . The higher wildfire hazard ratings are located in the residential area, and analtemate means of ingress/egress should be pursued into this area. . One possibility is a pedestrian trail that could serve passenger cars in the event of an emergency. . The water supply for the project needs to be suffIcient to provide adequate fIre protection water for the commercial as well as the future residential areas. Office-ofthe State Engineer, memo dated December 30,2004: . Review of this plan indicates that the water supply plan is under development; CRS 30-28-136(1) requires distribution of a complete Preliminary Plan submission to referral agencies. . We defer comments until the Preliminary Plan is ftled. 13 3/29/05 Colorado lIi~torical Society, memo dated December 28, 2004: . Our offtce has conducted a search of the Colorado Inventory of Cultural ResoUrces for this project area. . Our files contain incomplete information for this area; most of Colorado has not been inventoried for cultural resources. . There is a possibility that as yet identified cultural resources exist within the project. . In the event there is Federal or State involvement, we recommend that a professional survey be conducted to identify any cultural resources which are eligible to be listed on the National RegiStry of Historic Places. . W e lo~k forward to consulting with you regarding the effect of the project on any eligible cultural resource in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures fot the Preservation and Protection of Historic and Cultural Resources (36 CFR 800). . Please provide the results of the cultural resource survey for our review of professional adequacy and compliance with regulations. Weed and Pest Coordinator, memo dated December 28,2004: . Conduct an inventory of the property's vegetation community and relay the inventory results to Eagle County. . If any state or county listed noxious weeds are detected during the inventory, the ptoperty owner shall develop and implement a weed management plan that will meet the inventoried noxious weed's management objective (noxious weed management is requited by state lawand the 'Eagle County Weed Management Plan). Please submit the weed management plan to Eagle County. . That the homeowner association covenants, open-space management plan(s) (agricultutal,consetvation and mixed use) and development rights-of-way (recreation paths, internal toads, etc) have noxious weed mitigation measures consistent with state law and the Eagle County Weed Management Plan. .. Russian, spotted and diffuse knapweed were inventoried within the adjacent railroad right-of-way (2003), if these plants occur within the proposed Vines at Vail development, then an appropriate noxious weed prevention technique would be to request that any topsoil disturbed during construction would either remain on-site or be subject to sanitary land ftlling to prevent noxious weed distribution. Additional Referrals were sent to the following agencies and Homeowner's Associations: . Eagle County Attorney, Assessors, ECO Trails and Transit, Housing Division, Road and Bridge, Animal Control, Sheriff, School District (Administration and Transportation), Sheriffs Offtce . CDOT (Grand Junction and Local OffIces) . Colorado Geologic Survey, Division of Wildlife . BLM, Natural Resource Conservation Service . Ambulance . Eagle County Historical Societies, Postmaster- Wolcott . Red Sky Ranch HOA, Bellyache Ridge HOA Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the reView ora Sketch and Preliminary plan lor PUD: ST~AlID: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] .-:- The title to alnand that is part of a ptJD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all oWners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire area affected by this PUD Sketch Plan is in single ownership. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land thatis art ofthis Pun IS owned or controlled by one 1 erson and/or entity. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial 14 3/29/05 Zone Districts Use Schedule, "for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the cipplicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F3.f., Variations Authorized. the current zoning for the project is Resource. As such, many of the proposed use~. are pettnitted only ih the cotnrtlercial zone districts, or are permitted with Special Use Permit or via Limited Review approval. With proper mitigation, integration of the proposed uses with residential uses is plausible; however, careful thought and review-will be necessary to ensure that: The commercial and residential uses ate compatible and that any hazardous materials will be handled properly; parking and loading areas ate adequate; and that noise, lighting, and hours of operation do not create nuisances, etc. Ih reflection ofthe memo from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) dated January 21 st, 2005, it appears as though more consideration should be given to the design and the possible impacts to critical mule deer habitat, bears, and impacts to the Eagle River, as well. [+/-] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that rtlay be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, alloWed as a special Use or allowed as a limited use in either Table 3,,320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use,Schedule" or Table 3-300, j'Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule". The majority dfresidential uses ARE uses allowed in the Resource zone district; however, the commercial/industrial uses ARE NOT currently permitted in the underlying zone district. With application for Preliminary Plan, the Applicant must submit an itemized list of allyariations for the Board's consideration. STANDARI>: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - the dimensionallimitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations ",for the zone district designatiiJn in effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional imitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall.1eave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access andjire protection, and ensutep.,'oper Ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. the folloWing Variations must be itemized indetail when formally requested by the applicant with the Preliminat)' Pla:napplication: For tke:Q.eSoutceZone District: *Us'es: Duplex; Multi-family dwelling; Fractional Fee Estate; Hotel\Mote1\Lodge; Auditorium (pavilion); Park and OUtdoor Recreation Facilities; Utilities, including water storage and treatment and wastewater treatment facilities; Temporary Building or Use; And various uses listed as commercial limited and commercial general uses, such as, but not limited, to offtce, business or professional and retail sales. *Dimensional Standards: Minimum Lot Area Minimum Setbacks Maximum Building Height *More Variations.(such as Variations from the Eagle County Road standards) could be requested at Preliminary Plan. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the Pun ARE NOT those specifIed under the existing zoning; however, this fInding may be found positive assuming approval of the Variations by the Board of Coun Cotn1nissioners at Pre1imina Plan. ~TAN]lARI>: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkin~ and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 15 3/29/05 (aJ Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peakparkingfor those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specializel transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Given the nature of this proposal, and the proposed design of the. buildings for the multiple uses, a site specifIc parking plan Will have to be developed and submitted as part ofPrelitninary Plan application. The parking plan must adequately address vehicular and pedestrian circulation, loading areas, residential, employee and patron parking. the maximum number and viability of any shared-use parking spaces must also be addressed in the parking plan. The parking areaS should consider the impacts of runoff in their design. [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Given the size of the subject propetty, it is likely that the applicant WILL be able to demonstrate that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD CAN comply With the standards of Article 4, Division 1,.Off-StreetParking and Loading Standards, Without a necessity for a reduction in the . standards, at Prelimina Plan a lication. SfA.NJ)ARJ): Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] ~Landscapingprovided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscapin,? and nlumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authotizedwhere the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides suffiCient buffering of USes from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A detailed landscaping plan is required to be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. That plan should detail all types and location of landscape materials to be utilized as part of this development. A cost estimate will also be necessary for collatetalization purposes. Tentatively, the applicant plans to integrate grape vines and native landscaping materials. Site lighting arid illumination standards must also be satisfactorily addressed with the Preliminary Plan application. The language Within the PUD guide must provide specifIc maximum heights, light intensities, locations and styles. This is especially important because the subject property is highly visible from HWy 6, 131 and 1-70, as well as neighboring communities such as Red Sky Ranch and Bellyache Ridge subdiVisions. Landscaped areas should consider the impacts of runoff in their design [+]FINDING: AS CONDITIONEO Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] It WILL be demonstrated that landscaping provided in the PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and lllutnination Standards. lllumination standards must also be considered as art of Preliminary Plan a lication. STANDARJ): Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Shm Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develooment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. A Comprehensive Sign Plan will be required with the Preliminary Plan application as the project proposes multiple uses. [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED 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. The Pun guide ro erl references that signs shall be as allowed pursuant to the Eagle County Land 16 3/29/05 A Comprehensive Sign Plan is required to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the 'development proposed in the Preliminary Planfor PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Electricity, telephone and cable, solid waste removal, as well as emergency service providers are available for service to this property; however, this property is within two (2) fIre districts. The last v.. of the development to the east is within the Eagle River Fire Protection District, with the remaining % ofthe project (to the west) within the Greater Eagle River Fire Protection District. This issue must be addressed as part of the PtelilIlillary Plan application. So far both Holy Cross Electric and CentoryTel have provided letters to serve the Vines at Vail. The applicaIlt has also been in touch with the School District, and has agreed to provide bus turl1-arounds, etc. In regards to water and wastewater service, it will be necessary for the Applicantto apply for 1041 approval as multiple residences and coinIt1ercial uses will be served as part of this development and are anticipated to exceed the 1041 threshold of 1 0 equivalent residential units (EQR). Currently, well and augit1entation water from the Eagle Rivet will proVide potable drinking water; an onsite wastewater treatmentfacility isptoposedfor this development. At this time, the proposed water supply is under review by the Colorado Division of Water ResoUrces (Office of the State Engineer). A specific design for the wastewater treatinentplant has not been submitted by the applicant. The applicants have shoWh preliminary toad layouts on this Sketch Plan. As a condition of the Engineering memo date January 21 st, 2005, the applicant is required to adhere to the Eagle County road standards, unless Variations . from those standards are approved by the Board at Preliminary Plan; detailed toad designs Will be required as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. 'his development proposes a futilie lodge expansion and residential uses to the far east of the development. According to therecommendations of the Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, a secondary means of access will be required inthis area:, north of the proposed access point. The reason for the additional emergency access is that the wildfIre hazard rating is higher in this location, and that currently, a single bridge (across a drainage gully- see above photo ) is the only connection to this area from the rest of the development to the west. [+/-] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed in this Sketch Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for solid waste disposal. The applicant HAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Sketch Plan for PUD will have adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal and roads. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fIre protection, and emergency medical services. It MAY BE possible to demonstrate adequate water sewer and roads (including duel access) facilities to serve the ro osed development at Preliminary Plan application. 17 3/29/05 STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)].- The improvements standards applicable to. the development shall. be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate Jrom the County's road standards, so the deVelopment achieves greater efficiency oj injrastrudure design and installation through cl!lStered or compact Jorms oj development or achieves greater sensitivity to.environmental impacts, when theJollowing minimum design principles areJollowed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide saJe, convenient access to all areas oJ the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length.. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly oWned easement No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards oj the American Association oj State Highway Officials (AASHTO) Jor that Junctional classification oJroadway. (b) Interhal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to Jorm a logical, saJe and convenient system Jor pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, .with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) .Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted Jor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development Jor the purpose oj providing emergency services and Jor installation, maintenance and repair oj utilities. . (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to providef(jr smooth traffic flow, minimizing hCiZards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. .Where a PUD abuts.a major collector, arterial road or highway, .direct access to such road or highway from individual- lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shalt not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snoW removed Jrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. this development will have to meet all minimum County and/or Colorado Division of Transportation standard" reg~rdirtg road designs unless Variations from Eagle County standards is granted by the Board of Col.lfi1 Comtnissioners during the Preliminary Plan process. A new Highway AcceSs Permit must be obtained prior,to Preli:rninary Plan approval since ingress and egress willcorit1ect with Highway 131. At this time, the applicant proposes at least two points of access to this development, located on the western portion of the prl:>posal. As mentioned previously, the eastern portion of the development (area of fut1lte lodge and residential expan'sion) will also necessitate an alternative point of access across a drainage gully (see page 8 fot photo/diagram). there. is a concern regarding the transportation and clean up of hazardous materials. At present, the PUD guide neither includes a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan (HMCP) or a Hazardous Materials Plan (HIvIP). Uses such . as photography, welding, and any use that entails painting or staining, all utilize potentially. hazardous materials that would be transported and stored onsite. The plans would not only be for internal spills, but for spills which occur ofitoadways or withinpedestriancorridots. The applicant should develop private covertantswhich reStrict and/or monitor such uses for compliance with either plan. rITe current Sketch Plan does not show the pedestrian movements throughout the proposed development; this must be addressed in the Preliminary Plan. In speaking with the Transportation Planner for ECO, pedestrians should be able to safely navigate from inside the development to Hwy 131 (no new bus routes are planned for this area at present). All landscaping, circulation and parking plans will also need to accotntnodate safe pedestrian movements. (e.g. If the edge of the roadway is to be used for snow storage, pedestrian walkways could be restricted throughout the project. [+/-] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS 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, Efftcient Access; (b) Internal Pathways; (c) Emergency Vehicles; (d) Principal Access Points; (e) Snow Storage; however, it MAY BE possible to demonstrate these improvements with 18 3/29/05 I the Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] -The develdfl11lentptoposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. All the lartd surrounding this development is zoned Resource. Currently, there are two, non-conforming, grandfatheted uses found in the immediate vicinity of the Vines at Vail. They are the BFI Waste Management site, and the Gallegos site. These properties, which are south and west of the subject property, are industrial/cortnnercial infiatore, with no residential uses present. To the west (see below detail), Resort Commercial (RC) Zoning exists. Parcels to the west ofHwy 131 and southofthe railroad also contain grandfathered, non-conforming residential uses; there are no sttUctores on the Bureau of Land Management property to the north and east of this site. As meiitiof1ed, this development is zoned Resource. The nearest area of a different zoning is Re. . According to the EagleCou:hty Land Use RegUlations, the purpose of the Rezoning is to, "recognize and provide for existing small residential centerS or crossroads developments. Uses permitted in this Zone district include relatively moderate to lower density reSidential uses and convenience"-oriented commercial uses that Serve the needs of residents in the surrounding area and visitors and other passers- by." The mtent of this development is compatible with the intent of this neatest zone district. The focalp6iIit of this developmertt is the winery and tasting room. The applicant proposes to plant grapevines and other landscaping elements throughout the property. Architecture is to be .eminiscent of, ".. .Italian hill towns." Also proposed are open areas for conununity gatherings, a market, weddings, etc. Most likely, patrons will visit this deWlopment as a fInal destination; impulse visits by passers by; and local residentS will utilize this area for shopping/retail ptltposes. This development propOSes to function as a small village with residences and com.mercial retail irtterthiXed. As such, the proposed mix of uses must be able to compatibly co-exist. When considering the proposed design, the more intense commer<;ial uses are being clustered at the western portion of the development, with more transitional, lodge and residential uses towards the eastern end of the site; however, as stated previously, on page 5 under Uses, the applicant should evaluate each planning area to ensure that there will be 1l.oconflicts between residential, recreational and commercial uses throughout the proposal. [+/-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section5-240.F.3.e (9)] All aspects of the development proposed for the puD MAYBE compatible with the character of surroundin land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e., how a proposatcompares to basic planning principles. r1s a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. 19 3/29/05 Conformance x x x x2 x3 x4 Countryside FLUM - lCounttyside. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the Vines at Vall property is within the designation of 'Countryside', bordering on the 'Community Center' designation. Countryside suggests low residential densities of 2-35 acres per dwelling, consisting of primarily single family residences. Open space in these subdivisions is typically found within individual lots and not as common open space. Newly developing Countryside lands provide transition areas between the County's more densely populated areas and it's less densely settled Rural Lands. This is created by clustering development in the most suitable portion of the site allowing the hazard, resource and recreation lands to be protected. Countryside is not typically associated with local-serving corrtfilercial uses, although isolated commercial activities which are permitted by special review maybe permitted within or adjacent to designated Countryside when they are compatible with the character of adjacent uses andmeet other criteria of the Land Use Regulations. Development on Countryside lands is typically served by on-site or small coinIt1Uhity water supply and wastewater disposal methods. This development, although akin with the intent of the closest zone district of RC, an area which has the FLUM designa.tion ofCoIfit11unity Center, does not meet the intent of the Countryside designation; the development has a gross density of approximately 1.2 units pet acre and has located the lodge and residential dwellings in potentially hazardous locations (see Colorado Geologic Survey memo dated January 14th). The site Should be designed with respect to dtainage and other potentially hazardous situations, as well as emergency acceSs locations and open space considerations. J(i- EnviromneIital Quality. Currently, the Sketch Plan application does not adequately addtess certain geologic, wildlife, and water quantity provisions as found in the Eagle County Master Plan. X3~ Open Space/Recreation. It is unclear how certain Open Space areas will preserved. The application eludes that there will be an Open Space area to be conserved; however, it does not delineate such an area on the submitted plans. X4~ Affordable :Housing. At this time the applicants have stated that eight (8) workforce housing units wiil be provided; however, price, definition, and/or design has not been thoroughly discussed thus far. EAGLE COUNty OPEN Sf ACE PLAN x x x x x x x The Vines at Vail is not located in a recognized unique landform area of the county; however it may be located in a natural hazard area. It is also highly visible from both Highway 6 and I-70. There are also some concerns with wildlife in the area, as this is severe winter range for mule deer, and is a bear crossing (see memo from the Division of Wildlife dated January 21 st, 2005). 20 3/29/05 The Vines at Vail currently is located near an area with historic fIsh kills. Althoughthe river is located south of the rail road tracks, and not directly continuous with the subject property, the concern then becomes not of environmental pollutants, but for water quantity. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, it will be crucial to teplace the water from where it is proposed to be drawn from to ensure the sustainability of the existing trout populatioh. EAGLE COUNTY CdMPREHENSlVElIOuSlNG PLAN vrSION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulftll the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a cdmmunity-wide issue. .... ... . ... ... Housing. should be located inclose 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 goveft1tnent, 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 for other infrastructure needs. Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evalua.ted,as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way asthey are evaluated. . . . . . . POLicmS: ITEM 1. Eagle County will collabOrate with the private Sector & nonprofit organization.s to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for lotal residertts is art issue which Eagle County needs to address in. collaboration with the mun.icipalities . . . x 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 21 3/29/05 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents ITEM YES NO X N/A 7. Cotnrnercial, 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 ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . X 8. The County win seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community Centers X 10. 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged X Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock II. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to c.ompete with second hOme buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there shOuld generally be limits On price appreciation, as wen as residency requiremehts X 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing fot local residents is an ongoing issue The applicants have not denned the nature of the employee housing units at this time. WOLCO:t:TA.REA COMMUNIJY PLAN Xl x2 X7 x9 X8 x3 X4 XS X6 .\ ..... ....... .. . .' ..... . . . ... .. . . X..... The maJonty ofthe commercIal retaIl, etc. space IS clustered at the most western end of the development mthe 'Activity Center' where the more intensive activity is to . occur. Types of uses include cotlilnercial, light industrial, agricultural activity and residential. Any use which utilizes hazardous materials should be located in this area. X2_ The proposed development is inline With the intent for areas outside ofthe activity center. According to the Wolcott Area Community Plan uses like Inns, lodges, restaurants, dude ranches, and recreational, educational or cultural oriented operations are recommended. X3~ In discussions with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), there appear to be several potential impacts which may affect wildlife in the area. Currently, this Sketch Plan has addressed mitigation plans; however, the Planning Commission was concerned at the plan's proposed methods of mitigation, specifIcally in Area F. A fInal Wildlife Mitigation Plan must be incorporated as part of the Preliminary Plan application. X4~ The proposed development would tend to maintain the existing character of the Wolcott Area. However, as noted above in the discussion regarding "Wildlife", the proposed development has not adequately addressed ecologically sensitive areas or has necessarily provided proper mitigation tactics. x5 _ The quality and quantity of potable water must be maintained. It appears that proper sewage disposal will be provided; however, it has not been defined as part of this Sketch Plan. X6~ Certain geologic hazards have been identifIed in the technical reports provided as part of the Sketch Plan. It must be demonstrated in the Preliminary Plan that adequate avoidance and/or mitigation of hazards has been accomplished. X7~ No harmful effects of air pollution, excessive noise or noxious odors are likely as a result of this proposed development, if properly mitigated. x8 ~ Any necessary road improvements will be identifIed as part of the review of the PUD Preliminary Plan application. X9 ~ No important historic or archaeological resources have been identifled at the site of the proposed development although it is recommended by the Colorado Historical Society that a detail analysis be provided. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The proposed Sketch IS NOt entirely consistent with all stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of applicable master plans, primarily due to a lack of conformance with the FLUM, potential wildlife impacts, and the lack of detail re afdin affordable housing. ' STANbAlID: Phasing [Section 5..240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for pub shall include a phasing plan for the development.. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided fotpublic improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, ot 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 ptoject as is reasonable. the current phasing plan has not been evaluated to reflect all the necessatydetails such as timing ,on actual road conStruction and platting or which parcels will be platted in what order, etc. A detailed phasing plan is required at Preliminary Plan application. [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Phasing [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) ] A hasin plan IS necessa for this develo ment. StANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space landsfor 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 multipliedby 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. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, 23 3/29/05 that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All. other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreationalfacilities shall be shown on th Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to th development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned cornmon open space shalt continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Prelimin(iry Planfor PUD. To ensure that all the cornrnon open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (f) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be rnaintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all comrnon open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the rnaintenance, adrninistration 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 rnandatory for all landowners within the PUD. As quoted above, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations recommend that, "... that a m.inimum of 25% of the total Put> area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public:' The total acreage of the Vines at Vail is approximately 39 acres. Currently, the applicant has stated that at least 16 acres will be open space, with 26% usable; 49% unusable (see attached document from Sid Fox dated March 22Dd, 2005). Pursuant to Article 5 Administration, parking areas and areas of 30% slope are not considered useable open space areas. Areas must be clearly identified at Preliminary Plan. Without site specific development plans for every planning area, it is difficult to provide exact square feet of open space. Also unknown is how much of the development will be common open Space versus privately oWlied. Landscaping will etihance any lands not covered by asphalt or buildings. Information regarding riIaintenance responsibilities has been provided as part of the PtID guide; however, the PUD guide submirtedwith the Preliminary Plan application should more specifically explain that maintenance includes items such as landscaping, snow removal, and when necessary, weeds. [+/...] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] AS CONDITIONED The PuD BAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect ~o: ( a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d Or anization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - the PUDshall consider the recornrnendationsmadeby the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Pursuant to the memo dated August It\ 2004 frorn the Colorado Geological Survey, a rockfall mitigation plan for should be examined as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. Recotntnendations in the Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation by CTL Thompson should be incorporated into either the PUD guide or as restrictive plat notes on the accompanying plat. [+/-] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES NOT demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specifIed in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered in the desi ; however, detailed anal ses still must be rovided with the 24 3/29/05 I Preliminary Plan application. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of both a 'Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Snbdivision: 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. 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 conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. See previous discussion. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] Sketch IS NOT entirely consistent with an stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of a.pplicable master plans, primarily due to a lack of conformance with the FLUM, potential wildlife impacts, arid the lack of detail regarding affordable housing. stANDARD~ Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section S-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 DeveloDment Standards. Ai'iicle'4, Site Development ,standards [+/_] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) AS CONDITIONE)). A detailed parking plan will be necessary as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+/-] Landscaping and fllumination Standards (Division 4-2) AS CONDITIONED. A detailed landscaping plan will be necessary as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+/_] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) AS CONDITIONED. A detailed sign plan will be necessary as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+/-] Natural Resource Protection Standards (bivision4-4) AS CONJ)ITIONE)) [+/-] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) AS CONDITIONED [+/-] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) AS CONDITIONED. A Rockfall Mitigation Plan must be provided as part ofthe Preliminary Plan submittal. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) AS CONDITIONED [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) AS CON))ITIONED [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) AS CONDITIONED [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) AS CONDITIONED [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) AS CONDITIONED [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) AS CONDITIONED [+/-] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) AS CONDITIONED [+/-] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) AS CONDITIONED [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Impact fees are associated with this proposal, and are anticipated to be paid at the time of Building Permit. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] AS CONDITIONED The Ap licant MAY BE ABLE TO fully demonstrated that the proposed 25 3/29/05 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. ' - STAM>ARI>: Spatial Pattern ShllllBe Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plcin or. shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Ea1!le CountvRoadCapitlll Improvements Plan. (2) Serve mtimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoidfuture land disruption to upgrade under-sited lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided; rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. This development is located next to a major roadway and has access to all available utilities. No new public roads ate proposed With this development. Statements have also been made by the applicants which propOSe that the new, wastewater tteatinent system be designed for futllre connection to public systems. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] the prdposed subdivision IS located and deSigned to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or p~emature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. stANDARD: AS CON1>ItIONED Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] BThe properly proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probablefuture public improvements to the atea. This property does not appear to be entirely suitable for development (see CGS memo dated January 14th). A detailed examination of this property must be incorporated into the Preliminary Plan submittal. (+/..] FlNDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property to be subdivided IS NOT entirely suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANfiA.1ID: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdiviSion shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. . See previous discussion, page 15. " (+/-) FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- I 280.B.3.e (5)] The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS: 26 3/29/05 HOUSING GUIDELINES. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004~048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. the provisions regarding affordable housing have been not been addressed with this application. To date, the following housing information has been supplied by the applicants: Housing Summaty (see attached documetltfrom Sid Fox dated March 22, 2005): Work Force (W'F) Units 8 . Free Market Units 31 Dwelling Units = 39 The Eagle County Housing Department has deferred comments until Preliminary Plan. Jena Skihner...Markowitz of Community Development presented this ftle to the Board. She stated this is a pOO Sketch Plan to create a mixed use PUD in Wolcott. She presented various Power Point slides and pictures to outline this proposal. This property is accessed via Hwy. 131 by the Waste Management and Gallegos Corporation locations and is cl111'ently vacant. The focal point of this proposal will be the.winery/lodge/restaurant.. She then detailed what is proposed for the various areas that the property is divided into. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Skinner-MarkoWitz to detail the units inArea Bl. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated they would becomtnercial units with living areas located above them, in a live..work arrangement. She then showed various photographs to the Board. CommiSSioner Runyon asked about Area F and where it Was located in the pictures. Sid Fox, representing the applicant, stated that he would give more detail about it during his presentation. Ms. Skinner~Markowitz stated that many of the fIndings are mixed, but could be satisfIed.at the Preliminary Plan Hearing. Staff and the Planning Cotmt1ission recommend approval with conditions. Chairman Menconi aSked Ms. Skinner-Markowitz what the concerns where on the part of the Planning Cotn:fI1ission. Ms. Skinner~Markowitz stated that there Were concerns about access to Area F being through BLM lands. The applicant has since removed itfrOih the Sketch Plan and will come back and ask for a PUD amendment at somep'ointin the future, but that date has not been specified. She stated the denial vote was based upon lack of detail in the proposal and the potential destruction of wildlife habitat. The applicant did have the mitigation plan at the second Planning Commission hearing, but the member who voted for denial was not highly responsive to it. OVerall, the Planning Commission liked the conceptual idea of the proposal. SidFox of Fox and Company, representing the applicant, spoke to the Board. He stated that the applicant is a resident of Eagle-Vail and has Hotel and Lodging experience and is involved in the wine operations at Four Eagle Ranch. He introduced members of the application who were present for the Board. He then gave a general description of the Sketch P~an for the Board so that it may be attached to the PlJD Guide. Area A is the location of the winery, pavilIon, and lodge, and is 5 acres in size. Area B is 4 acres in size, and Area C, separated by a dry gulch, is 4 acres in siZe and is proposed for single-family residential uses. Area D, adjacent to the railroad right-of.. way is set aside for support services, and they have identifIed Area E as open space; but there is open space in the. other areaS, as well. Area F is approximately 8.5 acres, giving a total size for the project of38.5 acres. He also showed various slides detailing the project. He stated the intent is to develop a mixed use environment for residents and visitors. . The project goals are to create a recreational-oriented destination that is pedestrian friendly and a village atmosphere complementary to existing conforming land uses. Longer-term goals are to utilize the railroad right-of-way as a transit corridor; create a live-work neighborhood; and create a geographic identity and sense of place. He quoted from the Wolcott Community Plan and showed how it related to this proposal. The applicant has met with the adjacent property owners and shared his plans with them. Chairman Menconi asked if the site plan shown by Mr. Fox was more detailed than what the Planning Commission saw. Mr. Fox stated that this plan was shown at the second Planning Cotmt1ission meeting. He reiterated that .ccesS would be from Hwy. 131 through a 70 foot right-of-way. He then detailed the site plan, going over what would be specifIcally located in each area. They plan to integrate employee housing into the lodge, above the winery, and into Area D, as well. They are proposing Tuscan-style architecture. They are proposing to build the winery into the side of the hill to minimize energy costs and help with temperature control of the winery. There 27 3/29/05 will be a 7,000 square foot banquet hall built of stucco and stone that would function similarly to Donovan Park Pavilion in Vail, but on a smaller scale. They are encouraging pedestrian movements on the property by having parking underground and providing ample sidewalks and patios. They are proposing 30 rooms in total, with 10 in the lodge. There will be 20 rooms located in separate suites. The site plan has 90 parking spaces to serve Area A. Mr, Fox then spoke about Area B and stated that the zoning for Area A is different from the zoning for Area B. Area B will be alive-work neighborhood, with commercial being located on the main floor. Each unit represents about 2,100 square feet of commercial space, with 24 units in total. They would like to have some flex space to respond to the market conditions. They are proposing a restaurant or deli in AreaB2 to support and service the lodge guests. Area B3 will have on offtce-type use for its 6,400 square feet. They are proposing 122 below-grade parking spaces and 91 upper spaces for Area B, for a total 213 spaces in all. He went over Area C and stated it would contain seven single-family lots. These, like Areas A and B would have Tuscan-style architecture. Area D would contain support services, a maintenance building, employee housing, storm water detention, and possible Water treatment and waste treatment facilities would be located here. They would plantsome vines here, and it will allow for pedestrian trail connection to the Railroad right-of-way. He then went over the water supply . and wastewater treatment proposal. They met with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and have f11ed an application with Water Court to supply water to the proposal. He went over where the various sources of Water would be obtained. He stated that this proposal would trigger a 1041 application. Mr. Fox detailed the proposal for treating the waste water and stated that it would be done in conjunction with the Gallegos Corporation, located adjacent to the site. There will be extensive review, site approval, and on-going monitoring from the state and local authorities. He next detailed the open space proposal, 38.5 acres in total, related to this application. They plan to have 10 acres of usable open space, or 26% of the site, and unusable open space of 19 acres or 49% of the site. He discussed the proposal for Area F and mentioned that they do not currently have access to it. Therefore, they are not proposing any development in that area at this time, and the applicant will apply for a PUD Amendment if they wish to develop it in the future. . .. Patrick Churchill, the applicant stated that he had tried to visit with the members of the connnunity about his proposal and showed the Board a list of people who have responded and approved of his proposal. He has placed letters of support into the Board's packet. Chaihnan Menconi.opened public comment. John KerfUtisspoke in favor ofthe project and believes it is a great addition to Wolcott. He would like the Boafd to approve it. Denise Jouflas Lipp also supported the project. She is a long-time Wolcott resident and is excited about it. Ryan Thompson stated that he is in favor of the project, as it will add some character to dormant land. :Brad Pennington supported the project as apotential 2nd location for his business. Chairman Mertconi closed puplic comment. Chairman Menconi opened Board deliberation. Commissioner Stone had no co1i1ments at this time. Commissioner Runyon realized this was preliminary and commended the applicant for coming up with an interesting a novel use for a marginal piece of land. He is ~oncemed about the density of the work. He also wants to make sure the employees are taken care of,. and he wonders about the decorative motif of the grapevines. He wonders about the problem of bears. . Mr. Churchill stated that they had a plan to mitigate this problem. There would only be a two to three week period when the beafs would be able to smell the grapes. He isn't looking to harvest these decorative grapes to produce wine~it is more for an esthetic look. Chairman Menconi asked about the winery process. He asked for clarification as to where the grapes would come from. Mr. Churchill stated that they would get the grapes from Grand Junction and California. There would be a learning experience possible for guests. He has been doing this type of operation at the 4 Eagle Ranch for 13 years. Chairman Menconi referred to the sketch plan. He had issues with the wildlife and would like to hear from the Department of Wildlife as to their opinion of the mitigation, related to the grapes. He asked for their opinion as to the suffIciency of the mitigation. All issues could be addressed now or in the future. The housing regulations are a very rough draft, and he wants more clarifIcation. The water and waste water treatment is of concern due to the May vote on inclusion ofWo1cott into the Water District. He asked staff to inform him about their stance on the project entrance - which is on a steep grade and a precarious bend in the road. He wanted more discussion about building on the slopes in the area. Regulations require two entries for development and this plan only provides for one. He wondered why the Pun was being presented in so many different degrees of definition. 28 3/29/05 Mr. Fox stated that it was a result of the process. He stated that staff reviewed the application and accepted it asa complete sketch plan application. He indicated that everyone wants more detail and, as a result of these concerns, the applicant attempted to provide more detail in certain areas. Chairman Menconi stated that one of the balances is to look at the ftle. as a sketch plan in as much detail as possible so as not to lead anyone on. He asked staff to review the summary of the PUD. He spoke about the breakdown of the different areas in terms of dwelling and commercial. He referred to development Area A. He wondered if the applicant sees this as a portion of the required housing according to the guidelines. He aSSlllI1es that the applicant is proposing providing the 10% required housing on-site. Mr. Fox stated that at sketch plan level they felt it was important to incorporate some employee housing. They didn't do a specifIc employee generation study, but would commit to do so at preliminary plan. When they spoke to the Housing Director, she was comfortable with the .numbers. Chairman Menconi stated that he will take the guidelines very seriously and will need to know when and how many housing units will be built. He asked about Area B 1. He wondered how many units would be on this piece of land. Mr. Fox indicated there would be 24 units. Chairman Menconi asked if the applicant was pretty sure that there would be 24 housing units and 40,000 feetofcommetcial. Mr. Fox concurred and indicated that the housing units would be on top of the commercial. Chairman Menconi asked several.more questions about each tract and the plan for development. He wondered how the 40,000 square feet would be used. Mr. Churchill stated that these spaces would be for small businesses not related to the winery. The 32,000 square feet could be a specialty shop or spa. Chairman Menconi asked about Area B3 and the 6,400 square feet. Mr. Churchill indicated itwould be for offtce space, bank, or specialty shop. Chairman Menconi asked about the total commercial and flex space. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that flex space in Area B is 10,000 square feet, 43,200 square feet of tesidential in Area B, 40,000 square feet of COmlIlercial in Area B, with a total potential of 50,000 square feet of commercial and 24,000 square feet of residential. Chairman Menconi asked about Area C. Mr. Churchill stated that this area would be developed later and would be primarily for single-family uSe. He and Mr. Fox refertedto page 3 of the PUD guide-they would have to obtain a special use permit. Chairman Menconi asked Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, how an applicant could defIDe housing. Mr. Montag stated that this is a sketch plan and, as the applicant moves towards a preliminary plan, the numbets win, in al11ikelihood, change. Chairman Menconi stated that he is attempting to front load the discussion prior to preliminary plan. Mr; Churchill stated that he prefers to keep his employees on-site as much as possible to make it comfortable for them to live here. They don't know which equation they will be using until they get further intothe process. Chairman Menconi asked Bob Trueblood to elaborate on the water situation of the applicant. Bob Trueblood informed the Board that he is the Manager of Strategic Planning for the ERWSD. They own two parcels past the location, have a lot laid out, and have identifIed waste water treatment needs. They met with the applicant about upsizing their water tank. They donot currently have a water plant designed, butit would not be difficult to do so. There will be an inclusion election in May. If this election is successful, they win move forward with more detailed fInancial models. They will work with residents and developers in the area to insure that these neW customers wouldn't impact negatively the up-valley residents. Chairman Menconi wondered what would occur if the development and the inclusion elections were approved. Mr. Trueblood stated that planning would have to wait until these situations occur. At this time, they would not build a treatment plant to serve this site exclusively. They have land, concept drawings, and the resources to start moving forward, if the demand is determined to be there. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Fox about the availability of water. Mr. Fox stated that a water plan had been submitted to District Court. Chairman Menconi asked Phillip Bowman about staff s opinion on the entrance and exit on Hwy. 131. Phillip Bowman, Engineering Department, explained that they had worked with the applicant for a state highway access permit. Staff identifIed a few things from the applicant, and they complied with additional 29 3/29/05 information. One of the items requested was that the applicant work with BLM to identify and create some easements. He showed the site entrances on the Power Point map. Their request was that the applicant gain an easement from BLM and make sure that their plans to remove some of the grade be approved by the BLM. BLM has approved of this easement and grade change. The applicant will need to modify the traffIc report, but he doesn't anticipate any problems. Chairman Menconi asked about Mr. Bowman's report to Ms. Skinner-Markowitz. He understands that the entrance to the property will be at a steep slope. Mr. BOWlnan stated that, at one point, the applicant had discussed a road crossing the drainage in the middle of the property. He indicated that his comments were related to this prior plan. Chairman Menconi wondered if their building would be on slopes that are 20-30%. Mr. Bowman indicated that there would be some development on the perimeter of the proposed area, but that the slope. decreases moving towards the West. They would request a very detailed lot analysis at preliminary plan, Chairman Menconi. wondered again about the entrance and it being on a sharp corner of HWy. 131. Mr. Bowman clarifIed that the reason the access was placed further north was to avoid overlapping the enttances to othercoIt1l11ercial facilities. Chairman MencOni asked about the steep grade. Mr. Bowman stated that the applicant's plans met state highway standards and guidelines. Chairman Menconi asked about the surface across the street. Mr. BOwinan indicated that there are specifIc distances required by the Highway access code. The only issue that CDOT Will be looking at is that access cannot be denied with only one entrance. The level of use would certainly be reviewed. Chairman Menconi wondered why staff is not recommending a second entrance. Mr. Bowman indicated that, since the original application when only one access was provided, they have added an access through the Gallegos site. Chairman Menconi wondered if this was in the conditions. Ms. Skinrier-Markowitz stated that the applicant was agreeable, and Condition 1 generally covered this requitement. Mr. Fox stated that they had submitted a letter from the Gallegos Corporation which indicated their agreement for this access. Mr. Churchill stated that they intended to remove Y2 an acre of dirt, or 10-15 feet to make the site distance better. This would not only improve their access, but everyone else's. They are attempting to get the speed limit reduced, as well. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Matthews about the sufficiency of Condition 13. He asked to be sure that the Department of Wildlife Weighs in on the most recent mitigation plan. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz clarifIed that this is a mandatory referral. Chairthan Menconi also asked about Condition 15, related to an additional emergency access. Ms. Skinner-MarkoWitz explained that a secondary route is needed for emergency access because of the higher wildfIre danger in the area. Chairman Menconi wondered how important this condition was. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that staff feels it is very important. Mr. Churchill stated that they would not put this access in until that particular area is developed. There would also be a pedestrian option for exit in the case of emergency. Chairman Menconi asked about Condition 22 and the housing regulations. Mr. Matthews stated that this condition Was detailed enough to require compliance with the guidelines. Chairman Menconi stated that his fInal thought is that he is mostly in favor of the application, with the exception of Area F. He spoke about Area F and the fact that it triggers many unknowns in relation to the application in terms of wildlife, slopes, and housing regulations. He wondered if the applicant would remove this area from the application. Mr. Fox stated it is primarily an access issue. He believes it is a fairly small area and that some day access might be available. They would like to keep their options open for the future, and he showed a slide with alternative access sites. If the Wolcott Reservoir is built, Hwy. 131 would be signifIcantly re~aligned. He showed the alternative alignment for Hwy. 131, which would be on the East end of the property. They would rather keep their options related to Area F open. He stated that they responded to the Planning Commission in relation to wildlife. Chairman Menconi asked what the applicant believes is occurring with Area F. 30 3/29/05 Mr. FoX. stated it would be a Pun amendment process to develop this tract. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Eagle County File No. PDS-00043, incorporating all Staff fIndings and the following conditions: L Except as otherwise modifIed by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Applicant shall reVieW all the proposed uses for compatibility and analyze those uses for appropriateness for this development. Any use which entails the use of explosive or toxic chemicals shall not be allowed as "uses by right", but may be permitted via the LilIlited ReView or Special Use level of reView. Uses should also be analyzed for parking, loading areas, noise, water requirements, etc. 3. The buildings should utilize finish materials and colors designed to "blend" in With the surrounding landscape. 4. All necessary Variations must be clearly identifIed in the Preliminary Plan application 5. All coillmentspursuant to the Engineering Memo, dated January 21St, 2005 must be adequately addressed as part of the PrelilIlinary Plan application. Any conditions as written in said memo must also be adhered to and incorporated as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 6; All comments fromthe Colorado Geologic Survey memo dated January 14th, 2005 must be addressed as part of the Preliminary Plan application. T A site specifIc parking and vehicular circulation plan (drawing), shoWing all snow storage/removal areas, emergency acceSs routes and any tum-arounds, shall be developed and sublIlitted as part of the PrelilIlinary Plan application. 8. A Comprehensive Sign Plan shall be developed and subm.itted as part of the Preliminary Plan application, 9. A detailed landscaping plan is required to be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. Landscaping should take into account any Wildlife mitigation factors such as landscaping With non- palatable plant species where appropriate. 10. A Weed Management Plan should be submitted as part of the Prelifninary Plan application. 11. A detailed phasing plan shall be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 12. A pedestrian circulation plan shall be developed and submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 13. AWildlife Mitigation Plan shall be developed and submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 14. Soils Analyses are required at building permit for each building site in order to obtain site-specific information regarding soil engineering properties. 15. Pursuant to the WildfIre Mitigation Specialist memo dated December 28th, 2.004, an additional emergency access is required across the gully on the eastern edge of the proposed development. One possibility for its design may include a pedestrian trail that could serve passenger cars in the event of an emergency. 31 3/29/05 16. A 1041 application must be applied for in conjunction with the Preliminary Plan application. 17. The approved water augmentation plan, approved by the Offtce of the State Engineer must be provided with the Preliminary Plan application 18. All the comments made by the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District pursuant to the memo dated March 15th, 2005 must be considered as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 19. Applicant shall contact the applicable fIre districts to resolve any jurisdictional issues with this property. 20; Pursuant to the Environfuental Health memo dated January 24th, 2005, both a Hazardous Materials Plan and a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan shall be submitted as part of the Preliminaty Plan application. All other coinIt1ents as found in this memo should also be addressed as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 21. All open space areas shall be denned as part of the Preliminary Plan application. Areas of useable, cotntnon, private, public and on slopes of 30% or greater should be clearly identined in the submittal. 22. Applicant must provide information regarding compliance with the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. 23. Pursuant to the Colorado Historical Society response dated December 28th, 2004, the applicant shall subtnitan archeological/historical cultural analysis of the subject property with the application for Preliminary Plan. 24. By Preliminaty Plan mote defInition must be made (to the application) in terms oflocation, type; uses, character and the architecture of buildings in Areas B and C. . Cott1lrrissionet Stone secohded the motion. The vote was declared unanimouS. pnp-oO'o28 &zC-00070 ~ Siloarn Svrine:s PUD Clifford Simonton, Planner, Community Development NOTE: This file Was tabled from 3/1 ACTION: PUD for Slots on the Eagle Rivet in Dotsero LOCATION: 002412 Hwy 6, Dotsero tITLE: ElLE.NOJPROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTAtIVE: Siloam Springs Planned Unit Development PDP-00028 and ZC-00070/Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Zone Change Richard and Luanne Mayne Richard and Luanne Mayne Tom Boni with Knight Planning STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Approval with Conditions PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Eagle County Planning Commission met at regularly scheduled hearings on February 16th and March 16, 2005 to discuss this project. Topics and discussions included t. following: 32 . 3/29/05 . The Applicant has received a Colorado Department of Transportation Access Permit, and a court approved watet augmentation plan. . The Plamii11g Commission was c011cerned with the lack of emergency accesS, especially given the restricted nature ofthe project's single point of access, the one lane box culvert under 1-70. As doculIlented by letters from the Colorado Department of Transportation, access to the project from the Interstate platform is not an option, even in the event that the culvert becomes blocked. One of the conditions ofthe CDOT access permitis that a barrier be constructed to prevent unauthorized access from I-70. In the end, the Planning ColIlrtlission accepted the proposal, with the additional condition that individual homes would be sprinklered for fIre suppressio11 (see conditio11 # 8). . The Cohm1issionwas concemed with safety in and around the box culvert. At the end of deliberation, the Commission accepted the Applicant's proposal to install, in addition to the advisory and warningsignage required by the CDO'faccess permit, a manual switch at both ends of the culvert that could be used by pedestrians and bikers to activate lights inside the culvert, thus warning drivers of their presence inside (see condition # 1). The COI11rnission also agreed with Eagle County Engineering that approximately 400 feet of guard rail should be installed along the south side of the access frontage road just west of the south entrance to the culvert (also condition # 1). . The Cotnrtlission was concerned with the physical appearance of the project given it's visibly from the . interstate and its "front door" location in Eagle County. Siloam Springs will be the frrst reSidential cluster seen bytfavelersentering the County from the west. At the end of deliberation, the Commission accepted the architectural design controls and site screening standards proposed by the Applicant to be included in the PUD Guide as appropriate safeguards to this concern. The commission also accepted the Applicant's plans to. soften the appeara11ce of the highway "barrier" fence with plantings of native vegetation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION StlMMARv: the applica.nt is requesting approval to create a planned unit development (PUb) on a 42.3 acre parcellocated Lpproxittiately 1 mile west of Dotsero. Just over eighteen acres of the property exists on an alluVial fan located between the Colorado River to the south and the .1-70 ROW corridor to the north. This is the portion that would be subdivided into fIve (5) lots, ranging in size from 2.8 acres to 5.0 acres. Approximately seventeen (17) acres\Vould be seta.side as open space, much of which. exists on the south side of the Colorado River. No irnprovements to provide access to this land are proposed. The railroad right-of-way takes up the remaining seven acres of land, which is currently zoned Resource. , The topography in the area proposed for homes slopes gently to the south, tetminating in a relatively steep bank of varying hei'ght adjacent to the river. The lot lines extend into the wa.ter, and no public access to the rivet corridor cdfitamed by this property is proposed. Vegetation 011 the site is sage and desert shrub, with areas of willow and tamarisk a.djacent to the river. A single family home presently exists on the property, and would be situated on the proposed Lot # 5. Approval of the plat for Siloam Springs would make the entirety of this house non-confottning,.as it would be outside a newly proposed buildi11genvelope - one that is further away from the river's edge. The applicant has indicated that they intend tore~ locate this house to the envelope, although no time frame has been specifIed. To the east of the existing home is a second home located on a two (2) acre parcel owned by Michael and Kathie Moore. This tract Was exempted from subdivision by the Board of County Commissioners in 1979 (File Se-224-79, The Bair Exemption), and would end up positioned at the east end of the new PUD. This exempted parcel is not a part of the subject application. Access to the newly created lots would be via an existing single-lane, 11 foot high by 12 foot wide by 192 foot long box culvert under 1-70, and approximately 1800 feet of frontage road located in the 1-70 right-of-way. The frontage TOad surface is approximately 20 feet wide, and was re-surfaced by CDOT this past summer. It terminates at the edge ofthe Moore property, where a 30' access easement would be utilized by the Applicant to reach the proposed lots to the west. Lpproximately 1000 feet of new road would be constructed, terminating in a vehicle turn-around on proposed Lot 3. . 'he fInal two lots to the west would utilize a common driveway. A variance or deviation from a variety of roadway - standards will be requited 33 3/29/05 for the access to this property (please see additional discussion regarding roadway standards on pages 10 and 11). Potable water is proposed by individual wells, irrigation water by direct withdrawal of water from the river and sewage disposal would be by Ji1dividual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS). One 8600 gallon water storage tank: is proposed near the cul-de-sac for fire protection. CHRONOLOGY: June 17,2003 File PDS-00032, Sketch Plan for the Siloam Springs PUD, is approved with conditions by the BOCC. Excepting the above, no land use applications predate this file. The existing home on the property has been in place since the Ji1terstate was constructed in the late 1970's. The Bair Exemption Plat, that 2 acre parcel bounded on three sides by the subject property, was approved in July of 1980. SI't"€ DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Open range, BLMI Resource We_st: Open range, BLM / ReSource North: 1-70 ROW, BLM / Resource South: Open range, BLM / Resource EXisting ZOning: Resource Current development: One single family home Uses available by tight: Residential/Agricultural Prop-osed Zoning: PUD ! Ptop'Osed No. of ])welling Units: Total Area: Percent Usable Open Space: Gross DenSity: _ Water: Sewer: -Access: 5 42.35 acres (less 7 acres for Railroad ROW) 40% (however, the majority of open space is not accessible) 1 unit per 7 acres Private Well (augmentation plan approved) ISDS Via frontage road, 1-70 ROW STAFF REPoRt REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering (07/02/04) . The access toad will be classified as rural residential, requiring two foot wide gravel shoulders and ten :foot wide drive lanes. The existing road does not meet these standards. The proposed extension to the new lots should also meet rural residential road standards. . bue to the lack of internal pathways, it is important that shoulder widths meet roadway standards . The existing roadway is in poor condition. CDOT is proposing a 3" overly by the end of the summer. A State Highway AcceSS PerInit will be required for this project due to additional average daily traffic. . The entrances to the box culvert should be signed to require headlights to be turned on. Ji1 addition, overhead lights are recoIl1mended inside the culvert when ever a vehicle or pedestrian is present. Motion detectors should be installed which would trigger flashing stop lights at the box culvert entrances (in lieu of stop signs). . A 400' guard rail section is recommended along the access road starting at the box culvert and traveling west . The proposed cul-de-sac should be located at the end of the access road (on lot 2) to accommodate emergency turn around. . Water detention for runoff must be designed to accommodate the entire development. Detention facilities will considered public improvements. . The drainage basins should be separated between the north and south side of the highway for drainage analysis. 34 3/29/05 Eagle County Environmental Health . At sketch plan,'Environmental Health recommended an evaluation of the property by a professional geologist. Subsequent reports by Dr. Robert Young indicate no finding of soil conditions that would preclude development of the site for residential uses. Eagle County Housillg (08/03/04) . Noted that pursuant to a request by the Board at Sketch Plan, accessory dwellings will not be allowed. _ Suggested that the applicant request an exemption from the County's housing guidelines Eagle County Sheriff (no date) . Recommends speed bumps to slow traffic . Recommends that signs be installed to prevent on-street parking . Recommends street lights be included Eagle County Regional transportation Authority (07/14/04) _ . Given its low density and distance from the 1-70 interchange, ECO will not provide service directly to Siloam Springs. Residents may access bus service in the future from locations at Two Rivers or at the Dotsero Mobile Homj:: Park Colorado Geological Survey (07/21/04) . Concerns identified at sketch plan have largely been addressed by the applicant's geologic expert, Mr. Robert Young. However, it is reasonable to infer that this section of the Colorado River is still evolving toward equilibriUm since the construction of Ji1terstate 70 and the improvements at Two Rivers changed historic drainage patterns in the area. As such, it is not possible to quantify the risks from channel migration, erosion or undercutting, or to state with certainty that the proposed development is or is not at risk The County Environmental Health Departinent,should determine whether to allow conventional EDS systems or.engineered systems. A 50 foot river setback should be applied in any event. C6lorado Department of transportation (07/21/04) .. The applicant shall be required to obtain a state highway access permit for this project. . The box culvert is also a drainage structure. . The culvert t1hder the interstate (further west at proposed lot # 3) should be extended with no open space between the new and the old. An inlet will be required to handle local side drainage from the interstate. . It appears the development is proposed for an alluvial fan. A geologic hazards report should be required, and any hazards defined should be conveyed to the developer and any future property buyer. . The question of long term maintenance (on the access road) remains unanswered, and is currently being reviewed by COOT's legal department. CDOT has trouble getting Some of their larger pieces of road maintenance equipment through the box culvert, a potential problem should this responsibility be assigned to CDOT. Second letter dated October 8, 2004from Mr. Ed Fink, Director of Transportation Region 3 . Identified the followirig access and safety concerns: o The restricted acceSs to the property promotes dangerous and illegal access on and off a high speed federal interstate system. o The inability of large trucks to enter the property. o. The lack of emergency access to the property o The historic flooding of the box culvert which includes the blocking of the culvert. . Ji1dicated that the issue of unauthorized breaches of the 1-70 Access Control Line and barrier fence in this area has,not been adequately addressed . Stated that for these reasons, CDOT believes that the existing box culvert would require major improvements prior to the additional development of this property. Jffice of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources (07/26/04) . No information has been provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. . The Colorado River is over-appropriated. Although a plan for augmentation is pending, the final form of the plan cannot be determined until a judge has signed it and the protest period has ended. 35 3/29/05 . bue to the lack of a water court approved plan for augmentation, the State Engineer finds that the proposed watet supply will cause materialinjury to decreed Water rights. Notthwest Colorado Council of Governments (07/06/04) . Overall the proposal meets with the policies and recommendations ofthe 208 plan. . If more than I acre of soil is disturbed, a CPDES Stormwater Permit will be required. . Eagle County will require secondary treatment on all ISDS systems. This may result in more complicated operational and maintenance needs. A regular system inspection and maintenance schedule is recommended. . Site grading and drainage should be done in a manner that does not concentrate runoff without providing some forrnof treaftnent. ColOrado State Forest Sernce (07/23/04) . The Wildfire hazlitd rating is moderate. . Dual access is recommended for additional safety. . Vegetation should be removed Or mowed within 40 feet of all homes Bureau of Land Management (07/14/04) . _ A small portion of public land exists on the north bankofthe river, and would border Lot 4 and Lot 5. Any development improvements on this land would require a BLM right-of-way permit. . The clearing of riparian vegetation along the river by the developer or the individual homeowners shduld be testri-cted . Given the above, a wildlife friendly boundary fence delineating public land from private land is recommended to control unintentional trespass and associated impacts. . Adjacent BLM lands are open to hunting and tlitget shooting. The BLM does not establi~h safety zones or no- shooting zones adjacent to private property. Colorado Division of 'Wildlife (12/24/02) . No additional concerns for Wildlife have been identified, and no additional comments or recommendations ar made at this time. Additional,Refettal.Aszendes (No Response): Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Animal Control, Eagle County Weed and Pest, Eagle County ASsessors, Eagle County School District, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Ds Army CoI7p of Engineers, Natural Resource ConservationSetvice, Qwest/PTl, Public Service Company, Holy Cross Electric, Town of Gypsum, Gypsum Fire Department. PubUcLettefslComments: No letters have been received. ])lSCUSSIONAND FINDINGS: PurSuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e, Standards for a PUD Preliminary Plan: StANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (I)] - The title to all land that is part oj a POb shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The subject property is owned by two separate entities, the Thelma C. Bair Revocable Trust and Richard and Luartne Mayne. Demonstration of "control" via assigned power of attorney or written consent has been received (please see power of authorization letter 02/13/03, attached). 36 3/29/05 [+]FINl>ING: Unified ownership or control. [Section S-240.FJ.e (I)] It HAS been demonstrated that the title to all land that is part of this PUD is owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential,Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", of Table 3-320, "Commercial andlndustfial Zone Districts Use Schedule"; for the zone district designation in effect for the property atthetiine of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authofized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., VafiatiOnSA uthotized. Proposed Uses in the pUb include: . Residential- single family homeS . Open Space All uses proposed 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 Resoutce Districts Use Schedule" within the existing Resource(R) zone district As provided in the Put:> Guide, accessory dwelling units will not be allowed. [+]FlNDlNG: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PlJD ARE those useS that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application fot POO. . STANDARD: Dimensionill Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] ~ The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUDshall 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 lifnitations may onlJi be authorized pursuant to Section 5- 240 F.3f., Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildingsfor necessary acCess andfire protection, and ensureproper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed for the POOare as restrictive or more restrictive than those specified in Table 3-340 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for the Resource (R) zone district, withthe exception oflot size. A minimUln lot size of 2.835 acres is proposed, whereas the Resource zone district (R) has a minimum lot size of thirty-five (35) acres. A variation in lot size has been requested by the Applicant (exhibit J of their application). The Board of Courtty Commissioners has considerable discretion in the establishment of appropriate stahdards within a proposed PUb. Referencing the above, it may be determined by the Board that the variation in lot size proposed for this project is appropriate given the project's location and design. PUrsuant to Condition# 16 ofthe approved sketch plan, the PUD Guide noW specifies a maximum house size of 4000 square feet for each lot, not including basements and garages. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] With the exception oflot size, the dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE the same or more restrictive than those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. The Applicant has requested a variance for lots smaller than 35 acres. 37 3/29/05 STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shated Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those USes to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the projects residents, guests (ind employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-StreetParkin~ 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. While specific information regarding parking has not been submitted, it is assumed that lots of 2.8 acreS and larger oil this gently sloping terrain will accommodate the pwking needs of the proposed single family homes. [+] FlN])fNG: Off-Street Patking a"d Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Off-street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD WILL comply with the,standards of Article 4, Division I, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. stANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and fllumination Standards. Variationsfrom these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, createS attractivestreetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Miniinalla:ndscaping is proposed. A landscaping plan has been provided in accordance to regulations. Standards fori1Iumination are appropriately covered in the draft PUD Guide, as are requirements for landscaping around each home. [+] FINDING: Lan:dscaping. [Section 5~240.F.3.e (5)] A Landscape Plan, adequately delineating specific areas that will be disturbed, or how existing trees, shrubs and I groundcover in these areas will preserved or replaced, or how the areas disturbed will otherwise be re-vegetated, HAS been submitted. StANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] ~ The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed ina Planned Unit Development (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUb. The proposed development contemplates residential and open space uses only. As Such, and at this time, no signs are proposed. The Eagle County Sheriff has recommended standard traffic speed control signs, and hoparkirtg signs on the streets. Appropriate traffic control signage is the responsibility of the developer (LUR Section 4-620.L) and the cost for signs will be included in the improvements agreement for this project at the time of Final Plat. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] No signs are contemplated by this plan. The sign standards applicable to the PUD SHALL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. 38 3/29/05 STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently lOcated in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+1 Potable Water surmlv. Potable water is proposed from individual wells through contract with the Colorado River Consetvation District. As detailed in the referral response from the State Engineer (01/10/03), the Colorado Rivet is over-appropriated, and a court approved water augmentation plan is needed. *1'he Applicant has provided a copy of the Water Augmentation Plan recently approved by the water courtfor this project. [+1 SewagedislJosal. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) are proposed. Soils investigationsW'ould indicate that ISDS will work, and Eagle County Environmental Health has suggested the use of secondary treatment. NWCCOG (07/06/04) has recommended that a regular system inspection and maintenance schedule be established for ISDS once they are installed (see condition # 7). [+/~1 Solid waste disposal. While the Applicant has submitted evidence indicating that there is a cornrnercial trash service company that currently has a truck small enough to fit through the box culvert, Sta:ff remains concerns with the long tenn availability of COIhrnercial service to this site given the restricted access. A requirement for bear-proof trash containers is specified in the PUD Guide. (+lElectrical suvvlv. A letter from Holy Cross Energy indicating a willingness to serve has been submitted. [+1 Fire protection. The Gypsum Fire Protection bistrict has indicated that they use the dimensions of the box culvert accessing the existing homes as Ii standard for sizing any new fire truck purchased by the department. In their referral response to the Sketch Plan, it Was noted that an adequate source of fire fighting water for the development was needed. The Applicant has worked with local lire officials, and is proposing an 8600 gallon tank (in accordance with National Fire Protection Manual, NFP A 11-42) be buried in proximity to the proposed vehicle turn around located at the end of the new access road. [+/-1 j{oads.Reference the referral response from both Eagle County Engineering (07/20/04) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (07121/04), a new access permit will be required for this project. *An access permit.has been issuedfor this project by the Colorado Department of TranspOrtation. This permit, copy attached, containS a number of conditions. A deviation from a variety of road standards will be required. the site presently has one point of access. Land Use Regulations require dual access, and the Colorado State Forest Service has recommended the same for additional safety in the event of a wildfire. The local fire authority has indicated no problem with the single access, and that they would use the interstate to access the property if a situation required it. CDOT haS indicated, however, that access directly from the interstate is not a possibility (letter from sketch plan review, 01/0/03, and more recently, 10/08/04). *The Applicant is requesting a deviation from standards that require dual access. Access to this site is restricted to a twelve foot wide by eleven foot tall single lane box culvert under 1-70. The radius of turns in the road at both entrances of the box culvert are sub-standard, a condition which cannot be mitigated given the adjacent terrain. * The Applicant is requesting a deviation from standards for the single lane box culvert entrance and the turn radii ~t both ends of the box culvert. Approximately 1800 feet of 20 foot wide paved frontage road in the Interstate right-of-way begins at the box culvert and travels west to the subject property. Approximately 1000 feet of new roadway would be required on private 39 3/29/05 lands to reach the new lots as proposed. Ji1 their referral response of July 20, 2004, Eagle County Engineering has recommended a 20 foot paved driving surface with 2 foot gravel shoulders for both the existing road and the new road extension. *The Applicant is' requesting deviations from road standards for the frontage road (areas with sub-standard shoulder width) and the new extended road (no paved surface). Engineering is also recommending that 400 feet of guardrail be installed on the south frontage road from the box culvert west *The Applicant would prefer to not install a guard rail, which was' not included in the conditions of the CDaT Access Permit. The Planning Commission, however, agreed with Engineering that a gual'drail should be installed (see condition # 1) . Engineering is also recornrnending a variety of improvements related to safety at the box culvert, to which the Applicant has suggested some revision. Please note additional discussion under "Safe, Efficient Access" on the following page. Ji1 aletter submitted October 30,2002, TDA Colorado, Ji1c. (traffic consultant) discussed a potential for headlight glare and a "traffic orientation perception problem" along a 250 footsection of the aCcess frontage road where it exists at approximately the same level as, and only 40 feet from, the east bound lane of Ji1terstate 70. At the time, TI)A recoIl1mended a suitable continuous headlight screen be installed in this area to mitigate this problem (Sketch Plan condition # 14). Referencing a follow up letter from TDA, the Applicant is now proposing that continuous headiight sCreen be installed only if" experience indicates this to be a pervasive problem" . Sta:fiquestions this approach. The problem of perception orientation would be just as ptominent for those on the east bound lane of the 1-70 as it would be for those using the frontage road to access the proposed subdivision. It is not possible to interview drivers who may have experienced a "perception problem" as they drove by on the interstate, and one momertt of confusion at 75 miles per hour could result in a tragedy. It is not cleat wh would assemble this data, this assessment of the "collective experience" of all drivers impacted, nor is it clear who would decide that a headlight screening fence should or should not be required, and when that decision would need to be made. Staff would aSsert that a potential haitrd has been identified, and that the hazard should be mitigated asa public safety improvement for the project. *the recently acquired CDOt Access permit includes a conditionfor the installation of a "barrier fence" between the Interstate and the subject property that would serve to both prevent unauthorized access and to screen car headlights. It does not specify, however, where this fence should be built or what form it should take. The Applicant has a conceptual proposal, but this issue remains essentially unresolved (see condition # 2). Afthe close of deliberation for the Sketch Plan for Siloam Springs, the Board of County Commissioners created Sketch Plan Condition #4, which requires a long term maintenance plan, acceptable to the Board, for the access road be submitted prior to the approval of a preliminary plan. This access road, including the box culvert, exists within the Ji1tetstate 70 right-of-way, and it would seem logical that any long tern maintenance plan would include actiVities or responsibilities provided by CDOT for travel routes within their road right-of-way. *While a eDaT access permit has recently been obtained, it does not specify all maintenance responsibilities, and no specific maintenance "agreement" that involves CDOT has been submitted. The Applicant has made the assumption that maintenance would be shared, that historic maintenance activities provided by CDOT will continue on the access road, and that any new facilities or improvements installed would be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association (HOA). Language to this effect has been included in the PUD Guide. Staff is concerned that a homeowners association representing five (5) rural lots might not have the financial resources, and would perhaps lack the collective incentive, required to assure the prompt and adequate maintenance of safety improvements proposed for the box culvert. 40 3/29/05 r + 7 Proximity to schools. police and fire protection. and emergency medical services. ' The nearest schools, police and fire protection are located in the Town of Gypsum, approximately 8 miles to the east. The nearest medical facilities/doctors office is located in Eagle, 15 miles to the east with the nearest hospital in Glenwood Springs, 20 mileS to the west. [+/-) FINJ)1NG: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)J The Applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal and electrical supply, and that it will be will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. However, the Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the development will be provided with reliable solid waste disposal or adequate road facilities. 8TAN])AIID: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (il) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (l)ormore of the minimum design standards afthe American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHtO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways; Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and commOn areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or uilits. 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 providefor smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Sn(}w Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. The plan submitted provides ample room forsnow storage. While aCcess is restricted to one 12 foot high by 11 foot wide box culvert, the Applicant has submitted evidence indicating that emergency vehicles will be able to access the site. * Approval of a deviation from the standard requiring dual access will be required. A deviation from roadway standards will also be required for the box culvert, for curve radiuses at each end of the culvert, for substandard shoulder widths and for the gravel road surface proposed for the new road extension. _he Eagle co, unty Trail, s Plan proposes a bike trail along the fr,ontage road on the north side of Ji1terstate 70 through .,~is area, and ECO Transit has indicated that that the nearest bus stop to Siloam Springs will be in the community of Two Rivers to the east (07/14/04). Two Rivers will additionally provide increasingly attractive amenities, and 41 3/29/05 thete is little doubt that residents of the proposed development, children included, will be inclined travel through thebox culvert - on foot or by bike, to reach the frontage road to the north. Since nO interna.l pathways are proposed, Eagle County Engineering has recommended that road shoulder widths be maintained at a minirnum of two feet to accommodate pedestrian and bike traffic. Ji1 addition, Engineering has suggested signs requiring headlights be installed at each entrance to the culvert, and that motion detectors be placed inside the culvert which would activate flashing stop lights at both entrances whenever a car, bike or person was inSide the tti11nel. * The recently acquired State Access Permit does not include all of Eagle County Engineering's suggestions for box culvert safety. CDOT has indicated (by phone call) that they would prefer to not have sophisticated instruments or devises installed in the box culvert, since they may require considerable maintenance. The Applicant has provided a variety of other options, the most recent beingmanuaily activated lights in the tunnel which could be turned on by bikers or pedestrians before entering. The lights would be on a timer and would autOmatically turn off. A final plan for safety features at the box culvert has yet to be established. (+/-)FINDlNG: I-mprlJvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] Concerns for safety, hazards and smooth traffic flow given the single restricted access remain. The~Applicant MAYbe able to demonstrate thatdeviatiohs from various standards should be granted, and that improvements will otherwise be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. . stANDARD: Compatibility with SurtlJund,ng Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land USes. This area is Eagle County's western front door. If approved, this would be the first residential developmeIlt witnessed by travelers entering Eagle County from the Glenwood Canyon. The site is bounded on three sides by open range land zoned Resource (:R.) and to the north by the 1-70 cOrridor. Two residential homes exist, one on the subject property and one to the east on a one acre parcel owned by others (the Bair Exemption). While additional dwellings would be compatible with the homes already on the site, this standard infers compatibility with j'sutrounding" land uses. With the ex.ception of the interstate corridor, the lands surrounding this property ate undeveloped. Although somewhat distant, the development ofthe Two Rivers Project to the east provides opportUnity for a finding Of compatibility. Sirtgle family homes in Siloam Springs would be separated from residential development inl'W() RiverS by over 1/2 mile, but when j'spatially experiertced" at highway speeds, the two developments could appear to berela:ted, with the Siloarn Springs development providing a lower density "transition" to the West. Ji1 response to the Board of Commissioner's suggestions at sketch plan, the applicant has reduced the density on this site from 6 units to 5, (sketch plan condition #7), has eliminated the option for accessory dwelling units, and has set a max.imum dwelling unit size of 4000 square feet (a response to sketch plan condition # 16), excluding basements artd'garages. Staff would note that 4000 square feet is significantly larger than the majority ofhomes proposed for Two Rivers. The proposed lots are generously sized. Affordable housing provisions are not proposed. [+/_] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] While the proposed development represents a use dissimilar to uses on lands immediately adjacent, the Board MAY determine that this low density residential development is compatible with the intended character of the Dotsero area and the Two Rivers Planned Unit Development to the east. This land doesn't have a common border with Two Rivers and as such is somewhat isolated. 42 3/29/05 S'I'ANDAlID: Consisten'Cywith Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLl1: COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Communit FLUM Oualitv Recreation Housing v Services Cohfornillnce Noh Confornillnce Mixed X X X X Conforrtiance Not X X X APplicable EnVirolllllental Ollalitv- Guiding policy 2, pg 62) The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) has noted that the Colorado River may not yet be' in equilibrium given the changes created by the construction of 1-70 and the filling of the flood plain which was recently completed to create a building site for Two Rivers (07/21/04). As such, cas states that .jit is impossible to quantify the risks from channel migration, erosion and undercutting" for this project. Measures have been proposed within the PUI:> Guide to protect riparian areas along and adjacent to the river corridor. ()j)enSoacelRecteatioll - Guiding policy 3, pg 66) The proposed development will occur in the open space "break" currently present between Dotsero and the mouth of the Glenwood Canyon. Development - Guiding policy 1, pg 68) Development of the subject property is not consistent with the FLUM, which indicates "Rural", or densities of one unit per 35 acres. The FLUM does provide that small concentrations of homes may occur in rural areas. By approving the two Rivers PUD to the east, the Board has previously indicated that densities higher than that indicated by the FLUM are appropriate for the D()tsefo area. FLtTNf - the Future Land Use Map indicates this area as "Rural", specifying densities of one unit per 35 acres. PUD's are not listed as zone districts that would fit in this land designation. The FLUM does provide that small concentrations of homes may occur in rural areas, so long as they are surrounded by large open space tracts. EAGLl1: COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooneratioil ProvisiOn Preservatioll OualitY , Patterns . ConfOrmance " X X Non Conform:ance Mixed X X X COnIOrnillnce Not X X Alllllicable Visual Qualitv - the open space visual quality Map indicates this area as "moderately constrained" for development, with the river corridor being "prohibited" from development. It is noted that the visual quality map shows much of the approved Two Rivers pun similarly constrained and/or prohibited to development. DeveloJ)menlPatterns - The area to be developed is, and will be, cOl1siderably separated from an existing cotl1tnUfiity. It could be viewed, however, as a detached suburb of the Two RiverS residential development. Hazards - Given the dynamic nature of the Colorado River in this area, the Colorado Geological Survey is unable . to say that the area is free from risks associated with rivet -migration, undercutting, and bank erosion. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families; senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan . . . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes 43 3/29/05 . Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of governn'1ent, there will be only limited success . It is important to preserve existing local residents housing . Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs No provisions are proposed to restrict property ownership or control real estate values within the development. Generally large lots and the fact that manufactured homes will not be a possibility will likely result in somewhat more expensive properties. The applicant is proposing to limit home sizes to 4000 squ.are feet, excluding basements and garages. 111 their referral request of August 3, 2004, Eagle County Housing noted the Board's desire (expressed at sketch plan) to disallow accesSory dwelling units on this property. As such, and for record, the Housing Department has suggested that the Applicant formally request an exemption: from Eagle County Housing guidelines. At the writing of this report, the applicant has not responded to this request. [+/_] J?lNDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-24().F.3.e (10)] It HAS NOT been detehrtined that the proposed PUI> will be consistent with all policies of applicable' Master Plans and the Future Land Use Map. The Board MAY determine, however, that departures from master plan policies identified above are not significant given the nature, scale and location of this proposal. Future land use plan does not show this as future development area. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan Jot the development. ,/fdevelopment of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided fot public, improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit t6 the entire County. Such public improvements shall be cOf1St'rJ1cted with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The Applicant has indicated that all infrastructures will be installed in one phase. PUblic improvements must be constructed in accordance with Section 5-240.F.3.e (11), Phasing, and other Sections of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicant will be required to provide cost estimates, sufficiently detailed to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer, prior to approval of the Final Plat for the development. [+J FtNl)lNG: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] A phasing plan lIAS been proposed for this development, with the Applicant planning to install all infrastructUte at one time. A specific Site Development Schedule sufficient to meet the requirements of this standard, to include guarantees' for all public improvements, WILL BE required at application for Final Plat. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)J - 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 shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum often (JO) 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 numbe of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average 44 3/29/05 number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (i) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ol-ways, and areas with slopes gre,ater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (ii) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible froin all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (c) Contlnuinf{ Use and Maintenance. Alfprivately owned cominon open space shall continue to conf~rm to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. r 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 culturalfacilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall providefor the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secureddequate 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 far all landowners within the PUD. A separate open space tract of approximately 17 acres (40% of the total land area) is proposed. While a s:t;nall piece of this tract exists to the east ofthe Bair Exemption parcel on the north side of the river, the majority exists within the river and on a bench located approximately 90 vertical feet above the river and south of the railtoad ROW, which parallels the river's soUthern banle This area is indicated on county maps as deer winter range, No .mptove~ents providing accesS to the open space area south of the river are proposed. Maintenance of the open space tract will be the responsibility of the homeowners association (HOA). Specific restrictions intended to ensure the continued use and maintenance of open space areas, which in this case are inteIlded to be left in a natural state, have been included in the PUD Guide. [+] FJN])ING: CoinftUJlI Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3:e (12)] It HAS been fully demonstrated that The PtTD will comply with the COrnInon recreation and open space standards related to: a) Minimum Area; b) Improvements Required; e) Continuing use and maintenance; and d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The referral agencies that have responded regarding this application are indicated on page three, four and five of this report. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, in their letter of July 26, 2004, referenced a referral response to the sketch plan for Siloam Springs, and indicated no additional concerns or recommendations. The Applicant has included provisions for wildlife friendly fences, bear-proof trash containers and dog control in the PUD Guide. The Colorado Geologic Survey referenced their letter dated January 14,2003 (submitted for the sketch plan) tating that the Applicant's geologic engineer has addressed the concerns identified at that time. CGS did indicate, owever, that the Colorado River is likely still evolving toward a new equilibrium in this area as a result ofthe construction of the interstate and the recent filling of the flood plain at Two Rivers. As such, it is not possible to 45 3/29/05 sta.te with certainty that the project would be free from risks associated with channel migration, erosion and/or undercutting. Soils would appear to be suitable for ISDS. Per la.nd Use regulations, the Applicant has used a combination of the high water mark and the floodplain to determine an appropriate setback from the river for building envelopes, and is proposing secondary treatment for seWa.ge disposal systems. the existing home on the property is close to a bank that has been undercut by the river. A new envelope for this home is proposed in a safer location on the new Lot 5, and the Applicllnt has indicated that the building win be moved. A plat note indicating the non-conformity of this existing structure will be required at Final Plat (see condition # 4). The Colorado State Forest Service has indicated a wildfire hazard rating of Moderate, which is consistent with Eagle Co1.ii1ty wildfire hazard maps, and has recotntnended the standard application of appropriate construction materials and cleat zoties. CSFS also recotntnended two points of acceSs for additional safety. The PUD Guide cOhtains specific information regarding appropriate bmdscaping in and around homes relative to clear zones, and wildfire safety. The Applicant will be requesting a variance from the requirement for dual access. ThelJtit~auofLaIldMa.lia.gement indicated in their referral response of 07114/04 a concern for that small portion ofBLMlahd that will border proposed Lots # 4 and # 5 on the north side of the river, and stated that any improvemeritsin this area would reqUire a BLM right-of-way permit. In' addition, the BLM suggested a wildlife mendlyfencebe installed to delineate private from public lands in this area and to discourage unintentional trespass and associated impacts to public resources (it is noted that the BLM lands referenced are largely riparian in hature).Theagency also stressed the importance of pie serving the riparian zones along the river and suggested that restrictions be added to the project (the pun Guide) in this regard. *TftePUJ) Guide ndw contains prOVisions to protect riparian areas along the Colorado River. Afence indicating the boundary of public and private lands is listed in this report as a condition, however, the Applicant has offered signs along the boundary as an alternative approach. The Gypsum:Fire Protection District has indicated that they will be able to serve the site. Per the PUD Guide, construction practices and/or materials consistent with Eagle County Wildfire Regulations will be followed, to include a 30 foot clear zone that will be required around each residence. An emergency service vehicle turn arotiiid has been provided at the terminus of the new road, as has an 8600 gallon water tank, which win supply fire fighting water. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the standard requiting two points of access to this property. [+/_] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)) It HAS beeh demonstrated that the PUD has considered the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recotntnendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, NaturalResource Protection Standards. An alternative to the request for fencing made by the BLM is- propoSed, and the Applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement for dual access, as suggested by the Colorado State Forest Service. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sk~tch Pllln'for SubdiVision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above on pages 14 and 15, "Consistency with Master Plan." [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] 46 3/29/05 (+/-) FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] It HAS NOT been determined that the proposed PUD will be consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans and the Future Land Use Map. The Board MAY determine, however, that departures from master plan policies identified above are not significant given the nature, scale and location of this proposal. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] Uses - Uses proposed, Residential and Open Space, are consistent with those allowed by right, by limited review or by special use in the Resource zone district. Accessory Dwelling Units are not pr6posed as an allowed USe. [+/ -] Lot dimensi6ns - PurSuant to Section 5-240 .F.3 .f., Variations Authorized for a PVD, a Variation would be required for lots smaller than 35 acres, which is the minimum allowed in the Resource (R) zone district. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Given the proposed uses, density, and lot sizes, conformance to related standards should not be a problem. [+] Landscaping- and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The Applicant has provided information regarding what areas will be disturbed and how existing shrubs and groundcover will be preserved, replaced Or how grounds will otherwise be re-vegetated. Illumination Standards have been addressed in the PVD Guide: [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Si~s are not specifically proposed for the development. The Eagle County Sheriffhas suggested speed control bumps, speed limit signs, and no parking signs on the street Within the development. Eagle County Engineering Will require road signs be installed as a public improvement. To the extent that signs are used, they will conform to this Division of the Land Use Regulations. [+/-] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - 'The Colorado Division of Wildlife in their letter dated i 07/26/04 indicated no additional concerns for wildlife. [+/-] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420)- CGS has indicated that the Colorado River in this area is likely seeking a new equilibrium as it reacts to changes from the construction of 1-70 and the Two Rivers flood plain land-fill project. Some risk from channel migration may still exist. See discussion above on page 18. [+/-] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - With the exception of dual access, related standards have been addressed. The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement for two points of access to this property. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The use and control of wood burning devises is adequately addressed in the PUD Guide, and will conform to Eagle County standards 47 3/29/05 [N/A] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not within a designated ridgeline area as depicted on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The applicant has provided discussion for each item iisted "a" through "0" in Section 4-460 E.2, Environmental Conditions.l11tpacts to the environment are anticipated to be minimal. Deer winter range on the property (south of the river) will be left as open space. The proposed lots front the Colorado River and each will contain some amount ofland that supports riparianyegetation. The PUD Guide includes language that restricts activities within or modifications to riparian or wetland areas. [N/A] Cot11IrierCial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5 The proposed development includes no cotntnercial or industrial uses. These standards do not apply. [+/-] Improvement Stahdards (Division 4-6) [+/_] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - Eagle County Engineering is recotntnending a 20' wide road with 2' shoulders for both the ~X:isting acceSs road and the neW road proposed for the development"and has identified a number of improvements which should be installed in and around the box culvert to improve safety. The Applicantis requesting a deviation from standards for thetutn radii at the entrances to the box culvert, the box culvert itself, asingle point of access, and the standards for shoulder width on the frontage road and standards for surfacing on the new road proposed within the development. [+/-] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - Access to publictransporta.tidrt and off-site linkages to County bike and pedestrian trails should be provided. HoweVer, no internal or connecting sidewalks or trails are proposed. Engineering has noted the importance of constructing the access road shoulders to the full 2 foot dimension to accommodate future pedestrian and bike traffic, and has also recorttmended a variety of improvements to the box culvert, including motion sensors, lighting and flashing stop signs, to help reduce hazards to vehicles and pedestrians. The discussion remains open regarding the final best solution to hazards at the box culvert. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - Limited outdoor irrigation is proposed using water from the Colorado River. A fully executed court approved augmentation plan has been received, and includes provision for i,nigation of areas around each residence. Plans for outdoor irrigation shall be subject to a review by the Director of Environmental health relative to potential impacts on sewage disposal systems. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) -,- A full drainage report and stormwater control plan has been submitted. Per the referral response from Eagle County Engineering (07/20/04), water detention for runoff must be designed to accommodate the entire development, and will be required as a public improvement. * The Applicant has recently submitted a drainage planfor the project which addresses the above stated concerns. A Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit will be required if more than one acre will be disturbed by construction (letter from NWCCOG, 07/06/04, see condition # 6). [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - A grading and erosion control plan has been submitted. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The proposed plan adequately addresses these standards. 48 3/29/05 [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Please see earlier discussion under Adequate Facilities. Potable water is proposed to be provided by wells, and the Applicant has submitted evidence of a fully executed court approved water augmentation plan for the project. An 8600 gallon water tank is proposed to satisfy the local fire district's need for on-sit~ fire suppression water. Lacking a referral response from the GypsumPire District, it is assumed that this is sufficient. Ji1formation regarding the long term monitoring and maintenance of the tank: has been included in the PUD Guide. [+/_] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sanitary sewage disposal is to be provided by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems, with the addition of secondary treatment. Proper siting and installation will be assured through the permit process with Eagle County Environmental Health. NWCCOG has recommended a regular inspection schedule be established for all ISDS systems. No specific responsibility has been assigned, and no inspection program has been proposed, althqughit is assumed that the Homeowners association will be charged with this duty (see condition # 1). [+] IfrtpactFees.a.nd Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Reference response from the School District (12/20/02), cash-in-lieu of school land dedication in the amount of $2174.00 is preferred. Payment will be due as a part of Final Plat Approval. Road impact fees will be assessed at the time of application for building permit per applicable Eagle County regulations. [+/-] FlN])ING: Consistent With Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] , It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PuD complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site bevelopment Standards. The Board MAY detetIlline, however, that departures from applicable standards identified above are not sighificant given the nature, scale and location of this proposal. stANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) cJtility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan Of shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eaf!le Countv Road CaDita! ImProvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. ' (c) Coordinate' Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed development should not create any of the inefficiencies, duplications or leapfrog development patterns contemplated by this standard. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3..e (3)] The proposed subdivision SHALL be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, onesult in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANJ)ARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made 49 3/29/05 hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing andptobable future public improvements to the area. Reference therefertal response from CGS (07/21/04), the Applicant's geological engineer has adequately addressed cOncerns regarding geologic hazard identified during sketch plan. It is noted however, that the Colorado River through this area may be in a period of adjustment as a result of the construction o:f the interstate and the more recent filling in of the flood plain to accommodate the Two Rivers development. River migration and related bank erosion is mentioned as a possibility. A concern for "suitability" given the restricted nature of the access to the site remains. Dual access is not available, and the Applicant will be requesting a variance from this standard. Concrete trucks, drilling rigs, pre-fabricated homes, pre-fabricated building materials (roof trusses), full sized trash trucks and moving vans oftypicalsize will not be able to access the site. This will increase -the cost of construction for homes and otherwise cteate the occasional inconvenience. Emergency and other service vehicles will be able to access the site. Engineering has recommended a number of improveIilents including lights, signs and motion detectors that could be installed at and arourtd the box culVert to improve safety to motorists and pedestrians. The applicant has offered Some alternatives, and a final determination as to what should be done in this area has not yet been made. While the Colorado Depatttnent of transportation originally recommended that "no additional development be allowed unless major improvements are made to the box culvert", they have recently issued an access permit, with conditions, for the project (see attached). [+/-] FINDING: Suitability/or Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the property proposed to be developed is suitable for development, considering its environmental resourceS and natural and manmade hazards. stANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e(5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not -adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please note, earlier discussion on a es 14 and 15. [+/oo]FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] While the proposed development represents a uSe dissimilar to uses on lands imrilediately adjacent, the Board MAY determine that this low density residential development is compatible with the intended character ofthe Dotsero area and the Two Rivers Planned Unit Development to the east. AJ)DITIONAL FINDINGS: Putsuaiitto Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section S-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: "to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development oftheir land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations." This Section goes on to say that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: a. Permit integration of uses; b. Establish more efficient land use patterns; 50 3/29/05 c. Preserve lands; d. Maintain water quality and quantity; e. Contribute to trails system; f. Establish incentives for affordable housing; and g. Be consistent with the Master Plan. the design of this Pun has been customized to fit 5 lots on an isolated property bounded on one side by the Colorado River and on the other by Interstate 70. Seventeen (17) acres identified as deer winter range 011 the south side of the river will be set aside and maintained as natural as,open space. , The Applicant has submitted a draft Pun'Gtiide, which addresses proposed uses, dimensional limitations, landscaping, signs, site lighting and open space maintenance. Suggestions for modifications to the Guide to clarify terms, better address maintenance and protect natural resources on the property have been addressed. [+] FlN])ING: POD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant BAS submitted a PUD guide that sufficiently addresses the requirements of this Section. Furtherniore, the Applicant HAS demonstrated that the purposes of PUD zoning are being served by the proposed development. Reauirements for aZolle CJialli!e Ji1 Section 5-240.1>., Standards, the Eagle CountyLand Use Regulatiblls \ provide that "the wisdom of amending the . . . Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter comnriffed to the legislative discretion of the Board ofCotinty COnltnissionersand is not _ c()i1trolled by anyone factor." Based on the above analysis and other available il1forniation, Staffmakesthe following findings as provided in this section of the Land Use Regulations: [+/-] ConsiStency With Master Plan. It HAS NOt been deterniined that the proposed 1>tJI) will be consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans and the Future Land Use Map. The Board MAY determine, however, that departures from master plan policies identified above are not significant given the nature, scale and location of this proposal. [+/-] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment to the zone district map IS NOT compatible with existing and/or proposed uses surrounding the subject land, but it MAYBE found compatible with the overall development of the Dotsero area. Pun IS an appropriate Zone district for the land, considering the intent and purpose of its design. [+/-]Changed conditions. There are changed conditions in the area which MAY justify a change inthe zone district for this property. [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed development WILt NOT adversely effect the natural environment. HCommunity need. It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the proposed amendment would address a community need. 51 3/29/05 [+/ _] Development patterns. The proposed amendment MAY result in a logical and orderly development pattern, but MAY also constitute spO't zoning. The area can be provided with most, but not all, public facilities and services. [-] Public interest. While changes have occurred in this area, it HAS NOT been sufficiently demonstrated that the area is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density on this property. Tom Boni, Planner from Knight Planning Services, and ~ick Mayne, owner of the property, Were present. Cliff Simonton, Senior Planner, presented a Power Point slide show relative to the application. He stated that the applicant is proposing a zone change for 5 lots, ranging from 2.8 to 5 acres in size. There would be 17 acres set aside for permanent open space. Water is proposed through private wells and the applicant has received a court- approved augmentation plan for water use. There is O'ne point of access to this property, through a box culvert that croSses under 1-70. He explained that the box culvert also serves as a drainage location during instances of Significant precipitation or runoff. Construction of the interstate has changed the runoff pattern, concentrating it. He indicated the location o:fthe box culvert. He reviewed the chronology of the file. The Bair exemption carved out a piece of the area in the 1970's and is privately-owned, not part of the existing pUb. He showed the lot lineS and the open space. This development would be the first formal development one would see when entering Eagle County from Glenwood Canyon. He showed a natural berm which would hide the property to a degree. The entrance to the box culvert will require great care as cars cannot get lined up with the box culvert prior to entering it. Safety improvements are proposed to help with this issue, which will be sumlnari:zed later. He indica.tedthat findings are ttiixed for the project, which indicates a lack of perfection in relation to the standards. There is also some subjectivity involved. Ji1 this case, staff would defer to the discretion of the Board. Potential issues include the number of deviations from the road standards, which the Board will have to approve: o Single point of access o One lane box culvert o Turn radii at both ends are substandard o Ji1sufficient shoulder width on the frontage road in some places. Early engineering reports indicated a minimum of 24 feet and the road is not this wide in several places, and Plal11iihg Commission indicated the need for a guardrail, agreeing with Engineering. o Gravel road is requested for the new road's surfaces Restricted nature of access, the safety of the access, and the maintenance of the access and safety features are , among other issues. Mr. Simonton indicated that smaller sewer service trucks, dump trucks, fire trucks; and ambulances could fit through, but cement trucks would not fit through, nor would standard moving vans, garbage trucks, prefab homes, prefab building parts, and other types of trucks. He isn't sure about boom trucks or drilling rigs. The biggest safety concern is for pedestrians and bicycles. CDOT has proposed a circular mirror to allow someone approaching the culvert to see into the culvert, along with significant signage, including a stop sign. In addition, to alleviate the safety concerns inside of the tunnel, several options are available including a motion sensor and a manual switch at each side to' allow a light to be turned on and be put on a timer. - As far as maintenance goes, a plan needed to be submitted as a condition of sketch plan. They believe CDOT will continue to maintain the road, but the homeowner's association will be responsible for the maintenance of the' mirror and the lighting in the tunnel. Staff is concerned about maintenance because, if COOT is nO't able to maintain the road, the homeowner's association must step up and provide it. Staff is concerned about a five homeowner association being financially able to afford these types of maintenance. He indicated an area where a headlight screen would be installed, but this fence has not yet been designed or approved. The applicant will have to go back to COOT for this fence, but would like to have approval prior to having to do so. Septic system maintenance is also of concern because of the close proximity to the river. NWCOG was concerned that some sort of maintenance schedule be provided by the homeowner's association. The PUD guide limits the size of the home on Lot 1 to 4,000 square feet, not including garages or basements. For homes larger than 2,000 square feet there must be variety in the roof forms. The BLM required that a fence be provided between 52 3/29/05 the properties and the riparian are.as. They are concerned about the sensitive nature of the riparian habitat. He indicated that the home on Lot 5 is located next to a very steep and high cutbank. There is an opinion that the river has changed and its energy is focused on the other side ofthe river, thus ending the cutting. The new building envelope was based on the cutbank. Staff is asking for a plat note that would require a change in the building envelope, as it was originally situated. Mr. Simonton showed some slides of the other box culverts in Eagle COUIlty. He showed Wapiti Road, Red Canyon Estates, and Columbine Road in East Vail. All culverts are 14 x 14, with the exception of Siloam Springs, which is II x 12. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Simonton to go through the +/- findings and explain each. Mr. Simohtonwent through the +/- findings and explained the reasoning behind each. Walter Mathews, Deputy County Attorney, asked Mr. Simonton why the applicants are asking for a deviation from standards rather than a variance from improvement standards. , ,.,., , '", ," . Mr. Sim'Onton indicated that it had to do with the language in the Land Use Regulations. . Coft1rl1issioner Stone stated that Cordillera went through the same process as this applicant did, with similar toads,ahd they needed to' get a variance. Mr. Mathews stated that Heritage Park was also similar. Justin Hildreth of Engineering explained the reason for this difference. Commissioner Stone thought that the applicant needed to apply for it and be granted it, whether it was a variauce or a deviance. Chairman Menconi asked about the difference between a deviation arid a variance and when a hardship needed to be demonstrated. Mr., Simonton explained that a hardship is only necessary when asking for a variance from zoning standards; Mr. Mathews explained that the standards require that the applicant must demonstrate the hardship. He believes that a deviation and variance are the same. Mr. Hildreth explained that a variance is not as strict. Mr. Simonton Stated that there is not a requirement that would make the applicant list their hardships. Mr. Mathews explained that he didn't believe there was a difference. Mr. Hildreth referred to 5-35 (8), which states "Improvements Standards applicable to the developmerit shall Ie specified in Article 4, Division 6 :(mprovements Standards, provided. However, the development may deviate from the County's road standards so the development achieves better efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact form of development or achieves greater sensitivity from ellvirOl1tnental impacts and the folloWing minimum design principles are followed." He then highlighted those points. Chairtrran Mericoni asked when staff determined which direction to go. Mr. lIildreth stated that the applicant could request a deviance or a variation when they apply for a pUb. Cort1missioner Stone stated that he understands that a pOO has to go through a sketch, preliminary, and fmal approval process, which is a pretty rigorous process. 'He stated that, with Heritage Park, the,Board of County Commissioners required a variance from improvement standards prior to approval. Mr. Montag stated that the Board had to be satisfied that these deviations were adequately addressed by the applicant. Chairman Menconi stated that a variance is stricter and must show hardship, but a deviation does not. If a variance is granted subjectively, a precedent would be created. He spoke about the Town ofMiIiturn and their history of granting variances without showing hardships. ~r. Matthews stated that each file had to be looked at on a case by case basis and might be different. Mr. Simonton then went over the remaining +/- findings with the Board. Dick Mayne, the applicant, and Tom Boni, representing the applicant, spoke to the Board. Mr. Boni indicated that sketch plan approval was received two years prior. They had to come up with a water augmentation plan and highway access approval. They have worked diligently and come forward with the necessary permits in place and a plan in place. He reminded the Board that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. He showed several slides of the relationship ofthe proposed development to the Two Rivers project. They are requesting a rural development of 5 lots on 35 acres, or a one unit per 7 acre average. The application includes a 16 acre open space dedication. They eliminated one home site to make the remaining sites more spacious. He showed several photographs of the property. Commissioner Stone asked if the Highway Department had assumed maintenance of the road. Mr. Boni indicated that they had. He spoke of his visit to the site with Ray Merry of Environmental Health and spoke of Ray's suggestions, which the applicant will follow. He reviewed the history of this project, especially with regards to conditions and receiving the proper permits. He spoke about surrounding development and 53 3/29/05 commercial uses including Stephens' Nursery, the Two Rivers development, Dotsero Ranch PUD, and Commercial General zoning. He spoke about the identity of the Dotsero Community including diversity, community center, and n'eighborhoods. They are attempting to add diversity at the perimeter of the Dotsero community center. They are creating the opportUnity for residents to have a rural lifestyle with reasonable proximity to schools and commercial and recreation facilities. The site planning has been responsive to concerns of staff and commission members. He spoke about concern for dual access. He quoted from the land use regulations which state that this is fequired unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. Based on the fact that emefgency Service vehicles would be able to access the property, they believe that the requirement for two access points could be waived. Th~e a.re many places in Eagle County with only one point of access. The Gypsum Fire Chief has reviewed this application aild supports it. He spoke about all the other conditions of approval and explained how the applicant had addressed and fesolved them. He provided the Board with a landscape plan fOf the project. The State Highway Department is looking for specific types of plants close to the highway, such as low shrubs and bushes. He spoke about the access in the past from the interstate and the fact that their landscape plan would be such, that it would prohibit this possibility, They feel that they have adequately addressed the conditions of sketch plan approval, received the necessary permits, and obtained water augmentation plan approval. Because of this they believe that Siloam Springs should be granted approval for development. Dick Mayne, the owner, spoke to the Board. He stated that this property had been in his family fOf more than 50 years, afid he ha.s been directly involved for 26 years. He spoke about flooding that had occUITedand indicated tha:fit ha.sonly occutfed three times in the past that he was aware of. He informed the Board that back hoes, lumber trucks, lihdelecttic company trucks fit through the culvert. He indicated that he had received a lot of interest in the lots because of the river frontage. Many of the interested parties believe the box culvert would restrict access to the properties and see that as a positive. He reiterated that the river flow has been altered, alleviating the concerns. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. there was nOne. He closed public comment. Commissioner Stone thanked the applicant for their tenacity in attempting to answer concerns of staff and cot11ll1issioners. He believes that it is consistent with the Master Plan. His main concern has been the box culvert. All three other communities which have access through such culverts service many more homes than this one would service. He doesn't recall tha.t there has ever been a problem with other such culverts. He suggested that the applicant develop a plan for maintenance ofthe sewage disposal systems, in addition to collecting a fee that the Department of Environmental Health recommends to cover the requited maintenance. He is concerned that a homeowner would not be able to afford the type of necessary maintenance. He suggested a maintenance reserve accouIlt. Ray Merry of Environmental Health indicated that he believed something like that could be worked out to accomplish routine maintenance and repair. CommiSSioner Stone wondered if CDOT would perrnanently maintain the road. Mr. Mayne indicated that CDOT felt they had a court decree to do so. Cortln1issioner Runyon indicated that he is also concerned about the sewage. He is not concerned about the cUlvert. He added that some sort of visual mitigation from the houses in lots one and two would be desired. He asked that vegetative mitigation be required so that it would blend in to the surrotil1ding vegetation. Mr. Boni indicated that the specific landscaping fequirement could be added to the PUD guide. Mr. Mayne indicated that a visual and sound barrier would be desirable to make the lots more attractive. Chairman Menconi thanked the applicant for his presentation. He was concerned about the number of til1its and sa.fety of the culvert and is still concerned about the culvert. He has gone through the area on a day that it was Hooding and was surprised to see what was occurring there. He can't imagine that this issUe has been handled positively. FIe asked for more detail from Mr. Hildreth arid Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, related to the box culvert. Ms. Migchelbrink stated she has a lot of concerns about this issue. Many times people have broken through the fence from 1-70, which is why she turned the authority back to the state. Chairman Menconi wondered what the Engineenng Department felt related to safety hazard and smooth traffic flow. Ms. Migchelbrink indicated she would give it a negative fmding. She stated that access is restricted and, as such, prohibits it from being safe. Chairlllan Menconi felt that the steepness of the entrances would create problems. He asked whether an 11 foot high culvert versus a 14 foot high culvert is a considerable difference. Ms. Migchelbrink concurred, especially when talking about vehicles. Chairman Menconi stated that 24 findings were +/- and left to the discretion of the commissioners. He indicated that he would be more comfortable with the total development being three units. 54 3/29/05 Commissioner Stone moved that the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approve Files No. PDP-00028 and ZC-00070, incorporating staff findings, wIth the following conditions: 1) That all road safety improvements detailed in the memorandum dated 07/20/04 from :Eagle County Engineering, including the installation of a guard rail on the access road, lighting in the box culvert and pressure or motion activated signage at the tunnel entrances, shall be incorporated into the plan and made part of the public improvements required for the project at application for final plat. 2) That all road safety improvements detailed in the letter from TDA Colorado dated 10/30/04, and listed as conditions on the Colorado Department of Transportation Access Permit # 304163 (improvements which will subsequently be designed by the Applicant and approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation and Eagle County Engineering), be incorporated into the plan and made part of the public improvements required for the project at application for final plat. . 3) That prior to the signing of a resolution approving this Preliminary Plan and Zone Change, the Applicant shall provide a plan, acceptable to the Board, for the. long term up-keep and maintenance of the road that accesses the subject property and the safety and traffic control devises installed in and around the box culvert. 4) That a note be provided on the final plat for Siloam springs that discloses the non-conforming stafus of the existing house on Lot # 5. The note shall indicate that no building or septic permits will be issued for improvements on Lot # 5 until such time that the house is relocated to the neW building envelope. 5) That reference the letter from the Bureau of Land Management dated 07/14/04, a wildlife friendly fence shall be constructed along the southern perimeter of Lot #4 and Lot # 5 where private property abuts BLM lands. The'installation of this fence shall be made part of the public improvements required for Siloam Springs at final plat, and the long term maintenance of the fence shall be addressed in the Siloam Springs PUb Guide. 6) That prior to any site grading, the Applicant shall obtain a Colorado Pollution Discharge Elimination System (CPDE) Permit, as referenced in the referral response from the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. 7) That application for final plat for SiloamSprings shall include a plan, acceptable to the Board of County Corn:m:issionets, for the periodic inspection and maintenance of Individual Sewage Disposal, Systems (lSDS) as referen.ced in the referral response from the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. 8) that all residential structures shall he equipped with self contained fire suppression sprinkler systems per NFPA 13-D guidelines, as adopted by Eagle County. 9) That 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. Mr. Boni asked about the length of the guardrail suggested and asked if that was something that could be site determined before fmal plat. Ms. Migchelbrink felt that could be don.e. Mr. Boni then asked about Condition #1 and ifthe mahual activation of lights and the inclusion ofa stop sign were acceptable. COIl1missioner Stone felt that it was, and amended the motion to include this discussion. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Commissioners Runyon and Stone voted in favor and Chairman Men.coni voted against. adjourned until April 5, 2005. Clerk to the Board lru:~~{ ~ I~ 55 3/29/05