The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 04/04/05 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING April 4, 2005 Present: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Jack Ingstad Diane Mauriello Don DuBois Chairman Commissioner Connnissioner County Administrator County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a Special Public Hearing, the following item was presented to the Board of County Connnissioners for their consideration: Planning File PDS..00042 .""""GreenRanch POD Sketch Plan Bob Nattacci, Community Development NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 3/15105 , To allow twenty-one (21) additional single family cluster homes, one (1) single family caretaker residence and one (1) existing single family residence for a total of 23 homes on 28.283 acres. TITLE: LOCATION: OWmR: ,ppLICANT: . EPRESENTATIVE: Green Ranch Planned Unit Development 777 Lake Creek Road! on the east side of Lake Creek Road approximately three.. quarters ofatnile south of U.S. Highway 6. Frederick D. Green Owner Pyirnan & Associates (Rick Pylman) STAFF RltCOMMENDATION: Prior to any action on this applicatiOn, the applicant must fully address to the Board of County Commissioner' s satisfaction the issues of visual quality, traffic impacts on Lake Creek ROad and associatedoff..site improvements, as well as the requirement fOr dual~access and safe pedestrian circulation, both on and off site. lfthe issues of Visual Quality, Traffic Impacts and bff~Site Road Improvements, Dual-Access and Safe Pedestrian Circulation are not sufficiently addressed, then Sketch Plan approval should not be granted. If these iSsues are sufficiently addressed, then Staff can recommend conditional approval. pLANNIN.G COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: After a site visit and three hearings;, the Eagle County . Planning Connnissioners reconnnended conditional approval of this proposal by a vote of four (4) to one (1). Their concerns pertained to: · The density proposed on the upper bench of the subject property as related to the Visual Quality and character of the Lake Creek Valley; · Lack of a secondary point of emergency ingress! egress; · Equitable contributiOn by applicant toward improvement of the Lake Creek Road / U.S. Highway 6 intersection; · Pedestrian movement on Lake Creek Road from the subject property north to the existing trail! sidewalk which currently terminates at the Edwards Elementary School. How the applicant intends to satisty the Eagle County School District's request for land dedication. · The planning commission did note that the applicant has done a good job in responding to the Planning Commission's concern about the visual impacts on the upper bench by agreeing to reduce the proposed 1 4/4/05 . project density from 28 total residences to 23 total residences. All five residences are being removed frOm the upper bench of the subject property which is the most visible portion of the site from off premise views. The Planning Cotnmission appended one condition of approval to the thirteen conditions already proposed by staff. The additional condition pertains to the use of wildlife proof trash receptacles being required at each home. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SI1MMARY: The applicant is pr6posing to create a planned unit development (PUD) to allow twenty~one (21) single-family cluster homes, one (1) single-family caretaker unit, and one (1) pre-existing single-family residence on the sitefot a total of twenty -eight (23) homes, on 28.283 acres. This density equates to 0.81 dwelling units per acre or I dwelling unit for each 1.23 acres. AcceSS to the site is via Lake Creek Road from the approximate existing driveway ingress!egress location. The new single-family lots are proposed to be grouped into two separate clusters. The lower bench cluster will consist of thirteen (13) homes and the upper bench cluster will consist of eight (8) homes. The caretaker unit is proposed to he situated On the north portion of the subject propet,ty. Each of the home sites is to be accessed by a new private road constructed to Eagle County standards. The private road is proposed to traverse the site from south to north in order to access the 'lower' thirteen home sites located at the north end o(the Subject property, as well as the existing home and caretaker unit; the proposed cul-de-sac road then serpentines back to the south, while gaining elevation to serve the remaining 'upper' eight home sites located in the southeast portion of the site, Uses proposed within this Planned Unit Development include: · Single-family residences; · Access6ryuses customarily appUrtenant to single-family homes; · Utility services; · Temporary sales and/or construction office facility, which could be located within the caretaker's residence~ single-family home or a separate, temporary structure until all units have been sold. As proposed, the Residential Lots will comprise 27% (7.656 acres) and Open Space 73% (20.627 acres) ofthetotal land area involved in this application. Each residential lot is anticipated to be slightly larger than the footprint of each home. If approved, the Final Plat will ultimately defme individual lots that will function more as building envelopes with the balance of the land between lots maintained as commonly owned open space. Overall, the density proposed is one dwelling unit per acre. CHRONOLOGy: December, 1992: The original Green Ranch Pun received approval for a single-family home, a caretaker home, outbuildings and various agricultural uses. The stated purpose was to maintain the rural character of the outlying areas while allowing for compatible low-density residential. development. The Green Ranch Pun was amended to clarify certain provisions pertaining to the allowable agricultural uses and permitted caretaker unit size. The Final Plat for the Green Ranch was approved and recorded. Application submitted for this Sketch Plan proposal. April, 1993 May, 1993: SepteEnber,2004: SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: East: West: North: South: Single-family residential! Planned Unit Development (PUD) Single-family residential & Agricultural/Resource, PUD and Agricultural Limited Edwards Elementary School, mixed residential! Resource and Pun Drainage Tract & Single-family residential! PUD 2 4/4/05 Existing Zoning: Current develapment: Available uses by right: Proposed Zoning: Total Area: Percent Open Space: Water: Sewer: Access: REFERRAL RESPONSES: Pun One single-family residence, barn and extensive landscaping. one single -family residence, limited agriculture, one caretaker dwelling unit and water diversion struCtures. Pun 28.283 acres 73% Public! Edwards Metropolitan District Public! Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Primary access via Lake Creek Road STAFF REPORT :Eagle COUlity Engineering Department - Please refer to attached memorandum dated October 25, 2004. :Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - A verbal response fromthe Department of Environmental Health in.dicates that wood burning fIreplaces must be prohibited within the proposed PUD. Concerns regarding water and sewer line extension to serve the site will be addressed through the 1041 review process and grading and drainage plans must adhere to the standards of the NWCCOG 208 plan. Eagle County Housing Department ~ Please refer to attached memorandtitn dated OctOber 25, 2004. The requirement under the Local Resident Rousing Guidelines has been revised based upon the decrease in density frOm 28 hollies to 23 homes. The applican.t should still be required to provide three employee housing units, however, the payment in lieu have been decreased. Eagle County Sheriff's Office - Please refer to attached response dated October 25,2004. The response indicated .oncem that vegetation not block an officer's view from Lake Creek Road into the subdivision and questions whether orriot the streets within the subdivision will be lighted. ECO Trails ~ Requests that either a pedestrian trail/sidewalk be installed up Lake Creek Road or that a contribution toward eventual construction of this recommended spur trail is required. ECO Transit ~ Please refer to attached e-mail response dated October 27,2004 indicating no anticipatediinpact on ECO's services. Eagle Caunty Weed & Pest CMrdinatar - Please refer to attached response dated November 2, 2004. Eagle County Wildfite Mitigation Specialist - Please refer to attached responSe dated October 25,2004. Eagle County School District Adlllinistration (RE-SOJ) - Please refer to attached response dated November 24, 2004. The school district had requested land dedication of 0.423 acres based upon the original request for 28 single family residences. The applicant has responded in a letter dated March 12, 2005, to the District pointing out that the proposal has been revised downward to 23 total dwelling units of which two have already received prior County approval (the existing home and an approved caretaker's unit). Based upon the revised calculation, the land dedication requirement would be 0.317 acres or 13,813 square feet. The applicant contends that this is an insufficient land area to be of use to the District and is requesting that fees in lieu of land dedication be accepted. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments - Please refer to attached memorandum dated October 28, 2004 indicating no comment at this time. ~agle River Fire Protection District - Please refer to attached memorandum dated October 29,2004. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District - Please refer to attached letter dated October 19,2004. Colorado Division afWater Resources - Please refer to attached letter dated October 28,2004. 3 4/4/05 Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to attached letter dated November 1, 2004 Colorado Historical Society - Please refer to attached letter dated October 19,2004. Colorado Department of Transportation - Please refer to attached return - fax indicating 'no comment' . Colorado State Forest Service ~ Please refer to attached letter dated November 9,2004" Lake Creek Meadows Home Owners Association - Please refer to attached letter dated November 1,2004. Additional Referral Agencies ~ This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: Attorney's Office Animal Control Eagle County Assessor Eagle County Road and Bridge Department Eagle County School District Transportation (RE-50J) Eagle County HistOrical Society Colorado Division of Wildlife Natural ResourceS Conservation Service U.S. Army Corp of Engineers United States Forest Service United States Post Office KN Energy Holy cross Energy Century Tel ECAD Edwards Metropolitan District Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Eagle County Historical Society Eagle Valley Land Trust Saint Claire's Creamery Ranch HOA Homestead HOA Lake Creek HOA Lake Creek Metro District Pilgrim Downs HOA Public Letters/Comments Twenty-four e-tnails and letters from twenty-one property owners and homeowner's association in the Lake Creek vicinity have been received (copies attached) indicating opposition of this sketch plan request: Lake Creek Meadows Homeowner's Association Richard E. Cremer - 00 15 West Lake Creek Road Stan and Mary Ellen Cope - 346 Jackman Ranch Road, Edwards Elizabeth Holland - 455 Meadow Road, Lake Creek Meadows Henry Gerken ~ 381 Meadow Road, Lake Creek Meadows Terry Scanlan - 1952 Lake Creek Road Hatsie Hinmon - 407 Meadow Road, Lake Creek Meadows Louise and William Elliott - 492 Meadow Road, Lake Creek Meadows Janice and Zdenek Bauer, Vail PO Box Nancy Heinen - Owner of Lot 3, Creamery Ranch Jim Ferrell ~ 113 Meadow Road 4 4/4/05 Ruth and Tom Powers - Creamery Ranch residents Gerald G. Gallegos - 397 Lake Creek Road James M. Moser - 0790 Old Creamery Road Susan Miller and Lonnie Chipman - 1001 Lake Creek Road Dan Coffey - address not provided. R.A 'Chupa' Nelson - Lake Creek property owner. Missy Thompson ~ 1629 Lake Creek Road Richard Siegal ~ 340 Eagle Crest Road Horst and Kit Abraham ~ 33 Angela Lane Joyce Bennis - 45 Angela Lane All e~mails !letters speak to the continued preservation of Lake Creek's pastoral character; view sheds up Lake Creek Road and additional traffic on Lake Creek Road and surrounding Edwards's vicinity that would be generated by the proposed development. DI.SCllSSIONAND.FINDINGS: pursuant to Eagle CiJuntj Land Use Regulations Section S-240.F., Procedure for Development Review: Section 5~24().F .l.a., Sketch Plan states "The purpdse of sketch plan review is for the Applicant, the C01l11tyand the public to,evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a Pun will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision." The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regUlations and provisions of the Eagle County Master Plan is determined, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding landuses.. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means ofwatet supply and sewage disposa.l. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification Of issues and conCerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a reliminary Plan. . Section 5~240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards thatffiust be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. it muSt therefore be determined, based On submitted evidence, whether applicable standards willbe able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague. Or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, and then a negative finding must be indicated for that Standard. Pluses and minuses appearing before specific Standards indicate where it has been found that the proposed development currently meets that Standard ([+]), does not currently meet that Standard, but may be able to meet that standard at application for Preliminary Plan ([+!-]), does not presently meet and likely, will not be able to meet that Standard at application for Preliminary Plan ([ -]), or the Standard does not apply ([ nla]). STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section5-240.F.3.e (1)] ~ The title'to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The subject property is owned by Frederick D. Green. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] It HAS been demonstrated that the title to all land that is part of this PUD is owned or controlled by one (1) erson. 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 Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of 5 4/4/05 the application for PUD. Variations of these Use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. As listed above, proposed uses in the PUD include: · Single-family residences; · Accessory uses customarily appurtenant to single-family homes. Please note that Accessory Dwelling Units are not proposed with this application; · Utility services; · Temporary sales and/or construction office facility, which could be located within the caretaker's residence, a single-family home or a separate, temporary structure until all units have been sold. All uses as proposed are either allowed within the existing Green Ranch PlaIihed Unit Development as uses-by~ right or 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. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5~240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the Pun ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are either allowed as uses-by-right in the exiSting Green Ranch PUD or are allowed, allowed as a special use Or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, tI.Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district desiation in effect for the ro e at the time ofthe a.' lica:tion. stANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shalt be thOse specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effectfor theproperty at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. the dimensionallirnitations necessaTy to accommodate this cluster development PUD will differ from those specified in Table 3-340 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Minimum and maxirnum lot sizes, in order to ' preserve the intent of a cluster development, have not been specified. Variations from certain dimensional limitations such as structural setbacks will also be required. Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: (a) obtains desired design qualities; (b) avoids environmental resources and natural resources; (c) incentives for water augmentation; (d) incentives for trails; (e) incentives for affordable housing; and/or (f) incentives for public facilities. The Board of County Commissioners has considerable discretion in the establishment of appropriate setback and height standards within a proposed PUD. Referencing the above, it may be determined by the Board that the variations proposed for this project allow for the "obtainment of desired design qualities". The Obtain Desired Design Qualities section of the Land Use Regulations lists "integration of mixed uses", "allowing greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings" and "promoting more efficient land use patterns and increase open space" in support of desired deslJm Qualities. Any dimensional limitation standard that will not be met within the proposed plan must be detailed in the application for Preliminary Plan. A discussion regarding the basis for granting these variations is also required. Since this proposal is for a cluster development variations from the schedule of limitations will be required. In order for this proposal to fully satisfy the intent of cluster development, it is imperative that the applicant 6 4/4/05 incorporate Within the PUb Guide standards for minimum and maximum lot size, as well as standards for setbacks and/or minimum separation between building envelopes and maximum structure size (as applicable). Condition No. 1. the Applicant will be required to request specific variations from zone district dimensional limitations at application for Preliminary Plan approval, with appropriate justification, and should also include the specifics of these variations in the PUD GUide for the project. [+!-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] Given the nature of the proposed development, the dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD CANNOT conform to those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, the Board MAY grant variations to the proposed dimensional limitations to preserve the intent of a cluster development as art of the a roval of the Preliminary Plan. Sl'AN:DAlUl: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] ~ Of}street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division f, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards.. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. BecauSe of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and , employees of the project will be met; or _ a. Actual Needs. The actual needs of t~e project's residents, guests and employees will be less than thase set by Article 4, Division 1, ~O(f-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The PUD Guide does specify a minimum of three (3) on-site parking spaces per residence which is consistent with Ie requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR). [+]FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS been fully dem()nstrated that Off-street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD will comply with the standards of Article 4,Division 1, Off-Street Parkin and Loadin Standards. stANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, LandsClllJinfland Illumination Standards; Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A conceptual landscape/site plan has been provided. It appears that the plan generally satisfies the intent of the ECLUR minimum landscape standards, however, it will be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate at the Preliminary Plan stage, via the Detailed Landscape Plan, that the proposed landscaping for all COl11mon areas conforms to the provisions of Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards, in the ECLUR. Also, all planting materials introduced to the site should be compatible with the local climate, soils, storm-water drainage and water conditions. The planting materials should consist of native, drought-resistant varieties. Condition No.2 [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] The Landscape Plan submitted is sufficient for Sketch Plan evaluation. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. 'TANDARD: 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 Ref!Ulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit 7 4/4/05 Development (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The proposed Pun Guide does include a sign plan that is clearly worded. Proposed is that the signage be allowe ' to be externally illuminated only with directional spotlighting of tpe sign face. The source of such light must concealed from view. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] Unless specifically delineated in the PUD Guide, the sign standards applicable to the Pun SHALL comply with Article 4, Division 3, Si Re ulations. STANI)ARD: 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 pbtable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Potable water supplv. lt is anticipated that the Edwards Metropolitan District will provide water to the proposed development. To date, there are no formal arrangements in place between the District and the applicant. Either prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan approval, a 1041 review must be successfully completed to evaluate the impacts associated With the extension of water and sewer lines to service the subject property. Condition No.3' , , The Colorado Division of Water Resources response indicates that it is not possible to comment on the sufficiency of the proposed water supply since insufficient information was provided. Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1 )(h)(II), C.R.S., a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with Eagle County and the State Engineer docUlnenting the amount of water which Can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights, A. report of this nature was not included in the submitted materials. If this Sketch Plan proposal is approved, then through the Preliminary Plan and 1041 Review processes the issue of water and sewer provisions to serve the subject property Will be thoroughly evaluated. SeWilQ'e disposal. It is anticipated that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Will provide sewage dispOsal services to the proposed development. To date, there ate no formal arrangements in place between the District and the applicant. Either prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan approval, a 1041 review must be successfully completed to evaluate the impacts associated with the extension of water and sewer lines to service the subject property . Condition No. 3 Solid waste disposal. Consistent with Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the use of bear-proof trash containers is specified in the draft PUD Guide. Providers of solid waste disposal services do exist and operate in the vicinity of the subject property. Electrical supplv. Holy Cross Energy is anticipated to provide electric power to the development, subject to its tariffs, rules and regulations on file. ' Fire protection. The subject property is located Within the boundaries of and services will be provided by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. The District's response indicates that the water utility plans must be reviewed by the District for fire hydrant location, minimum line size and to verify fire flow rates. The District identified the single point of ingress/egress to Lake Creek Road as a concern for the District's ability to provide unhindered emergency services. Further, the private road design must satisfy the minimum width (20 foot traveled surface), vertical clearance (13'6"), maximum grade (10%) and turning radii to accommodate a fire truck access. Condition No.4 Roads. The current proposal does not meet the standard for two points of access to the public road system (ECLUR Section 4-260.J.l.h). Also, the proposed cul-de-sac road is over 3,000 feet length thereby exceeding the maximum allowed cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet (ECLUR 4-260.D.9). It does appear, however, that opportunity exists for the proposed development to obtain secondary access through either the Heritage Park Subdivision Or directly to Homestead Drive via a platted tract (Tract 'C') in the Homestead Filing No. I Subdivision. Tract 'c' is platted as a pri,vate access road and is owned and maintained by the Homestead Homeowner's Association. This secondary point of ingress / egress may be constructed as an emergency access only and be barricaded wi th 8 4/4/05 removable bollards or a gate. Please note that at this time arrangements do not exist to secure secondary access through either Heritage Park or the Homestead Subdivision. Condition No.5 The internal private road must be constructed to satisfy the requirements of a Suburban Residential Road. This road classification standard includes 50 foot right-of-way, 10 foot travel lanes and detached sidewalks. Coitditibn No.5 Further, based upon the Traffic Report prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated August 23, 2004, submitted with this application, the applicant should be required to make off-site improvements to the intersection of u.s. Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road. Please reference the attached Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated October 25, 2004. A State Highway Access Permit will be required in order to construct the improvements in the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. Condition No.5 Lastly, staff recommends that the pedestrian plan should include links to the external paths including an improved sideWalk connection along Lake Creek Road from the sidewalk, ending at the adjacent school north of the subject property, up to the existing trail located in the drainage south of the subject property. Condition No.5 Proximitv' to.. schools. . lJolice.. and fire protection. and emergency. medical services. The nearest police, tire protection and emergency medical services are located in the innnediate Edwards vicinity. The subject property is immediately adjacent to the Edwards Elementary School facility. Middle and High School facilities, as well as private and higher educational facilities are available within reasonable proximity to the subject property. Assuming approval of this application, fees in-lieu of School Land Dedication will be assessed based upon a current market appraisal at the time of Final Plat. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demoIlstrated that the development proposed will be proVided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal. Vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress both on and off of the subject property, as proposed, IS NOT cOnsistent with the above specified requirements. However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that applicable standards will be met at ap lication for Preliminary Plan. STANDA1ID: I111pi'bVi!11Iehts. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)J ~ The improvement standards applicable to the development shall, be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviatefrom the County's road standards., so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the follOWing minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development. using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An aCCess easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. 9 4/4/05 (e) SnoW Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from offstrei!t parking areas. The subject property is located within the boundaries of and services will be provided by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. The District's response indicates that the water utility plans must be reviewed by the bistri for fire hydrant location, minimum line size and to verity fire flow rates. The District identified the single point 0 ingress/egress to Lake Creek Road as a concern for the District's ability to provide unhindered emergency services; FUrther, the private road design must satisfy the minimum width (20 foot traveled surface), vertical clearance (13' 6"), maximum grade (10%) and turning radii to accommodate fire truck access. Condition No.4 As proposed, the application does not meet the standard for two points of access to the public road system (ECLUR Section 4~260.J.1.h). Also, the proposed cul-de-sac road is over 3,000 feet in length thereby exceeding the maximum allowable cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet (ECLUR 4-260.D.9). It does appear, however, that opportunity exists for the proposed development to obtain secondary access through either the Heritage Park Subdivision or directly to Homestead Drive via a platted tract (Tract 'C') in the Homestead Filing No. I Subdivision. Tract 'c' is platted as a private access road and is owned and maintained by the Homestead Homeowner's Association. this secondary point of ingress /. egress may be constructed as an emergency access only and be barricaded With removable hollards or a gate. Please note that at this time arrangements do not exist to secure secondary aCcess through either Heritage Park or the Homestead Subdivision. Condition No.5 The internal private road must be constructed to satisty the requirements of a SubUrban Residential Road. This road classification standard includes 50 foot right-of-way, 10 foot travel lanes and detached sidewalks. Coitd/tMn No.5 Further, based upon the Traffic Report prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated August 23, 2004, sUbmitted with this application, the applicant should be required to make off-site improvements to the iritersection of U.S. Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road. Please reference the attached Eagle County Engineering Depa.rt1fient memorandum dated October 25,2004. A State Highway Access Permit will be required in order to construct the improvements in the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. Condition No.5 Lastly, staff recortunends that the. pedestrian plan should include links to the external paths including an improved sidewalk connection along Lake Creek Road from the sidewalk, ending at the adjacent Edwards Elementary School north of the subject property, up to the existing trail located in the drainage south of the subject property. The 2001EagleCountyTrailsPlan identifies a spur trail up Lake Creek as a desired goal. This is a subjective request for an exaction, based on the suggestions made in the trails plan and a need generated by the proposed development. Condition No. 5 A plan for Snow Storage has not been submitted and will be required at application for Preliminary Pla.n. Condition No. 6 [-)FINDING: linpro"vements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. The Applicant MAYbe able to demonstrate, however, , that applicable standards will be met at a lication for Preliminary Plan. STANDARJ): Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses; [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - Thi! development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Existing and allowed land uses surrounding the subject property consist of: · North: The Edwards Elementary School and a portion of the Homestead Filing No.3 Subdivision abut to the north. Notwithstanding, the 401 acre Homestead Open Space, which is not located in the immediate vicinity of Homestead Filing 3 or the subject property; the Homestead Filing No. 3 SUbdiviSiO. encompasses 60.096 acres and is platted for 300 total single-family, duplex, triplex and multifamily units. This overall density equates to 4.99 units per acre. 10 4/4/05 L Approximately eight of the existing single-family, duplex or triplex units immediately adjacent to the Green property will be visually impacted in varying degrees by this proposal, however, the applicant intends to install an earthen berm and landscaping to serve as a buffer along the northern line of the proposed development. Homes sites located on the Green property will maintain a significant setback from the northern property line; . . East: The Heritage Park Planned Unit Development, adjacent to the east, was recently a.pproved for 24 units on 11.4 acres, which equates to 2.1 units per acre. Future homes in the Hetl.1age Park development are higher in elevation than the proposed cluster of 13 home sites located on the 'lower' portion of the Green property and, therefore, westward views from the Heritage Park development will be preserved. The Homestead Filing No.1 Subdivision, also adjacent to the east, consists of 388 total units ou 152.()6 acres or, 2.55 units per acre. Approximately eight platted single-family residential lots will be visually impacted by this proposal (not all of the lots have been built upon). Again, the applicant proposes to install an earthen berm and landscaping to serve as a buffer between the developments. Homes located on the Green property will be situated to maintain a substantial setback from the eastern perimeter aIld efforts have been made to orient the proposed home sites in sucha manner as to preserve viewcofridors up the Lake Creek Valley for those adjacent Homestead homeowners; . South: The Homestead Filing No. 1 SubdivisionWTaps around the south side ofthe subject property as well. A platted connnon tract, Tract 'N' (4.77 acres) within Filing 1 is immediately adjacent to the subject property and contains a picnic deck, natural drainage and pedestrian footpath. On the soqth side of Tract 'N' ate several platted lots ranging in size from approximately 1/3 acre to 8.66 acres in area. The lots graduate in size from east to west. The two largest platted lots abutting Lake Creek Road are 8.36 and 8.66 acres respectively. These homes are higher in elevation than the Greenproperty So that distant views to the north that the homeowners currently enj oy will remain uninterrupted; Ii West: Thesllbject property abuts Lake Creek Road right-of-way Oil the west. The west side of Lake Creek Road south from U.S. Highway 6 is characterized by larger acreage properties ranging from 3.23 acres to 56.13 acres in area and which are zoned 'Resource', 'Planned Unit Development' ahd 'Agricultural Limited'. A 56.13 acre Resource zoned parcel spanning up the Lake Creek Valley from U.S. Highway 6 maintains the right to a variety of agricultural endeavors. The RMN Ranch Planned Unit Development which is comprised of four separate parcels of varying size lies directly in line with the subject property on the west side of Lake Creek Road and allows two single- family homes On one parcel, agricultural operations, commercial boarding stable, studio for Arts and Crafts, and an outfitter and guide operation (Net density of 1 dwelling unit per 12.29 acres, accessory dwelling units are also allowed on ea.ch lot). Further up the Lake Creek valley from the subject property on the west side of Lake Creek Road is several large acreage parcels cumulatively totaling approximately 100 acres that are zoned Agricultural- Limited. Agricultural-Limited zoning allows a single-family home and a variety of agricultural uses a.s uses~by..right on parcels of five (5) or more acres. This proposal for a clustered, residential development at an overall density of one dwelling unit per one acre is consistent with existing and allowed development on three sides of the subject property. The Green Ranch proposal will preserve 73% of the total land area as open space interspersed in and around the home sites, which may be considered a desirable arrangement for future residents of the Green Ranch, surrounding home/land owners, as well as the passing public. . y contrast, the Homestead developments to the north and east of the subject property rely upon the 401 acre omestead Open Space which exists south and east of the Homestead Development. This large tract of land, while certainly Open Space, is not readily accessible or visible and is not located in the immediate vicinity of the residential development as would be the case for the Green Ranch. 11 4/4/05 When the 40 I-acre Homestead Open Space is factored into the overall Homestead development, the development density is effectively lowered to approximately one dwelling unit per one acre. However, residents living in this vicinity of Eagle County and passers-by viewing the surrounding Homestead development witness only th. significantly higher density residential development and do not directly benefit from the large Homestead Op Space parcel. The proposed development may also be considered to provide a gradual transition from the higher densities located north and east of the subject property to the larger acreage lots and parcels currently existing to the south and west along the Lake Creek Valley. The proposed residential use and substantial preservation of conrinonly oWhed open space would be compatible with but not the same as existing and allowed uses on the west side of Lake Creek Road. Nevertheless, the Applicant must further address the issue of compatibility with the existing conditions found on the west side of Lake Creek Road through this Sketch Plan. Further'south on Lake Creek Road is several subdivisions that received initial approval in the early 1970's. Namely: the Lake Creek Subdivisions Filings No. 1 & 2 , consisting of eleven approximate one acre lots; the Lake Creek Meadows Subdivision, consisting of 83 residential lots on 270.296 acres, which is a net density of 1 dwelling unitper 3.25 acres, With lot sizes ranging from 1.6 acres to approximately 8 acres. More recent approvals have been granted for the Creamery Gulch Ranch Planned Unit Development (April 1994), 20 single-family residential lots on 143.352 acres which is a net density of 1 dwelling unit per 7.17 acre. The lots range in size from 1.511 acres to 4.957 acres. The Pilgrim Downs Planned Unit Development received approval in 1990 for 21 lots on 259.6974 acres or I dwelling unit per 12.40 acres. [+/-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)J It lIAS been demonstrated that the developmeht proposed for the Pun IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses on three sides and MAY BE deemed to be compatible with land uses. found along the west side of Lake Creek Road. The Applicant must further address the issue of compatibility with the existing conditions found on the West side of Lake Creek Road through this. Sketch Plan. stANOARD: . Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)J - The pu1J shallbe consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant ftUister plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptualleve!, i.e., how a proposal compares to basic planningprinciples. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may change. THE MASTER PIAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY' MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation COlTlmunity FLUM . Quality Recreation Housing Services ' Conformance X X X X X Non X Conformance Mixed X Confonna:ilCe Not Applicable Environmental Qualitv - As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not yet commented, however, the applicant has submitted a detailed wildlife report which includes suggested mitigation techniques to address potential impacts. Through the use of clustering, the proposal endeavors to avoid sensitive riparian areas found on the site. Much of the Green Ranch property has been used historically for agricultural purposes. There is very little natural undisturbed vegetation left on this parcel due to historic agricultural uses of the site. As such, the site', value as high quality wildlife habitat has been minimized. Open SpacelRecreation - The Plan identifies visual quality, buffers, recreation, wildlife and natural water features as priorities for preservation. This application proposes to utilize the most viable, already disturbed areas of the 12 4/4/05 subject property for development while maintaining almost half of the site as commonly owned open space. The open space would provide active and passive recreational opportunities for future residents, and would visually benefit surrounding property owners and the public. Development - The Plan recommends that cluster style development should be encouraged to promote creative and efficient site design, to enable development to avoid locations, which adversely impact environmental resources, and to create designated open space for public and private use. The Plan also encourages the use of the PUD to achieve more creative, efficient site deSign and to maximize open space through clustering. As stated above, this Pun proposal does strive to achieve these goals. The transition to lands located to the west would become more abrupt, however. Affordable. Housing - The project does create a need for affordable housing. Based upon the attached referral response from the Director of the Eagle County Housing Department, the proposed development would create the need for three employee housing units. If One unit is built on-site, as proposed, the payment in-lieu for the remaining two units would be $62,340.93. If payment in-lieu is chosen for all three employee housing units, then the total payment would be $88,418.93. As revised based upon the decrease in residential density, the payment in-lieu is $49,241.83 if one unit is built on-site and payment in-lieu is chosen for the remaining two units. If payment in-lieu is chosen for all three employee housing units, then the total payment tit-lieu would be $75,319.83. The payment in-lieu represents the difference between prevailing market prices and the maximum purchase price for the targeted income group as set forth in the 2004 Payment in Lieu CalculatioIls aIld Requirement tinder the Proposed Local Resident Housing Guidelines. This information is premised on the sketch plan and may change based upon future information. Transportation - This propoSal must be accompanied by a commitment to improve Lake Creek Road to at a minimum, off-set the traffic impacts that would result from the development at full build..out. The internal private road must be tied into a secondary point of access. Pedestrian movements within the project and along Lake Creek Road must also be adequately addressed. ECO Transit did not identity a significant impact upon the trl;lnsit system resulting frOm the proposed development. Condition No.5 "Otnll1ufiitv Services ~ The Plan identifies additional school improvements and services as a goal. If approved, the development will be subject tothe payment of fees in-lieu of school land dedication. PLUM - The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for 'Connnunity Center' development. The Plan identifies Community Centers as areas appropriate to become residential and cortnnercial activity centers because of their location, the availability of public water and sewage treatment facilities. Community Centers are ex.pected to be at relatively high densities in the range of three to twelve dwelling units per acre. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique ChaT. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X X 'x X X Non Conformance Mixed X Conf6rri1ance Not X Applicable LandUse Cooperatiofi- Not Applicable. Open Space Provision - The Plan states that, "Eagle County should recognize that planned unit developments and cluster housing assist in open space maintenance". The pun Sketch Plan being considered does endeavor to create and maintain open space by 'clustering' development on the most viable building sites which are clear of any natural Or man made hazards and which have already been disturbed in the past. Jnique Character Preservation - There are no unique landforms present on the subject property. Visual Quality - Based upon the Visual Quality map, the subject property is located in an area designated as 'moderately constrained' with the upper portion of the site designated as 'highly constrained'. By comparison, the 13 4/4/05 majority of the housing in the surrounding Homestead development is visible from points to the north and is located mostly within 'highly constrained' areas as defined by the Visual Quality map. Regarding visual impacts, the applicant must fully address how the proposed development will preserve visual quality of the Lake Creek valle and view corridors up the valley as viewed from the north. Development Patterns ~ The Plan states that, "It is the policy of Eagle County to encourage development to occur in and around existing c011lII1unities in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas". The proposal does not represent leap-frog development and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Rather, the proposal should be viewed as infill development. The proposal will create a more abrupt edge-of-connnunity transitional buffer but will also set aside visual open space. Hazards - Development within the proposed PUD is constrained to those portions of the subject propertY which are clear of any known natural or man made hazards. Wildlife - The CDOW has not provided comment as of this writing, however, the application includes a draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan. This Plan will likely be memorialized in a formal agreement with the CDOW which will be required with the Preliminary Plan submittal. EbWARDS AREA CONrn4UNITYPLAN . Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land Use X Housing X Transportation X Open Space X Potable Water and Wastewater X .' Sefvices and Facilities X Environmental Quality X Economic Development X Recreation and Tourism X Historic Preservation X Implementation X Future Land Use Map X Land Use - The stated goal is, "The location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality ofthe natural andman made environment, ensures the timely, cost~effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety oflifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". The proposed development would provide a unique alternative form of home ownerShip lifestyle with a 'patio home' configuration that will cluster the residential home sites and preserve a substantial amount of the site as commonly owned open space. Cluster development layout endeavors to protect the quality of the natural environment. All necessary services already exist on the subject property. Housing - The project does create a need for affordable housing. Based upon the attached referral response from the Director of the Eagle County Housing Department, the proposed development would create the need for three employee housing units. If one unit is built on-site, as proposed, the payment in-lieu for the remaining two units would be $62,340.93. Ifpayment in-lieu is chosen for all three employee housing units, then the total payment would be $88,418.93. . As revised based upon the decrease in residential density, the payment in-lieu is $49,241.83 ifone unit is built on-site and payment in-lieu is chosen for the remaining two units. Ifpayment in- lieu is chosen for all three employee housing units, then the total payment in-lieu would be $75,319.83. The 14 4/4/05 paymentin-lieu represents the difference between prevailing market prices and the maximum purchase price for the targeted income group as set forth in the 2004 Payment in Lieu Calculations and Requirement under the Proposed Local Resident Housing Guidelines. This information is premised on the sketch plan and may change based upon uture information. Transportation - The Plan recommends that minimizing the number of vehicles On the toad should preserve the character of Lake Creek and that pedestrian cOhhections to surrounding open space corridors should be considered. This proposal must be accompanied by a commitment to improve Lake Creek Road to, at a minimum off-set the traffic impacts that would result from the development at full build-out. The internal private road must be tied into a secondary point of access. Pedestrian movements within the project and along Lake Creek Road must also be adequately addressed. ECO Transit did not identity a significant impact upon the transit system resulting from the proposed development. Condition No.5 Open Space - "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with landowners, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal does represent an effort to preserve a significant portion ofthe subject site as open space although it does not entail coordination with outside parties. Potable Water and Wastewater -' Public potable water and sanitary sewer service is to be made available to serve the proposed development by the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District and the Edwards Metropolitan District. The applicant has been in discussions with the providers of said services. Services and Facilities - This gDal pertains to recycling of solid wastes and provision of public schools, occupational training and higher education and, as such, is not applicable. Environmental Quality - The Plan sets forth six gOals pertaining to Environmental Quality all of which pertain to the greater Edwards area and are not necessarily intended to be site specific. This proposal does satisfy Illany of the stated objectives: The NWCCOG referral response reserved further connnent until Preliminary Plan, however, le application must adequately address iSsues pertaining to non-point source runoff, stOrmwater control during and after constrUction, erosion control best management practices, detailed erosion control plans that outline constrUction phasing, drainage patterns and locations ofBMP's . Through the uSe of clustering, common open space, home site placement, scale and construction materials, the proposed development endeavors to maintain scenic vistas toward and through the subject property; Natural hazards ate being avoided and riparian areas and wetlands will be protected with the exception of one necessary road crossing of a riparian area. The applicant must obtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers for this disturbance. Condition No.7. ' Economic Development - Not applicable. Recreation and T ourism- The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs ofthe residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". This proposal will provide private passive and active open space opportunities for the residents of the development and visual open space for surrounding land owners and the public. Historic Preservation - The Colorado State Historical Society response states that no identified historical sites exist on the subject property nor has a survey been undertaken in the project area. The Historical Society recommends that a professional survey be conducted to identity any cultural resources in the project area. The Eagle County Historical Society had not provided comment as of this writing. Condition No. 12 enPlementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) - The plan states that the rural character of the Lake Creek Valley be maintained by keeping development (density) low on this site. As such, the FLUM specifically identifies the subject property as 15 4/4/05 an area appropriate for low density residential development at a gross density of one dwelling unit per one acre and a net density of 2 units per acre. Ba.sed upon much of the above, redundant discussion pertaining to wildlife, recreation. and land use, the initial finding is that the proposal is in conformance with the Eagle River Watershed Plan. Assuming approval of this sketch plan applicatioil, additional information regarding water quantity and quality and the associated impacts will be forthcoming in the 1041 review process and'the Preliminary Plan application. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a c01l1I11unity-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle Courity master plan. . . .. Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes . Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the actiVe participation of government, there will be only limited success . It is important to preserve existing local residents housing . Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs As stated above, the project does create a need for affordable housing. Based upon the attached referral response from the Director of the Eagle County Housing Department, the proposed development would create the heed for three employee housing units. As revised based upon the decrease in residential density, the payment in-lieu is $49,241.83 if one unit is built on-site and payment in-lieu is chosen for the remaining two units. If payment in- lieu is chosen for all three employee housing units, then the total payment in-lieu would be $75,319.83. The payment in-lieu represents the difference between prevailing market prices and the maximum purchase price for the targeted income group as set forth in the 2004 Payment in Lieu Calculations and Requirement under the Proposed Local Resident Housing Guidelines. This information is premised on the sketch plan and may change based upon future information. [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAYBE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval with particular emphasis on Visual Quality and Transportation. 16 4/4/05 STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (II)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The applicant intends to implement the Green Ranch development in two separate phases. If a two-phase approach is taken, the 'lower' 13 homes and the caretaker unit would be initiated first, followed by the 'upper' 8 homes. The Applicant will be required to construct public improvements in accordance with Section 5-240.F.3.e (11), Phasing and other Sections of the Land Use Regulations, and will be required to provide a phasing plan and cost estimates, sufficiently detailed to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer, prior to approval of a Preliminary Plan for the development. Condition No.8 [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been proposed for this development. A specific Site Development Schedule sufficient to meet the requirements of this standard, to include guarantees for all public improvements, WILL BE required at application for Prelimin Plan. STANDAitD: 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 lands for every One thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each cfwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes gredter than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. a. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian dreas, and one hundred (100) yearjloodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall.count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. b. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUDand shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. c. Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. d. Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. The proposal defines a total of73% of the site (20.627 acres) of open space within the PUD boundary. fhe PUD does place the responsibility for continued use and maintenance of the private common open space and organization upon a home owner's association. 17 4/4/05 [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It HAS been fully demonstrated that The PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to minimum area and that the proposed development will comply with the requirements for common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Improvements required; a. Continuing use and maintenance; or b. Organization. c. Minimum usable open space sfANl>ARJ): Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the Applicant's own analysis documents, as well as the recoinfi1endations of all referral agencies, as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Re'source Protection Standards, have been considered in the preparation of the application fat Prelifuinary Plan approval. theArtriy Corp of Engineers had not responded to this application at the time ofthis writing, however, a 404 Permit will be necessary for a road crossing over a riparian area. NWCCOG reserved further comment until the preliminary plan stage of this development, however, the proposal will be required to conform to the best management practices defined in the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan). The Colorado Division of Wildlife also had not responded to this proposal as ofthis writing, however, the applicant's wildlife report sets forth recommendations for wildlife impact mitigation which will be incorporated into a Wildlife Mitigation Plan which must be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. Condition No. . 9 The Colorado Geological Survey response summarized that, "provided a comprehensive geotechnical investigation is completed for the proposed development to determine subsurface conditions and site-specific geotechnical engineering recommendations, the CGS finds no inherent geologic hazards or geologic condition that would prevent the development as it is shown in the sketch plan application. Sinkhole-type subsidence features, while not visually located on this property, may exist. All foundations should be designed on a site-specific basis and foundation excavations should be inspected by a geotechnical consultant who is experienced in identification of subsidence features. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed Geologic Hazards Analysis, as required in Section 4420.D.2. of the Land Use Regulations. The Eagle County Weed & Pest Coordinator indicates that there are two designated noxious weed types found on the subject property (Canada Thistle and Houndstongue). The Colorado Noxious Weed Act Section 35-5.5 and the Eagle County Weed Management Plan require these plants be subjected to management efforts. Also, during the construction and restoration phaSes of this project noxious weed mitigation procedures should be implemented to reduce their potential impact/spread to neighboring properties. Lastly, upon project completion the Home Owner's Association should be responsible for meeting the requirements of the state and county within the cOtI1tnon open space. Condition 11 [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS been demonstrated that the Pun has considered the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Additional, more detailed information will be re uired at a plication for Preliminary Plan. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: 18 4/4/05 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)] Please see discussion above. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval with particular emphasis on Visual Quality and Transportation. STANDARIl: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] ~ The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] Uses - All uses proposed are consistent with those allowed by right, by limited review or by special use in the ECLUR, as wen as the existing PUD. [+/.J . Lot dimensions - Pursuant to Sectlon5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized fora PUb, a Variation will be required to acconnnodate the proposed cluster development. Article 4, Site Development Standards r +] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) - Please see discl,lssiol1 above. L +] Landscaping: and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) ~ Please see discussion above. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4<,) ~ Please see discussion above. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) - Please see discussion above. [+] WildlifeProtection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. An executed Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - No geologic hazards have been identified on the site which would preclude development. With Preliminary Plan application, the applicant will be required to submit a detailed Geologic Hazards Analysis. [-] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist has walked the site with the applicant's representative and offers the following comments: Dual access to the development should be provided; The location of the caretaker unit places it in an 'Extreme' Hazard rating and there is opportunity to move it further away from the steep slope located on the northwest comer of the site; Vegetation between Lake Creek Road and the caretaker unit are conducive to wildfire behavior and no plan for mitigation has been provided; the cluster of home sites on the southeast portion of the site will be required to have a one-hour exterior siding pursuallt to the Eagle County Building Resolution due to a wildfire hazard rating of 'High', and; any landscaping introduced onto the site should utilize fire resistive plant materials. The Colorado State Forest Service response provided almost identical comment. Condition No.1 0 In response, the applicant has provided an alternative location on the ;te for the caretaker unit. As such, the new site will be evaluated at Preliminary Plan. [-] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The application did not address the regulation pertaining to wood burning controls. The PUD Guide should incorporate language prohibiting the use of wood burning fireplaces. Condition No.1 19 4/4/05 [N/A] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not within a designated ridge line area as depicted on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) -No environmental quality issues have been identified at the time of this report. If significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, an Environmental Impact Report will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [N/A] Connnercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) - No commercial or industrial development is proposed. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [~] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) ~ The subject property is located within the boundaries of and services will be prOvided by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. The District's response indicates that the water utility plans must be reviewed by the District for fire hydrant location, minimum line size and to verify fire flow rates. The District identified the single point of ingress/egress to Lake Creek Road as a concern for the District's ability to provide urihindered emergency services. Further, the private road design must satisfy the minimum width (20 foot traveled surface), vertical clearance (13' 6"), maximum grade (10%) and turning radii to accommodate a fire truck access. Condition No.4 AS proposed, the application does not meet the standard for two points of acceSS to the public road System (ECLUR Section 4-260J.1.h). Also, the proposed cul-de-sac road is over 3,000 feet length thereby exceeding the maXimum allowed cul.de-sac length of I,OOO feet (ECLUR 4-260.D.9). It does appear, however, that opportunity exists for the proposed development to obtain secondary access through either the Heritage Park Subdivision or directly to Homestead Drive via a platted tract (Tract 'C') in the Homestead Filing No. 1 Subdivision. Tract 'C' is platted as a private access road and is owned and maintained by the Homestead Homeowner's Association. This seconda point of ingress / egress, may be constructed as an emergency access only and be barricaded withremovabl bollardsor a gate. Condition No.5 Theintemal private road must be constructed to satisty the requirements of a Suburban Residential Road. This road classification standard includes 50 foot right-of-way, 10 foot travel lanes and detached sidewalks. Condition No.5 Further, based upon the Traffic Report prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated August 23,2004, submitted with this application, the applicant should be required to make off-site improvements to the intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road. Please reference the attached Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated October 25,2004. A State Highway Access Permit will be required in order to construct the improvements in the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. Condition No.5 [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - Staff recommends that the pedestrian plan should include links to the external paths including an improved sidewalk connection along Lake Creek Road from the sidewalk, ending at the adjacent Edwards Elementary School north of the subject property, up to the existing trail located in the drainage south of the subject property. The 200lEagle County Trails Plan identifies a spur trail up Lake.Creek as a desired goal. ECO Trails' co11lIhents regarding Green Ranch is that the applicant be asked to install the above described length of improved sidewalk/trail or make a cash contribution to a fund started for that purpose. This is a subjective request for an exaction, based on the suggestions made in the trails plan. Condition No.5 [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - It appears that the requirements of this Section will be satisfied. Additional information will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The Applicant should be able to meet applicable standards. A full drainage report and stormwater control plan will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan. The proposal will be required to conform to the guidelines of the NWCCOG 208 Plan. 20 4/4/05 [+] Grading and Erosion Corttrol Standards (Section 4-660) - The plan must meet the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. +] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It does not appear that proposed plan will have particular difficulty in meeting these standards which should be detailed at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Lighting standards should also be included in the Pun Guide. [+/-] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - The application indicates that the standards of this Section can be met. Additional information will be required with the subsequent 1041 review process and Preliminary Plan documentation. [+/-] Sanitary sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - The application indicates that the standards of this Section can be met. Additional information will be required with the subsequent 104l review procesS and Preliminary Plan documentation. [+] Itnpact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4..7) School land dedication or fees-in-lieu will be assessed at the time afFinal Plat should this development receive the necessary approvals. Road impact fees will be assessed at the time of application for building permit for each new residential structure pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5~280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site DeveloPtrtent Standards. However, the Applicant MAY BE able to meet applicable standardS at application for Ptelimina Plan. TANDARfi: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] ....The proposed $ubdivisidnshall be .ocated and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan ot shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the EaJ!le Countv Road CaIJitallmlJrovements Plan. a, 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. b. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed development should not create any of the inefficiencies, duplications or leapfrog development patterns contemplated by this standard. The Applicant is required to demonstrate fully at application for Preliminary Plan that these standards will be met. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed subdivision will be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. The Applicant must further demonstrate conformance to this standard at a lication for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Suitability forDevelopment. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided all be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made azards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. 21 4/4/05 Given the various studies and reports provided with this sketch plan application, as well as, the various referral agency responses attached to this report, the property appears to be suitable for development. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5~280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS been sufficiently demonstrated at a sketch plan level of detail that the property proposed to be developed is suitable for development, considering its environmental resources and natural and manmade hazards. STANDARD: Compatible with Sutrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.BJ.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please note earlier discussion. [+/-] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS been demonstrated that the development proposed for the Pun IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses on three sides and MAY BE deemed to be compatible With land uses found along the west side of Lake Creek Road. The Applicant must further address the issue of compatibility with the existing conditions found on the west side of Lake Creek Road through this Sketch Plan application. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall subrnitthe following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: "to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land ahd thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations." This Section goes on to say that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: a. Permit integration of uses; b. Establish more efficient land use patterns; c. Preserve lands; d. Maintain water quality and quantity; e. Contribute to trails system; f. Establish incentives for affordable housing; and g. Be consistent with the Master Plan. The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. The proposal has been reviewed to determine whether one or more of the performance standards listed above are being served by techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies the use ofPUD zoning. The applicant has demonstrated at sketch plan level of detail that the benefits of establishing a Pun in this area of Eagle County would result in a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING:PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant has submitted a PUD guide and HAS demonstrated that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Furthermore, the Applicant will likely be able to demonstrate that the purposes of PUD zoning are being served by the proposed develo ment. 22 4/4/05 Requirements foraZone Chan2e In this instance, the subject property is already zoned 'PUD', albeit for one single family home and one care taker's unit. If Preliminary Plan approval is granted for the current request, a zone change will not be required since the property will remain zoned.' PUD' thus,. the findings pursuaIlt to Eagle County ,and Use Regulations Section 5..230.D., Standards. for amendment to the Official Zone District Map are not applicable. Bob Narracci of Community Development presented this file to the Board. He told the Board that he had received nine lldditionalletters since the Staff Report was created, 8 in opposition and 1 making a general statement ahoutzoning. These letters have been included in the Commissioners' packets. He then made a PowerPoint presentation outlining the applicant's request and proposal summary, and showed various photOgraphs of the site. He stated that 13 homes are proposed for the lower bench of the property and 8 homes are proposed for the upper bench. He highlighted the main discussion points: Visual quality and character ofthe Lake Creek Valley, Mitigatioh of traffic impacts, Two points of access requirement, and Safe, efficient pedestrian movements along Lake Creek Road. He showed a visual quality map, based upon the Eagle County Master Plan, and highlighted the visual ratings. Engineering has requested that a sidewalk be built. the Planning Connnission had three heatings and finally recommended approval by a 4-1 vote. The Planning Commission addressed many of the concerns listed above in their discussions, as well. The School District has requested land dedication; the applicant has responded with fees in lieu because of the small amount of land involved, and the School District has not responded. The applicant has reduced the density from 28 units to 23, removing 5 residences from the highly~visible upper bench. The Planning Commission did add a condition of wildlife-proof trash cOntainers. . Rick Pylman, representing the applicllnt,was present and made a PowerPoillt preSentation to the Board, also. Mr. Pylmanstated that tbisapplication was submitted in September, 2004 and was heard by the Planning Connnission three times. .He gave a history of the file, stating it is zoned pun and is 28 acres in size. He stated that the first thing he did with this application was to look at the Eagle County Master Plan to see how it applies to the applicant. This property is designated as "Comtnunity Center" according to the Future Land USe Map because of water and sewer service availability, proximity to schools, proximity to fire stations, proximity to employment enters, lack of sensitive lands, and proximity to shopping and other services. Only Edwards, Eagle-Vail, and El ~bel have the Community Center designations. They also lOOked at the Edwards Area Cotnmunity Plan, adopted in 2003, to see how it impacted this application. The Edwards' plan is a growth-restrictive plan, and it states that the Green Property, Site #5 on the map, should blend with the surrounding neighborhoods of Homestead and Lake Creek, and is for appropriate with low density residential development, with appropriate pedestrian connections and access. This application conforms to the Community Plan, as detailed. He discussed Site #7, which is adjacent to Site #5, and listed how its expectations are differently defined and then showed how Lake Creek Road is used as the border for development. Mr. Pylman then went over the five areas of visual quality, also. They conducted environmental studies for wildlife, geotechnical, wetlands, vegetation, wildfire, and slope, and the application passed all of these studies. He attended the Heritage Park meetings to gain an understanding and developed this project with knOWledge gained from these meetings. They propose 21 neW cluster/patio homes, along with the one existing home and a caretaker home. He showed a slide detailing the proposed layout of the homes, including a new location of the caretaker home. He showed a photograph with the development overlaid to show how it will fit in With the existing neighborhoods. They have created a large setback for the homes, at least 71 feet from the property line, tin the upper bench to create a buffer and minimize impact. There will be no fences, and there will be large amounts ofcomtnon property. Mr. Pylmangave the behefits of clustered housing: maximized open space and connnon area, minimized lot footprint and fencing issues, and effective landscape screening. This is similar to the Greens at Arrowhead development and the Sanctuary-Cordillera Valley Club development. The property is within the boundary of Edwards Metro District, and they own 1.55 cubic feet per second of the J.M. Dodd Ditch and is the most senior water right on Lake Creek. This is sufficient water for the development. He addressed the four concerns of the Connnunity Development and showed how the applicant has alleviated them. He stated that there are no designated view corridors across the property. He showed many photographs of this property to the Board, illustrating that the property is backdropped by other houses from all public view points. At Preliminary Plan they will go into more detail as to architecture style, but he stated that it would blend into the surrounding area. He went ver the Lake Creek Road intersection concern of staff. He stated that the problem is not caused by Lake Creek oad, but it is caused by the through traffic on Highway 6. He stated that the existing condition was not caused by this application, but it was already in existence. Mr. Pylman stated that the applicant is willing to address his fair share of the impacts, but feels it is unreasonable to ask him to completely fix the problems on Lake Creek Road that were caused by others. The Planning Commission seemed to agree with the applicant on this issue. He addressed 23 4/4/05 the Pedestrian Circulation concern and stated that the recommended sidewalk would be out of character with Lake Creek Road, and the required fence would impact the view. He then gave alternatives: a widened shoulder, or soft- surface path on the east side of the road, rather than the west side. They are willing to do that and will work with the County on an appropriate design. Finally, he addressed the issue of Dual Access. He stated that there is a variance procedure that comes in at Preliminary Plan, not Sketch Plan. They only have one route to access with this proposal, Lake Creek Road~ His talks with various officials resulted in agreement that there would be no benefit to having a second point of access added Lake Creek Road. They propose to create a fire lane on the upper bench that would meet up with a Homestead Homeowner's Association-owned tract that has a driveway on it. It would benefit both properties, as it gives them both an additional access point. They don't have the approval of Homestead Homeowners' Association, but will keep that proposal open and on the table for future discussion. He showed how it would be impractical for a second access point on Lake Creek Road to be created; otherwise, they will request a variance at the Preliminary Plan Hearing. This application meets the goals and objectives of the various Master Plans and should be approved. This is in-fill development and does not impact view corridors. They agree with all of staffs conditions and the additional Planning Commission condition. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci why several Planning Commission Hearings were held and why didn't all the members vote. Mr. Narracci explained the process that the Planning Commission went through, stating that, at each hearing, the applicant had made some changes to the proposal. He explained the "No" vote of the Planning Commission, stating that the member was concerned about the dual access and proposed density. Chairman Menconi asked about the proposed square footage of the homes. Mr. Pylman stated that they haven't designed the homes, yet, but would antiCipate 3,000 to 3,500 square feet homes, with 4,000 square feet at a maximum. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Susan Miller, Lake Creek resident, asked the Board to preserve this unique portion of valley that is used for recreation by several neighborhoods. She asked the Board to deny this application. Mike Claymon, Homestead resident, asked about the proposed selling prices, as they seem to be targeting second homeowners from outside the valley. He was concerned about the increase in zoning and the seVen criteria that must be met. He stated that the Land Use Maps are a guide and not a right of the property owner. There are 1O,OOO~12,000 units that are approved for development in the County, but not built yet. Those should be built, not this property. The openness of EdWards is being compromised with this development. He encotitaged the Board to deny this proposal. Jim Fettell, nearby homeowner, spoke in opposition of the project. He feels the developmental "line in the sand" should be the ridge line and not Lake Creek Road. The visual impact is from the road looking up, and he is not concerned about the lower bench homes, if the applicant does what it says it can do. He is concerned about the upper bench homes and their impact. He feels the Greens at Arrowhead analogy is misleading because of differing view impacts. He concurred with the applicant's assertions about two points of access on Lake Creek Road and the > building of the sidewalk, though. Kara Camputeili, President of Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners' Association, spoke to the Board and stated that her association's 80 members are against the proposal based upon the proposed density. This propertY shares boundary with lower density and open space developments than what the applicant is proposing. She asks that the Board consider developing this property at a density lower than currently proposed. NewNew Wallace, Homestead resident and member of the Homestead Board of Directors, spoke to the Board about the traffic problems on Highway 6. To add more traffic with this proposal is not right. She stated that the proposed access through Homestead is not going to happen. She believes that Mr. Green is only here because the prior Board approved Heritage Park. She told the Board that they are creating a domino effect by approving all of these developments. She beseeched the Board to say no to this project and give the Homestead residents a break for once. Stan Cope, resident of Lake Creek Meadows, addressed the Master Plan concept and how the definition of this property as Community Center is ludicrous. This property is not part of in-fill, but is a vital part of Lake Creek. The proposed density is not in character with Lake Creek. It is necessary to have green spaces between neighborhoods, and it is time to stop the up-zoning. Ruth Powers, resident of Creamery Ranch, stated her opposition to the proposal and listed the density of her subdivision, stating that the homes are not visible from the road. She is concerned with the density of traffic on Lake Creek Road, but doesn't want to see this country road improved. Elizabeth Holland, Lake Creek Meadows resident, spoke against the proposal. She feels that this proposal goes against the "beauty of Eagle County". She is concerned that no one at the County listens to them and their 24 4/4/05 concerns. Lake Creek is very special to her, as it represented escaping from the city. They are not being unreasonable; they are trying to maintain the quality of life. She spoke of all the other development and how it is impacting her quality oflife here in the Valley, as no one moved to Eagle County to experience city life. Steve Kerby, adjacent property owner, spoke against the proposal. He agreed with Mr. Cope as to how the zoning keeps changing. He asked the applicant to consider making this a Land Trust. Don Welch, Lake Creek Meadows resident, talked about the open space corridor along Lake Creek Road and how it should include the Green Property. Mike Eaton, Edwards resident, disputed the fact that this development would nothave any environmental or wildlife damage. He listed all the wildlife that he encounters while walking along the Dodd Ditch and how it has been impacted. , Bob Finlay, Lake Creek Road resident, spoke in opposition to the project, as there are other potential developments that could occur along Lake Creek Road. He would like to see the density lessened. Maureen Flynn stated she is totally opposed to the project. Katherine Siemen, Lake Creek Meadows resident, would like to preserve the character of Lake Creek and opposed the high density of this proj ect. Lonnie Chipman feels the density proposed exceeds the character of the area. Nancy Kerby pleaded with the Board to lower the density of this project. Chairman Menconi closed public co11iment. Commissioner Stone asked fora copy of the applicant's Power Point presentation. Chaitll1an Menconi asked the applicant to reply to the public cotnmertts. Fred Green, the applicant, responded to the comments. He addressed the density question by pointing out that next to his property, there are as many, or more, units as he is proposing on his 29 acres. These are placed On only 4-5 acres, however. He then went over the adjacent properties and listed their densities. He stated that there is not a leap across boundless open space to get to his development, and he is an in-fill development. He then talked about the view corridors. He went over the history of past developments along Lake Creek Road and the attangements that had been made. He was never asked to be part of the "view corridor", nor was it ever mentioned when he went through the hearings fot his house and barn. He believes that is because one can not see any of the 'operties from the road as it is driven along. He addressed the multiple access issue, especially with relation to the uomestead Homeowners' Association. He is fine with their objections, but stated that he can develop an access road up to the boundary line with a knockdown gate, and is willing to do so. He listed the many projects that don't have multiple access. He addressed the wildlife and vegetation concerns, stating that they will leave water in the ditch, so that vegetation will still exist. Mr. P)'lman addressed the precedent~setting cOncern over up-zonings, stating how adherence the Edwards Area Community Plan can prevent that from happening. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci to explain why this file does not have a zoning criteria. Mr. Natracci explained that this property was re-zoned from Resource to PUD in 1992, and PUD is a Zone District category. Each PDD is unique and this proposal seeks to expand the PUb, and will not involve a zone change. Commissioner Runyon asked George Gregory the thought process the Edwards Update Task Force Co11imittee went through to address the zoning density issues. George Gregory, co-Chair of the Edwards Update Task Force Committee, could not recall discussions about any view corridors along Lake Creek Road being preserved. They did want to preserve the rural nature of Lake Creek. They were looking for density that was less than 4 units per acre, but it could be increased through Transferable Development Rights, and explained how the process worked. They wanted Edwards to remain a residential community, and the plan adopted reflected that goal. Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Green how he planned to sell this property. Mr. Green stated he is planning to build the units in a common architectural style and plan as the market absorbed them. He has not fixed OTIa price range, but the square footage should be in the neighborhood of3,500 to 4,000 square feet. They would sell at the market rate, whatever it may be. Commissioner Runyon asked if it would be second homeowners or local market owners. Mr. Green feels the distinction between primary residence and second homeowners is starting to blur ill Eagle ~ounty. He is seeing people who are primary residents, yet live elsewhere, as well. He has received many calls rom local residents interested in residing in this development, also. Commissioner Stone asked about the school district's intent for land. 25 4/4/05 Mr. Pylman stated that the school district has not responded to the new dimensions of the parcel ofland. Originally they wanted to build a site for a new school, but that isn't feasible with the new dimensions, based on the reduced number of units proposed. Mr. Greeh would have no objection to the school district taking a piece ofland to expand its playing field. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant had gone through the conditions and what their&sponse to the conditions was. He asked Conditions specifically about #4 and #5. Mr. Pylman responded to Condition #4 by stating that the Fire District would like two points of access, but they don't want two points off of Lake Creek Road, though. They will continue their Homestead proposal through Preliminary Hearing and Final Plat. Connnissioner Stone asked about Condition #5. Mr. Pylman stated that they would like to work with Engineering to come up with a solution to the sidewalk design and the Lake Creek Road intersection. Commissioher Stone asked Mr. NaITacci about the view corridor and what the Planning Commission thoughts were. Mr. NaITacci stated that the Planning Commission heard many of the same complaints heard today, sO they went on a site visit during the second meeting. He stated that the homes on the upper bench could be seen from Lake Creek Road and from a distance. The lower bench was not commented on after the site visit, so it must not have been visible. Commissioner Stone asked if the homes were removed from the upper bench. Mr. Pylmanstated that they lowered the number of homes from 13 to 8. Commissioner Stone stated he was trying to address Mr. Welch's concerns. He feels that the applicant believes that the homes on the upper bench would blend in With Homestead. Mr. Green stated they could be seen from 1-70, but doesn't think they could be seen from Lake Creek Road. None ofthe homes on the upper bench are in the view corridor. He doesn't think that there is a true view corridor. Chairman Menconi asked Helen Migchelbrink of Engineering about the traffic impacts and what improvements they were looking for. Helen Migchelbrink County Engineer stated that is not an identified capital improvement. Justin Hildreth, Eagle County Engineering, stated they reconnnended left turn and right turn deceleration lanes and a right turn acceleration lane at the Lake Creek Road and Hwy. 6 intersection. These lanes would be installed on Hwy. 6. Chairman Menconi asked what discussions were taking place with the developer. Mr. Hildreth stated that because of the submitted traffic impact report, they came up With recommendations, but they haven't had full discussions. Chaifman Menconi asked how the applicant responded to Engineering concerns. Mr. Pylman stated that those improvements need to be made, regardless of what happens With the Green Property. They are willing to pay their fair share, but would not burden the sole cost of what other projects have caused. Mr. Green stated his desire to fix the problem, as he wants to continue to live there. He did some traffic counts on Lake Creek Road, and discovered that 1/3 of the traffic comes out of Homestead, and should not be considered to be Lake Creek traffic as such. Chairman Menconi asked KT Gazunis, Housing Director, about the affordable housing requirement with regards to this development. Ms. Gazunis stated the payment in lieu would be about $49,000 or three workforce housing units. The caretaker Uhit proposed would count as one unit. There would then be two additional units or payment in lieu. These calculations were made using 2004 figures, as that is when the proposal was made. She went over the guidelines that her department went through when making their calculations. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci to point out where the Engineering issues are located in the Staff Report. Mr. NaITacci pointed out to the Chairman where they were located. He then read from the Staff report, detailing th~neering Department's concerns, "Further, based upon the Traffic Report prepared by LSC Transportation C~sultants, Inc, dated August 23,2004, submitted with this application, the applicant should be required to make off-site improvements to the intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road. Please reference the attached Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated October 25,2004. A State Highway Access Permit will be required in order to construct the improvements in the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way." 26 4/4/05 Chairman Menconi went over the thought processes behind the various Master Plans that Eagle County uses. He finds that the development is not compatible with the Lake Creek Valley. He is not in favor of this development based on the public testimony and the many mixed or negative staff findings. Commissioner Runyon stated that he has issue with the compatibility of surrounding areas. He wants to retain the rural fell ofthis valley and would like to see a much lower density, comparable to 1 unit per 5 acres. Chairman Menconi then read from the Master Plan and the Edwards-area Sub-Master Plan to back up his feelings for denial. COtnmissioner Stone referenced a recent meeting the Board of County Commissioners held with the Planning Commission about "smart growth" and in-fill projects. He feels this applicant was put in a Catch-22 situation, with regards to view corridor. He doesn't feel that this development will finally cause traffic problems with U.S. 6 and doesn't think it's fair to make the last developer pay for others' impacts. He pointed out Homestead's failings and the poor past vision of the Board. He would like to create a different fund for intersection improvements. He would like to let the public know that it's not just the people in the immediate vicinity that are impacted, but it is the entire County. Because of the County's needs, they need to start approving projects similar to this, which ate smart growth projects. Chairman Menconi asked the applicant if they had any final comments. Mr. Pylman addressed the compatibility issues and stated that it doesn't mean "the same as", but it means "in reasonable proximity to", and feels they have designed a sensitive transition. They have been sensitive to other's Cdncems and believe that this repreSents smart growth. They are compatible with the surrounding area and they transition well into the surrounding area. In-fill growth is smart growthartd it will always be controversial. They would like some direction from the Board as to what is compatible with Lake Creek. Chairman Menconi stated that smart growth is a philosophy in Land Planning. He sees fill-in as linked to affordability and is found in more urban areas. He referenced the Portland area, as that is where in-fill philosophy came from. He has no recommendation or suggestion at this point, as he is holding to the 1993 pun, at this time. Commissioner Stone wished the planning process were different, as it is very costly to the applicant to go through that process. lIe isn'tsure that the applicant can do anything to satisfy everyone; as there are people who want nothirtg ever built there. He feels that maps and guidelines should be followed, that is why he is supportive of lis isSue. He asked the applicant about the assertions made about his motivation for this development. Mr. Green stated that they were trUe assertions. Heritage Park impacted him and his home and changed the character of his home, so hewartted to address those impacts. He woUld like to See the Board be more predictable and consistent and follow precedents that were previously set. He stated that this has taken him 2.5 years and more than $100,000 to get to this point, and he was relying upon previous standards set by the Board. He would like to table this matter to try and reach a solution. People opposed to want to see nothing built, as it would-improve their property values. His property is designed for future development, and he would like to exercise that right. ' Mr. Pylman was acceptable to the tabling. He suggested a time frame of about a month. CoII1ll1issioner Stone moved to table File PDS-00042-Green Ranch Pun Sketch Plan, at the applicant's request, to May 2, 2005 at a time to be determined. Cotnmissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Chairman Menconi thanked the public for their attendance and input. The vote was declared unanimous. ~ ;t~~)~ .... 2005. 27 4/4/05