No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/09/05 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 2005 Present: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Keith Montag Walter Mathews Don DuBois Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Acting County Administrator Deputy County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a special Public Hearing, the following item was presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Planning File PDS-00042 - Green Ranch PUD Sketch Plan Bob Narracci, Community Development NOTE: TABLED FROM MAY 2, 2005 To allow nine (9) additional single family homes, one caretaker's residence and one (1) existing single family residence for a total of 11 homes on 28.283 acres. ACTION: TITLE: Green Ranch Planned Unit Development FILE NO./PROCESS: PDS-00042/Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan LOCATION: 777 Lake Creek Road / on the east side of Lake Creek Road approximately three-quarters of a mile south of U.S. Highway 6. 1WNER: Frederick D. Green APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Pylman & Associates (RickPylman) STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR REVISED REQUEST: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: After a site visit and three hearings; the Eagle County Planning Commissioners recommended conditional approval of the original proposal for 23 total homes 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 satisfy 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 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 Commission 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. 1 5/9/05 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY OF REVISED REQUEST: Note: Revisions to this staff report are indicated in 'italics '. In tabling the PUD Sketch Plan application, compatibility concerns were expressed by the Board that 23 homes on 28 acres would be out of character with the surrounding Lake Creek valley vicinity. Further, the Board expressed a desire to retain the rural feel of the Lake Creek valley and suggested a much lower density, comparable to 1 unit per 5 acres. In response, the applicant has revised the PUD Sketch Plan request to allow nine (9) new single-family home sites, one (1) caretaker unit, and one (1) pre-existing single-family residence on the site for a total of eleven (11) homes, on 28.283 acres. This density equates to 0.39 dwelling units per acre or 1 dwelling unit for each 2.57 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 grouping of homes will consist of eight (8) single-family home sites, inclusive of the existing residence, as well as, the potential for a caretaker's dwelling unit which may be located either within the existing home or barn or as a separate free- standing residence. The caretaker unit would not be allowed to be sold or subdivided separately from the existing residence. Three single-family sites are now proposed on the upper bench of the subject property. Each of the lower bench 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' seven home sites located at the north end of the subject property, as well as the existing home and caretaker unit; the proposed road will terminate in a cul-de-sac on the lower, northern portion of the site. A driveway is to be constructed off of the cul-de-sac bulb that will serpentine back to the south, while gaining elevation to serve the remaining 'upper' three home sites located in the southeast portion of the site. /ses proposed within this Planned Unit Development include: · Single-family residences; · Accessory uses customarily appurtenant to single-family homes; · 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. As proposed, the Residential Lots will comprise approximately 55% (15.391 acres) and Open Space approximately 45% (12.892 acres) of the total land area involved in this application. The proposed residential lots range in size from 0.679 acres to 4.767 acres in area. The maximum sizefor the new singlefamily residences is 6,500 square feet. The existing residence and the caretaker's unit combined shall not exceed 7,500 square feet. CHRONOLOGY: December 1992 The original Green Ranch PUD 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 PUD 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. The Board of County Commissioners tabled the application in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to consider a substantial reduction in the overall residential density proposed. April 1993 May 1993 eeptember 2004 ~pril 4, 2005 2 5/9/05 SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses! Zoning: East: Single-family residential! Planned Unit Development (PUD) Vest: Single-family residential & Agricultural/Resource, PUD and Agricultural Limited Torth: Edwards Elementary School, mixed residential/Resource and PUD South: Drainage Tract & Single-family residential / PUD Existing Zoning: PUD Current development: One single-family residence, barn and extensive landscaping. Available uses by right: One single -family residence, limited agriculture, one caretaker dwelling unit and water diversion structures. PUD 28.283 acres 45% Public! Edwards Metropolitan District Public! Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Primary access via Lake Creek Road Proposed Zoning: Total Area: Percent Open Space: Water: Sewer: Access: STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attached memorandum dated October 25, 2004. Also, please refer to the attached response dated May 2, 2005 with regard to the revised proposal. In this latest memorandum, the Engineering Department has determined that if this Sketch Plan application is approved, that compliance with the engineering standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations can be reviewed with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - A verbal response from the Department of Environmental Health indicates that wood burning fireplaces must be prohibited within the proposed PUD. Concerns regarding vater 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 memorandum dated October 25, 2004. The recommendation under the Local Resident Housing Guidelines has been revised based upon the decrease in density from 28 homes to 23 homes. The applicant should still be required to provide three employee housing units, however, the payment in lieu has been decreased. Based upon the most recent reduction down to 11 total residential units, the Local Resident Housing Guidelines recommend that the developer be required to provide 1.26 affordable units. With one caretaker's unit being provided on site, the fee-in-lieu for the remaining portion of a unit is $13,724.05. Eagle County Sheriff's Office - Please refer to attached response dated October 25, 2004. The response indicated concern that vegetation not block an officer's view from Lake Creek Road into the subdivision and questions whether or not 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 anticipated impact on ECO's services. Eagle County Weed & Pest Coordinator - Please refer to attached response dated November 2,2004. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist - Please refer to attached response dated October 25,2004. Eagle County School District Administration (RE-50J) - 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 'nsufficient land area to be of use to the District and is requesting that fees in lieu ofland dedication be accepted. 1ased upon the latest reduction in density down to a total of ten new residential units, the land dedication requirement equates to 0.151 acres or 6,577.56 square feet. The applicant continues to request that fees in lieu of land dedication be accepted. 3 5/9/05 Northwest Colorado Council of Governments - Please refer to attached memorandum dated October 28,2004 indicating no comment at this time. Eagle 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. r:olorado Division of Water Resources - Please refer to attached letter dated October 28,2004. 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 Eagle County Road and Bridge Departtnent Eagle County Historical Society Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Forest Service KN Energy Century Tel Edwards Metropolitan District Eagle County Historical Society Saint Claire's Homestead HOA Lake Creek Metro District Animal Control Eagle County Assessor Eagle County School District Transportation (RE-50J) Colorado Division of Wildlife U.S. Army Corp of Engineers United States Post Office Holy Cross Energy ECAD Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Eagle Valley Land Trust Creamery Ranch HOA Lake Creek HOA Pilgrim Downs HOA Public Letters/Comments nirty-eight e-mails and letters from twenty-eight 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 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 Maria Minick - Lake Creek Road resident Sharon Jewett - Edwards Resident Kady Warble - 0124 Spring Place Maureen Flynn - 755 Eagle Crest Road 4 5/9/05 Rita Skelton - 1445 Lake Creek Road Kitty and Bob Seeman - Unknown Maggie & Marty Abel- 736 Eagle Crest Road dl 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. Letter of Support: R.A. 'Chupa' Nelson - Lake Creek property owner - submitted a second letter indicating that he concurs with the current proposal for 10 additional residences and feels that it is consistent with the character of the area. Mr. Nelson further recommends that a sidewalk not be required along Lake Creek Road. He feels that the additional concrete is not in keeping with the rural character of the area. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F., Procedure for Development Review: Section 5-240.F.1.a., Sketch Plan states "The purpose of sketch plan review is for the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision." The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Master Plan is determined, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. ~ection 5-240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, 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 ([n/a]). STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The subject property is owned by 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 Lone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. 5 5/9/05 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 Planned 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 PUD 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, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations necessary to accommodate this development PUD may differ from those specified in able 3-340 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Variations from certain dimensional limitations such as structural setbacks may 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 design 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. Variations from the schedule of limitations may be required. The applicant should incorporate within the PUD Guide standards for minimum lot size, as well as minimum standards for setbacks and maximum structure size (as pplicable). Condition No.1. 6 5/9/05 The Applicant will be required to request specific variations from zone district dimensional limitations at application for Preliminary Plan approval, with appropriate justification, and should also include the specifics of these variations in the PUD Guide for the project. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD MAY NOT 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 part of the a roval of the Prelimina Plan. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or a. Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The PUD Guide does specify a minimum of three (3) on-site parking spaces per residence which is consistent with the requirements ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR). [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS been fully demonstrated that Off-street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD will comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)J - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A conceptual landscape/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 common 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. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) , the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. 7 5/9/05 The proposed PUD Guide does include a sign plan that is clearly worded. Proposed is that the signage be allowed to be externally illuminated only with directional spotlighting of the sign face. The source of such light must be 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 PUD SHALL comply with Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Potable water suvplv. It is anticipated that the Edwards Metropolitan District will provide water to the proposed development. To date, there are no formal arrangements in place between the 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 documenting 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. Sewage disposal. It is anticipated that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District will provide sewage disposal services to the proposed development. To date, there are no formal arrangements in place between the District and he 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 subj ect property. Electrical supvlv. 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.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 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.1 Subdivision. Tract 'c' is )latted as a private access road and is owned and maintained by the Homestead Homeowner's Association. This _ 'econdary point of ingress / egress may be constructed as an emergency access only and be barricaded with 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 8 5/9/05 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. Condition No.5 'urther, based upon the Traffic Report prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, In.c, 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 Departtnent 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, volice and fire protection, and emergencv medical services. The nearest police, fire protection and emergency medical services are located in the immediate 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 demonstrated 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 MAYbe able to demonstrate that applicable standards will be met at application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the follOWing minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-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. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. 9 5/9/05 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. ~urther, 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.1 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 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. Condition No.5 Further, based upon the Traffic Report prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, In.c, 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 Departtnent memorandum dated October 25, 2004. A State Highway Access Permit will be required in order to construct the improvements in the Colorado Departtnent 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 "idewalk 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. 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 Plan. Condition No.6 [-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. The Applicant WILL be required to demonstrate, however, that applicable standards will be met at application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Existing and allowed land uses surrounding the subject property consist of: . 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 Subdivision 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. 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 10 5/9/05 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 approved for 24 units on 11.4 acres, which equates to 2.1 units per acre. Future homes in the Heritage Park development are higher in elevation than the proposed 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 on 152.06 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 and efforts have been made to orient the proposed home sites in such a manner as to preserve view corridors up the Lake Creek Valley for those adjacent Homestead homeowners; · South: The Homestead Filing No. 1 Subdivision wraps around the south side of the subject property as well. A platted common 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 south side of Tract 'N' are 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 Green property so that distant views to the north that the homeowners currently enjoy will remain uninterrupted; · West: The subject property abuts Lake Creek Road right-of-way on 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' and' 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 each 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 as uses-by-right on parcels of five (5) or more acres. This proposal for a residential development at an overall density of one dwelling unit per 2.57 acres is consistent with existing and allowed development on three sides of the subject property. The Green Ranch proposal will preserve 45% of the total land area as open space interspersed 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. By contrast, the Homestead developments to the north and east of the subject property rely upon the 401 acre Homestead 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. Vhen 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 the 11 5/9/05 significantly higher density residential development and do not directly benefit from the large Homestead Open Space parcel. The proposed development may also be considered to provide a gradual transition from the higher densities located orth 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 commonly owned open space would be compatible with but not the same as existing and allowed uses on the west side of Lake Creek Road. 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 unit per 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 1 dwelling unit per 12.40 acres. In light of the current request for 11 total residences that are proposed in a traditional lot configuration, as opposed to 'patio homes', and given that 45% of the subject property would remain as open space, staff concurs that the current proposal would result in a development that would be in character with surrounding land uses in all directions from the subject property. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)J It HAS been demonstrated that the development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surroundinf[ land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the faster Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e., how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may change. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Quality Open Space/ Recreation X Development Affordable Housing X Transportation Community Services X FLUM Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable X X X X Environmental Quality - 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's value as high quality wildlife habitat has been minimized. Open Space/Recreation - The Plan identifies visual quality, buffers, recreation, wildlife and natural water features lS priorities for preservation. This application proposes to utilize the most viable, already disturbed areas of the subject property for development while maintaining almost haIr 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. 12 5/9/05 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 lChieve more creative, efficient site design and to maximize open space through clustering. As stated above, this PUD proposal does strive to achieve these goals. The transition to 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. Ifpayment in-lieu is chosen for all three employee housing units, then the total payment in-lieu would be $75,319.83. Based upon the most recent reduction down to 11 total residential units, the Local Resident Housing Guidelines recommend that the developer be required to provide 1.26 affordable units. With one caretaker's unit being provided on site, the fee-in-lieu for the remaining portion of a unit is $13,724.05. 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. 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 ~oad must also be adequately addressed. ECO Transit did not identify a significant impact upon the transit system resulting from the proposed development. Condition No.5 Community Services - The Plan identifies additional school improvements and services as a goal. If approved, the development will be subject to the payment of fees in-lieu of school land dedication. FLUM - The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for 'Community Center' development. The Plan identifies Community Centers as areas appropriate to become residential and commercial activity centers because of their location, the availability of public water and sewage treatment facilities. Community Centers are expected to be at relatively high densities in the range of three to twelve dwelling units per acre. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Cooperation Open Space Provision X Unique Char. Preservation X Visual Quality Development Patterns X Hazards Wildlife Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable X X X X Land Use Cooperation - Not Applicable. Open Space Provision - The Plan states that, "Eagle County should recognize that planned unit developments and cluster housing assist in open space maintenance". The PUD Sketch Plan being considered does endeavor to create :md maintain open space by 'clustering' development on the most viable building sites which are clear of any natural or man made hazards and which have already been disturbed in the past. Unique Character Preservation - There are no unique landforms present on the subject property. 13 5/9/05 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 majority ofthe housing in the surrounding Homestead development is visible from points to the north and is located nostly within 'highly constrained' areas as defined by the Visual Quality map. The current proposal for 11 total residences; three of which would be located on the more visible upper bench, does represent an effort to reduce negative visual impacts. Development Patterns - The Plan states that, "It is the policy of Eagle County to encourage development to occur in and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas". The proposal does not represent leap-frog development and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Rather, the proposal should be viewed as infill development. The proposal will create a more abrupt edge-of-community 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. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land Use X Housing X Transportation X Open Space X Potable Water and Wastewater X Services and Facilities X Environmental Quality X Economic Development X Recreation and Tourism X Historic Preservation X Implementation X Future Land Use Map X 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 of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". The proposed development would provide residential home sites and preserve a substantial amount ofthe site as commonly owned open space. The proposed 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 Departtnent, 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 14 5/9/05 if one 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. Based upon the most recent reduction down to 11 total residential units, the Local Resident Housing Guidelines "'ecommend that the developer be required to provide 1.26 affordable units. With one caretaker's unit being 'provided on site, thefee-in-lieufor the remaining portion of a unit is $13,724.05. 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. Transportation - The Plan recommends that minimizing the number of vehicles on the road should preserve the character of Lake Creek and that pedestrian connections 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 identify 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 of the 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. Jervices and Facilities - This goal pertains to recycling of solid wastes and provision of public schools, occupational training and higher education and, as such, is not applicable. Environmental Quality - The Plan sets forth six goals pertaining to Environmental Quality all of which pertain to the greater Edwards area and are not necessarily intended to be site specific. This proposal does satisfy many of the stated objectives: The NWCCOG referral response reserved further comment until Preliminary Plan, however, the 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 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 are 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 Tourism - The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". This proposal will provide 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 15 5/9/05 that a professional survey be conducted to identify any cultural resources in the project area. The Eagle County Historical Society had not provided comment as of this writing. Condition No. 12 Implementation - 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 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. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Conformance x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Based upon much of the above, redundant discussion pertaining to wildlife, recreation and land use, the initial finding is that the proposal is in conformance with the Eagle River Watershed Plan. Assuming approval of this sketch plan application, 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 community-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing . . . transit routes . Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success . It is important to preserve existing local residents housing . Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs 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 Departtnent, the proposed development would create the need 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. Ifpayment in-lieu is chosen for all three employee housing units, then the total payment in-lieu would be $75,319.83. 3ased upon the most recent reduction down to 11 total residential units, the Local Resident Housing Guidelines recommend that the developer be required to provide 1.26 affordable units. With one caretaker's unit being provided on site, the fee-in-lieu for the remaining portion of a unit is $13,724.05. 16 5/9/05 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 (1O)J As conditioned, it HAS been demonstrated that the proposed PUD satisfies the spirit and intent of the applicable Master Plans. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. 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 specific Site Development Schedule sufficient to meet the requirements of this standard, to include guarantees for all public improvements, WILL BE required at application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum 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 ofresidents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ofways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. a. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. b. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule 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. 17 5/9/05 The proposal defines a total of 45% of the site (12.892 acres) of open space within the PUD boundary. The PUD does place the responsibility for continued use and maintenance of the private common open space and organization upon a home owner's association. [+] 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 STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the Applicant's own analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of all referral agencies, as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. The Army Corp of Engineers had not responded to this application at the time of this 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 of this 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 4-420.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 common open space. Condition 11 [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS been demonstrated that the PUD has considered the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Additional, more detailed information 18 5/9/05 I will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above on pages 14 and 15, "Consistency with Master Plan." [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] Please see discussion above. [+} FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] As conditioned, it HAS been demonstrated that the proposed PUD satisfies the spirit and intent of the applicable Master STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment 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 well as the existing PUD. [+/-] Lot dimensions - Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized for a PUD, a Variation will be required to accommodate the proposed development. trticle 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) - Please see discussion above. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) - Please see discussion above. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) - Please see discussion above. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) - Please see discussion above. [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. An executed Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - 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 corner 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 pursuant to the Eagle County Building Resolution due to a wildfire hazard rating of 'High', and; any landscaping introduced nto 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 site for the caretaker unit. As such, the new site will be evaluated at Preliminary Plan. 19 5/9/05 [-] 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 N/A] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not within a designated ridgeline area as depicted on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) -No environmental quality issues have been identified at the time of this report. If significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, an Environmental Impact Report will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [N/ A] Commercial 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 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 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 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 Iomestead 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 secondary point of ingress / egress may be constructed as an emergency access only and be barricaded with removable bollards or a gate. 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. Condition No.5 Further, based upon the Traffic Report prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, In.c, 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 Departtnent memorandum dated October 25, 2004. A State Highway Access Permit will be required in order to construct the improvements in the Colorado Departtnent 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 2001Eagle County Trails Plan identifies a spur trail up Lake Creek as a desired goal. ECO Trails' comments 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 'atisfied. Additional information will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan. 20 5/9/05 ~ [+] 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. L+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The plan must meet the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. I [+] 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. I Lighting standards should also be included in the PUD Guide. [+/-] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - The application indicates that the standards of this Section can be i met. Additional information will be required with the subsequent 1041 review process and Preliminary Plan documentation. ! [+/-] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - The application indicates that the standards of this Section can be met. Additional information will be required with the subsequent 1041 review process and I Preliminary Plan documentation. I [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) School land dedication or fees-in-lieu will be I assessed at the time of Final 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 I County Land Use Regulations. I [+/-] 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 I limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. However, the Applicant WILL BE required to meet applicable standards at I application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be I 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. (aJ Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service I plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eaele Countv Road Capital Improvements Plan. i 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 I range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. I 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 i demonstrated that the proposed subdivision will be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public semces, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made 21 5/9/05 hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Given the various studies and reports provided with this sketch plan application, as well as, the various referral dgency 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 Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please note earlier discussion. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] It HAS been demonstrated that the development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character 0 surroundin land uses. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: "to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations." This Section goes on to say that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: a. Permit integration of uses; b. Establish more efficient land use patterns; c. Preserve lands; d. Maintain water quality and quantity; e. Contribute to trails system; f. Establish incentives for affordable housing; and g. Be consistent with the Master Plan. The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. The proposal has been reviewed to determine whether one or more of the performance standards listed above are being served by techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies the use ofPUD zoning. The applicant has demonstrated at sketch plan level of detail that the benefits of establishing a PUD 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. ReQuirements for a Zone 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 22 5/9/05 change will not be required since the property will remain zoned 'PUD' thus, the findings pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards, for amendment to the Official Zone District Map are not applicable. HSCUSSION Bob Narracci of Community Development presented this file to the Board. He went over the changes that have been made to the proposal since it was last presented to the Board on April 4th. The applicant has reduced the number of new home sites to nine, plus a caretaker unit, for a total of eleven homes. The density is now one home per 2.57 acres. The caretaker unit has been modified as to type and location. Eight homes are proposed for the lower bench and three homes are proposed for the upper bench. This proposal falls within the tenets of the Edwards Area Community Plan, in terms of density. He showed various photographs and maps of the revised site plan to the Board. The homes on the lower bench would not be very visible from Lake Creek Road. The upper bench homes would be as visible as those homes in Homestead Subdivision. Staff believes that compatibility has been enhanced with the revisions, and the outstanding issues can be addressed at Preliminary Plan. Staff does recommend approval with conditions. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci if the Planning Commission's recommendation was made on the previous sketch plan approval, and if the commission needed to re-hear this due to the changes made. Mr. Narracci stated that the approval was based on the original sketch plan and this did not have to go back before the Planning Commission, even with the revisions made. Rick Pylman, representing the applicant, summarized the proposal, utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. He went over how this proposal meets with the Eagle County Master Plan in terms of Future Land Use Maps and proposed density, and he showed why this property has been designated as a "Community Center". He showed various maps of the site to the Board. He detailed how this proposal fits in with the Edwards Area Community Plan, as well, in terms of proposed density. He showed how this property fits in with the Eagle County Open Space Plan and how the various site analyses were favorable. He detailed the changes that have been made to this proposal, and showed how the number of proposed units has steadily decreased. He went over the compatibility, in terms of density, with the surrounding neighborhoods and showed how Green Ranch fits in with those numbers. fhe proposed road would remain private, but would be built to Public Road Standards. The caretaker unit would have to be built on the 4.7 acre site that the current home and barn sit upon. The three lots on the upper bench would be from 1 to 1.2 acres in size and would have 13 acres in common open space. He went over the distance buffers between the various neighbors. He went over the visual quality and reiterated how this property was not designated as a view corridor. He showed photographs to the Board detailing the property and showing how the visual quality would not be damaged. He addressed the Lake Creek Road intersection concerns and stated the applicant was willing to contribute its fair share to fixing the problems, but will not be solely responsible for the overall costs. He also addressed the sidewalk construction and dual access concerns. The applicant agrees with all conditions set forth, with the exception of Numbers 4,5, and 10, which were written for the 28-unit application. He summarized the proposal and asked the Board to approve this application. The square footage of the homes would be limited to 6,500 square feet, with the exception of the existing home. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Mary Ellen Cope, Lake Creek Meadows resident, stated that 6,500 square feet homes would not be compatible with the other homes in the area. She doesn't like the idea of this PUD allowing the applicant to upzone. She addressed the Master Plans and doesn't feel that they are totally accurate, as they are done by statisticians and not elected officials. She still questioned the density and wants it restricted even further. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Cope to be specific as to what would be acceptable for development. Ms. Cope stated that she could not speak for Lake Creek Meadows. She thinks 10 units are still not satisfactory with the ranches located across the street and the homes located on Allen Circle. This application should be viewed as a part of Lake Creek and not a part of Heritage Park or Homestead. She doesn't feel that this property should be upzoned. Kara Campitelli, President of Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners' Association, spoke about the density of Homestead not being what Mr. Pylman stated. The Association feels the density of this project is still too high. Chairman Menconi asked what the Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners' Association was. Ms. Campitelli stated that they represent 80 homeowners. Their density is from 2-7 acres in their neighborhood. Mike Claymon, Homestead resident, stated that, even though this proposal isn't changing the zoning, it is still increasing the number of units allowed on this property. He still questioned the need for these 10 units, as there are 23 5/9/05 still12,OOO units approved but not yet built in the County. He has concerns about the open property to the west being developed in the near future. Approval of this application could set a precedent for these succeeding applications being approved. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Claymon what density he would accept. Mr. Claymon asked for the proposal to have 1 unit per 5 acres, like the other members of the public stated. Stan Cope, Lake Creek resident, agreed with his wife's statements and reiterated the comments he made at the previous meeting. He questioned the proposed density and the precedent it could set, as well. He doesn't feel that this application meets the character and heritage of the Lake Creek area. He feels the proper density for this area is 1 unit per 5 acres, limited solely to the lower bench. Jeannie Huff, Homestead resident, agreed with the previous speakers and would like to see Lake Creek preserved. She wants a 1 unit per 5 acre density ratio, also. Ruth Powers, Creamery Ranch resident, feels that this application is a significant improvement, but would like to see the 1 unit per 5 acre ratio. Maureen Flynn, Lake Creek resident, would like to see the area not developed, but could accept the I unit per 5 acre ratio. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Fred Green, the applicant, gave the background of his property to the Board, detailing the various sales that he had made. He talked about the restrictions that he had placed on these sales, limiting development of these parcels. At no point did residents in the past have objections to developing his property at more than a 1 unit per 5 acre ratio as they were only concerned about the properties west of Lake Creek Road. He referenced the e-mail that Chupa Nelson sent that approves of this proposal. The Board concurred that they have received the document in question. Mr. Green addressed the suggestion that his property should be viewed as transitional, especially in terms of density. Everyone agreed with that at the previous meeting, but now, at this meeting, the public is saying that it really shouldn't be transitional. Mr. Narracci stated that Mr. Nelson's letter is part of the staff report available to the public. Commissioner Stone re-examined the surrounding neighborhoods and their densities. He then asked what the Iroposed density now was. Mr. Pylman stated that the density would now be a ratio of 1 unit per 2.8 acres. Commissioner Stone stated that a lot of the subdivisions that people live in today would no longer be approved, due to their density. He feels that this property is in character with the surrounding area, and referenced the approval letter by Mr. Nelson. He noted that Homestead accessed off of Lake Creek Road, also. He also stated that Master Plans are not done by statisticians, but it was done by the residents of Eagle County over a long period of time. He mentioned how this parcel was identified specifically in the Edwards Community Plan, which backs up Mr. Green's statements. Mr. Pylman stated that Mr. Green's property was identified in the Plan has having a density ratio of 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Commissioner Stone stated that Public Comment is not the only thing the commissioners look at when deciding on a file. He also feels that in-fill is a topic that the Board will have to deal with in the future. He doesn't know what the detriment to the area would be if these homes were built. He believes the surrounding home values would be increased with this development. He is in support of this sketch plan approval, but feels some issues will need to be addressed at Preliminary Plan. He asked Mr. Pylman about Condition #4. Mr. Pylman feels that, due to the reduced number of units, this condition should be re-visited by the various agencies. He gave a suggested re-wording for Conditions 4 and 5. Commissioner Stone asked about Condition 10. Mr. Pylman stated that it doesn't reflect this current proposal, as the location of the caretaker unit has moved. Commissioner Stone feels that the Board should follow the Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan tenets. He doesn't think this proposal will change the character and heritage of Lake Creek. Commissioner Runyon stated that he hasn't heard anything that would change his views from the previous meeting. Chairman Menconi asked Commissioner Runyon how many units he would be willing to accept for this proposal. Commissioner Runyon stated he would approve six. Chairman Menconi recommended that the applicant seek to reduce the density to the 1 unit per 5 acre ratio, in order to get his approval. He was flexible with some of the conditions that were set forth, especially the sidewalk 24 5/9/05 and dual access conditions, and would be willing to eliminate some of them, but he still has density compatibility Issues. Commissioner Stone asked the applicant and the Board about the possibility of eliminating the upper bench omes, or using larger home sites on the upper bench and reducing the number of homes to seven. Chairman Menconi asked for clarification of Commissioner Stone's suggestion. Commissioner Stone stated he was just throwing out different options to the applicant. He also stated that it is the County's decision as to whether the applicant gives the School District money or land and not the School District's decision. He brought this up in reference to the first hearing in April. Mr. Green asked to table this meeting until a date in June so that they may evaluate the number of issues that arise from having a new proposed density of 1 home per 5 acres. He would like to use the upper shelf if they choose that density, but he needs to look at the overall economics and other issues involved. Chairman Menconi felt the new hearing could be held on a Tuesday afternoon and should not require a special meeting. Mr. Narracci stated that June 21st and 28th were available to hear the file. Mr. Green stated that he would like to table this file to June 21 st. Commissioner Stone moved to table File No. PDS-00042-Green Ranch PUD Sketch Plan, at the applicant's request, to June 21, 2005. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned until May 10, Attest: ~ . Clerk to the Boa d c:::: .__fJ...I~ (~~.:.~....,.df{;.':.,\ ~ \~"""G;' )::'1 ~'.' ".' ill},-'/ ,I: Co. ;::::: ?~ ~ ..,i' ~.... fii:'....,~..,"'.~,":>,,41" 2005. 25 5/9/05