No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/13/05 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING June 13, 2005 :esent: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Keith Montag Walter Mathews Don DuBois Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Acting County Administrator Deputy County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board Deputy ~lerk 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 SUS..00015~Palmerosa Ranch Subdiyision Sketch Plan Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, Community Development NOTE: Tabled from May 3, 2005 ACTION: To subdivide the 45.18 acre property into eight single-family residential building sites. Each lot will encompass five or more acres. LOCATION: 887 Lake Creek Road, approximately3/4 mile south of U.S. Highway 6 on Lake Creek Road. .ITLE: ILE NO.1 PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Pa1merosa Ranch Subdivision SUS-OOO 15 / Subdivision Sketch Plan Palmero sa Ranch, L. L. C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company Palmero sa Development Company, L. L. C. 1 Jim Comerford Mauriello Planning Group, L. L. C. 1 Dominic Mauriello STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Eagle County Planning Commission's two hearings, responses to each of the following questions were requested: 1) The use of septic systems and leach fields vs. tying into a public sewer system - to be addressed by Applicant. Also, please reference the comments of the Department of Environmental Health in its attached memorandum dated April 6, 2005. 2) Is a caretaker's unit considered as density? Pursuant to Section 3-31O.A. 6., Dimensional Limitations of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, "Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted on parcels that conform with the minimum lot size standard of the underlying zone district, however, an accessory dwelling unit may be allowed subject to Special Review on legal, nonconforming lots or parcels (see Section 6-120, Nonconforming Legal Lots of Record). The unit shall be developed so as to conform to all setbacks, height, lot coverage, floor area and other dimensional limitations ofthe underlying zone district, but shall not count towards any applicable density limitations for the property". (am 3/12/02) 3) How will Lake Creek Road be dedicated to the County? 1 6/13/05 Historically, Eagle County has maintained Lake Creek Road, including the portion that traverses the subject property. The right-of-way for Lake Creek Road has never been formally dedicated to the County. At the time of Final Plat, Lake Creek Road will be dedicated to the County via a 'Deed of Dedication' . 4) Can you jump a road with a platted lot I Can the land on the east side of Lake Creek Road be used? As revised, the sketch plan no longer proposes lots that are bisected by Lake Creek Road. As stated below in this report and restated here, "Lake Creek Road right-of-way bisects seven of the eight proposed lots. Two ofthe lots are subsequently left with less than five contiguous acres on the west side of Lake Creek Road. This type oflayout is awkward and contiguous lots are preferred. However, we are aware of no legal authority or land use regulation precluding the proposed lot configuration. Further, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations do not contain language to the contrary." 5) If the Edwards Metropolitan District takes the property's water rights, how will irrigation continue? - To be addressed by the Applicant. 6) How is the acreage calculated 1 Developable land quandary? Please refer to the attached Memorandum from Bob Narracci to the Eagle County Planning Commission dated April 28, 2005. This Memorandum helps to establish the intent of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations with regard to the current definition of 'Developable Land'. . 7) Other than the single.J.fami1y homes, what other types of buildings are allowed? Are these structures required to be located within the defined building envelope on each lot? In addition to a single-family residence, the Agricultural-Limited Zone District does allow a variety of detached ancillary structures such as: Barns, other agricultural buildings, detached garages, work shops, hobby shops, etc. Accessory Dwelling Units 1 Caretaker's Units cannot exceed 850 sq. ft. in area and must be located within a primary residence or other lawful accessory building. Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to a Limited Review process prior to building permit issuance. From a zoning perspective, all buildings are required to meet the minimum applicable setbacks measured perpendicular from the property line to the closest point of a structure. Building envelopes can be more restrictive than setbacks but not less. The Planning Commission and the Board have considerable latitude in determining whether or not ancillary structureS must be located within a defined building envelope or must merely satisfy minimum zoning setbacks. The applicant may prepare private covenants limiting the number and placement or ancillary structures above and beyond zoning. A plat note should be provided on the resulting Final Plat document specifying the purpose and restrictions on the building envelope. Building envelopes are typically not used unless there is a compelling reason to do so - ridgeline issues, natural hazard areas, etc. For the purposes of this subdivision proposal, staff recommends that in lieu of building envelopes, 'Build' \ and 'No-Build' areas may be more appropriate to preserve the conservation easement and additional 'open space' areas specified on the sketch plan. 8) How big are the homes going to be 1 Can building envelopes limit the size of homes? Other than minimum setbacks and maximum height, no other constraints exist with regard to the maximum allowed size of home in the Agricultural-Limited Zone District. The applicant may prepare private covenants to restrict home size. If building envelopes are utilized with this subdivision, it is possible to specify a maximum habitable square footage for each lot OR, the building envelope may be sized to constrain the residence's footprint. Further, the building envelope may also be defined three dimensionally to artificially cap the structure's 2 6/13/05 maximum height to sotp.ething less than the maximum 35 foot height allowed in the Agricultural-Limited Zone District. Q) Request was made for a landscaping plan utilizing indigenous plant materials. The Applicant will respond to this, request. 10) What is the Homeowner's ,Association responsibility with regard to the open space and proposed community buildings / Request for draft set of CC&R's addressing open space management and who will enforce if the Homeowner's Association fails? - The Applicant will respond to this request. 11) Wildlife migration corridors and impacts upon wildlife due to development? - The Applicant will respond to this request. 12) Concern about two horses per lot and proper site maintenance? - The Applicant will respond to this request. During deliberations, the Planning Commissioners cited the following concerns: 1) The proposal for eight lots does not achieve adequate clustering (with emphasis on Lot 8) and, as such, does not satisfy the Edwards Area Community Plan recommendation to maintain the rural character of the Lake Creek Valley; 2) Lot 8 is encumbered by wetlands, is not 'clustered' and works against the recommendations of the Edwards Area Community Plan; , 3) Concern over the square footage (potential size) of each home; 4) Open Space area should not be referenced only in CC&R's but also as deed restrictions so that the property owners cannot change the CC&R's; 5) Rigorous restrictions on dogs should be provided due to wildlife sensitivity and corridors traversing site; ) Several of the homesites should be clustered closer together; ) Create and preserve unobstructed wildlife movement corridor through the property in an east-west orientation; 8) Spreading the homesites out along Lake Creek is not clustering and creates a 'wall' across the wildlife corridor; 9) Lots 3 and 4 need to be reconsidered from a wildlife corridor standpoint; 10) Sixteen horses is a lot of animals on that property and will require much work and maintenance. Responsible management ofthe horses is imperative. In making a motion recommending approval of this Subdivision Sketch Plan application, the Planning Commission incorporated staff findings and conditions one through eleven, as well as, conditions that Lots 3 and 4 be reconsidered in regards to wildlife impact, that the maximum home size be limited to 4,000 to 6,000 square feet and to eliminate Lot 8 from the proposal altogether. Cumulatively, these adjustments will aid compliance with the Edwards Area Community Plan. By a vote of 3 to 2, the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval of this Subdivision Sketch Plan application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: Originally the request was for a total of eight single-family residential lots. As revised since the final Planning Commission hearing, this Subdivision Sketch Plan proposal now is to subdivide a 43.689 acre parcel of land into seven single-family residential10ts each consisting of a minimum five acres. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Limited which allows a density of one dwelling unit per five acres. The proposed building sites are situated along the western perimeter of the subject property. The pastoral fields reva1ent in this vicinity of the Lake Creek Valley will be preserved as a no-build area. CHRONOLOGY: 3 6/13/05 September 3, 1984 Application made to Eagle County to rezone and subdivide the subject property from Resource to Agricultural Limited. Noyember 12, 1985 Board of County Commissioners approved the zone change request to rezone 160 acres from 'Resource' to 'Agricultural Limited' and a subdivision sketch plan for 32 single- family residential lots on the rezoned 160 acre parcel plus an additional 120 acre parcel that was (and still is) zoned 'Resource'. This 120 acre parcel was intended as open space. February 4,2005 Application for this Subdivision Sketch Plan received by Eagle County. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Single family residential 1 Planned Unit Development West: Single family residential 1 Agricultural Limited North: Single family residential 1 Planned Unit Development South: Single family residential 1 Rural Residential Existing Zoning: Agricultural Limited Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: Total Land Area: Minimum Lot Area: . Gross Density: Water: Sewer: Access: Seven plus one Accessory Dwelling Unit 43.689 Acres 5 acres One dwelling unit per five acres. Exploring Public Connection Individual Sewage Disposal Systems 1 Exploring Public Connection Via Lake Creek Road STAFF REPORT REFFERAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached Memorandum dated March 29, 2005. Engineering indicates that each of the two access roads into the subject property is intended to serve four homes apiece. As such, all homes in this development will need dual access. The most readily obvious solution would be to construct a connection between the two existing roads. Also, based upon the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan, the applicant is expected to provide a recreational path along Lake Creek Road for pedestrians and cyclists. All home sites located along Lake Creek must be located outside of the 1 00 year floodplain boundary and must maintain a minimum 50 foot setback from the high water mark of Lake Creek. The Preliminary Plan application will need to include a detailed floodplain study for Lake Creek. Lake Creek Road right-of-way bisects seven of the eight proposed lots. Two of the lots are subsequently left with less than five contiguous acres on the west side of Lake Creek Road. This type oflayout is awkward and contiguous lots are preferred. However, we are aware of no legal authority or land use regulation precluding the proposed lot configuration. Further, the Eagle County Lana Use Regulations do not contain language to the contrary. Lastly, all proposed residential development on Lake Creek Road will increase traffic volumes at the U.S. Highway 6 1 Lake Creek Road Intersection. For this reason, the applicant is expected to provide an equitable contribution toward the improvement of the U.S. Highway 61 Lake Creek Road intersection. Condition No.2 Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority: Please refer to the attached e-mail response dated March 8, 2005. ECO Transit does not foresee any significant effect on transit from this project alone; Eagle County Road and Bridge Department: Please refer to the attached e-mail from Brad Higgins, Director of Road and Bridge, dated March 8, 2005. Brad questions whether or not the access roads are to be upgraded or be privately maintained. The intersection of the 'South Road' may have sight distance concerns where it intersects Lake Creek Road. 4 6/13/05 Eagle County Department otEnvironmental Health: Please refer to the attached response dated April 6, 2005. Environmental Health's memo~andum addresses the adequacy of public facilities; conservation and management of natural resources, and; minimizing air and water pollution. Condition No.3 Please also reference the attached esponse from the Mauriello Planning Group dated April 7, 2005. Eagle County Housing Department: Please refer to the attached response dated'March 29,2005. At Preliminary Plan, the applicant will need to provide specific information regarding the anticipated size of the homes. These square footage figures will directly affect the calculations for affordable housing units. Condition No. 7 Eagle County Weed & Pest Coordinator: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated Apri14, 2005. Five types of noxious weed species are present on the site. Pursuant to State Law the landowner is required to. manage these noxious plants on the site. ' Eagle County School District RE-50J: Please reference the attached letter dated March 15, 2005. The letter provides a land dedication requirement calculation based upon nine single family residences. Since one of the residences already exists, the calculation will be performed based upon eight single family residences. The amount of fees-in-1ieu will be determined at the time of Final Plat based upon a ,current Summary Appraisal of the subject property . Lake Creek Meadows Homeowner's Association: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 19,2005. The Lake Creek Meadows HOA opposes the request. The HOA wishes to ensure that development is sensitive to the special nature of the Lake Creek Valley and the current plan falls short of that mark. Concern is expressed about the number and scale of homes proposed. They also question the proposed lot configuration extending across Lake Creek Road. Wetlands and the existing view / open space easement are not adequately addressed per the HOA response. The use of ISDS is also questioned. Eagle County Conservation District: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 23,2005. The ECCD ecommends that no more than four horses utilizing approximately 20 acres of the pasture land be allowed and that .le horse owners will have to provide supplemental feed and keep the animals in a paddock for most of the day or severe damage to the pasture grass will result. All livestock and horses should be taken off the pasture for two months each year. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments: Please refer to the attached letter from Lane Wyatt dated March 25,2005. Overall the project seems to embrace water quality protection. The applicant will need to obtain a CDPES discharge permit for stormwater control on a construction site from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The CPDES requires a Stormwater Management Plan be developed and maintained on site. The application discusses drainage and water quality and, conceptually, recognizes the appropriate focus areas and practices needed for protection of water quality. Protection of wetlands from the impacts of development is limited to 'jurisdictional' wetlands; other wetlands exist on the property. Overall the project seems to embrace water quality protection. The applicant will need to obtain a CDPES discharge permit for stormwater control on a construction site from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Condition No. 4 Colorado Historical Society: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 10,2005. The response indicates that no sites have been identified in the project area. Upon discussion with Jim Green of the Colorado Historical Society via telephone, a survey is not required unless the development is a federal or state project. State Division of Water Resources: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 11, 2005. The State Engineer's Office has opted to defer comment until the preliminary plan is filed. Colorado State Forest Service: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 16, 2005. The response letter indicates a wildfire hazard rating of 'low' for the subject property; however, it is recommended that oncombustib1e roofing materials be used and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. "Amdition No.5 Colorado Geological Survey: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 17,2005. The Colorado Geological Survey (C.G.S.) referral response reinforced that a full geotechnical and geologic hazards report should be 5 6/13/05 conducted at the preliminary plan stage of development. C.G.s. provided four observations that need to be considered when the geotechnical and geologic hazards report are prepared: 1) The access road to Lot 1 must cross a steep (32%) slope above the existing house on Lot 2. This road should be engineered to avoid potential slope instabilities. The building envelopes on Lots 4 and 5' should avoid the steep banks of Lake Creek to the west of the lots. It appears that the building envelope on Lot 5 encompasses some of these steep slopes. The building envelope should either avoid these slopes or a slope stability analysis should be performed; 2) The property is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite, which is susceptible to subsidence due to solution. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is prone to sinkhole formation. C.G.S. recommends site-specific soil investigations as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site; 3) The slopes above the property to the west have the potential for debris flow. This would only affect Lots 1, 2 and 3 but should be investigated in the geologic hazards report; 4) The land that will be developed has been pasture for a number of years the geotechnical report should be clear that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. Evaporite soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete. Any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive should utilize Type II cement; Condition No. 6 u.s. Army Corps of Engineers: Please refer to the attached response dated March 2,2005. The Corps concurs with the estimate of the wetlands and waters of the United States prepared by Western Ecological Resource. The Corps also indicated that the Dodd Ditch must remain a jurisdictional water along with its adjacent wetlands, until such time that additional data identifies this system as a non-jurisdictional water of the United States (i.e., clearly demonstrating that the ditch can be turned off and that other waters of the United States are not completely intercepted up-gradient ofthe property investigated). The Corps understands that the applicant may provide additional hydrological information, at a later date, to re-define potentially, artificially irrigated areas which would revert to uplands if the irrigation ceased. Other referral agencies not responding: Eagle County Attorney's Office Eagle County Animal Control Eagle County Sheriffs Office RE-50J Transportation Division Colorado Department of Transportation Natural Resource Conservation Service Qwest / PTII Century Tel Public Service Co 1 KN Energy Holy Cross Energy Eagle River Fire Protection District Edwards Metropolitan District Eagle Riyer Water & Sanitation District Eagle County Ambulance District Eagle County Historical Society Edwards Postmaster Creamery Ranch HOA Homestead HOA Lake Creek HOA Lake Creek Metro District Pilgrim Downs HOA Additionally, as of this writing, twenty letters from citizens have been received, all are attached. One letter of support was received from Albert Beedie and Joyce Bennis of 45 Angela Lane. One letter of concern with emphasis on preserving the southern most boundary of the Palmero sa property was received from Pamela Green. Pamela formerly owned the adjacent 'Pyle Ranch' and now is the caretaker for the Palmero sa Ranch. Eighteen letters of opposition have been received from: 6 6/13/05 RA. 'Chupa' Nelson, Lake Creek Property Owner; im Ferrell, Lake Creek Property Owner. The letter submitted is a duplicate / draft version ofletter from the Lake ;reek Meadows HOA. (Please also see letter of response to Mr. Ferrell, dated March 22, 2005 by the Mauriello Planning Group); James M. Moser, Lake Creek Property Owner (Two letters) Hatsie Hinmon, Lake Creek Property Owner Judith D. Pyle, Lake Creek Property Owner Lauren, Ben, Sydney, Hannah, Jasmine and Picabo Gaylord, Lake Creek Property Owners Karski Atelier, 2366 Lake Creek Road Brad Ghent, 369 Jackman Ranch Road Gerald G. Gallegos, Lake Creek Property Owner Elizabeth Holland, Lake Creek Property Owner Stephen McConahey, 388 Meadow Road Bill and Maggie Rey, 1273 Lake Creek Road usan Miller, Lake Creek Property Owner (Four Letters) Spencer Denison, Lake Creek Property Owner (Please also see letter of response to Mr. Denison's first letter dated March 17, 2005 by the Mauriello Planning Group); Mr. Denison's second letter dated March 30, 2005 identifies an obscure statement unique to subdivisions governed by standard zoning. Pursuant to the definition of 'Developable Land' in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, land that is governed by a standard zone district cannot include land area that is encumbered by water or is located within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. In this instance, for each of the proposed lots, the minimum five acre requirement per lot cannot include areas within the 100 year floodplain of Lake Creek or within any of the other water features. Following are the areas of the flood plain and man-made ponds on the Pa1merosa property: Flood Plain: 1.06 acres Manmade Ponds from north to south: #1 = 0.08 acres #2 = .12 acres #3 = .14 acres #4 = .62 acres. Mr. Denison suggests that the Open Space Easement is also not developable and thus should also be excluded in calculating net developable acreage of the lots. Staff does concur that the regulations do preclude water features and floodplains but not conservation or open space easements. ~.rr. Denison's third letter dated Apri112, 2005 indicated that the applicant is required to submit a Geologic Hazards ~a1ysis in connection with the Sketch Plan since the subject property contains some land in excess of a 30% slope. Mr. Denison opined that there is not enough land area on the west side of Lake Creek to accommodate more than one large home. The applicant has prepared a Geologic Hazards Analysis at a Sketch Plan level of detail. Greater detail will be required at Preliminary Plan. Further, Mr. Denison desires to see the County's driveway standards 7 6/13/05 be adhered to in terms of maximum slope. At Preliminary Plan, the applicant will be required to demonstrate how driveway access will be provided to each building site in compliance with the Land Use Regulations. With regard to the small parcels of land east of Lake Creek Road, the developer is trying to utilize this land area to meet the minimum five acre lot size for several ofthe lots. Mr. Denison suggest that because the area east of Lake Creek Road is steep, and is therefore not buildable and should not be included within the definition of 'Developable Land'. While staff does concur that including the land on the east side of Lake Creek Road within several of the proposed lots is indeed awkward; staff believes the definition of 'Developable Land' was intended to specifically exclude lands encumbered by a 100 year floodplain or other water features. Please refer to the attached Memorandum from Bob Narracci to the Eagle County Planning Commission dated April28, 2005. This Memorandum helps to estqblish the intent of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations with regard to the current definition of 'Developable Land'. Mr. Denison's fourth letter dated May 15,2005 reiterated several of the points from his first three letters. Also, Mr. Denison points out that the 1985 sketch plan approval was for 33 lots on approximately 290 acres and that the sketch plan has elapsed - this is indeed true. Mr. Denison opines that the landowners involved in the zone change and sketch plan from 1985 never had any intent to pursue development at all. This too may be true. Despite the intentions of the 'then' property owners, it remains a fact that in November of 1985 the Board of County Commissioners granted a zone change from 'Resource' to 'Agricultural-Limited' on a 160 acre swath of land located on the west side of Lake Creek Road; inclusive of the subject property. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.l, Overview of Procedures. Subdivision Sketch Plan Review~ the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision provides an opportunity for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for the proposed development and to determine if there are any alternative approaches the applicant should explore. A determination is made at this time as to whether or not the proposal is consistent with Master Plan documents and whether the improvements proposed by the plan are generally compatible with surrounding uses. Consensus should be reached regarding the number of units proposed, the general location of development, the general alignment(s) for access and whether water supply and sewage disposal should be provided on site or through connection to a public system. Issues and concerns that should be addressed relevant to the eventual approval of a Preliminary Plan are identified. Staff utilizes the Standards for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, as detailed in Section 5-280.B.3.e in the review of a Subdivision Sketch Plan application. Pluses and minuses appearing before each fmding indicate where Staffhas found that the proposed development meets or could meet that particular standard [+], will not be able meet that particular standard [-], is of mixed conformance with that particular standard [+/-]. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards for Sketch and Preliminarv Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD (1): Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (lJ) - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FL UM of the Master Plan. The following Master Plan Analysis considers the proposal as submitted. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Conununity FLUM Qualitv Recreation Housinl! Services Conformance X X X X Non Conformance Mixed X X Conformance Not X Applicable 8 6/13/05 Environmental Quality - Per the Environmental Health Department response, the applicant should be required to prepare a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated with individual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. If it is determined that individual sewage disposal systems are deemed ppropriate, then they must be engineered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent so as to ensure lat groundwater will not be compromised. Condition No.3 Western Ecological Resource, Inc. has prepared a detailed Wetland Delineation Report for the subject property which the Army Corps of Engineers concurs with. Further, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments finds that overall the project seems to embrace water quality protection. NWCCOG made several recommendations to be addressed at Preliminary Plan. Condition No.4 Open SpacelRecreation - The Plan identifies visual quality, buffers, recreation, wildlife and natural water features as priorities for preservation. This application proposes to preserve and enhance Lake Creek and itS associated wetland and riparian areas where it traverses the subject property. Building sites are situated to avoid these areas. The applicant intends to install substantia11andscape buffers around each respective. home site. Ponds, landscaping and earthen berms will be disbursed throughout the site. A no-build area has been designated over the pasture portion ofthe subject property. 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. With the exception of the building site on Lot 8, which is on the southeast corner of the site, this subdivision request does propose that the remaining seven individual home sites be 'clustered' along the west side of the subject property away from Lake Creek Road. Each building site is defined with the intent of avoiding undue impacts upon environmental resources. Affordable Housing - Please refer to the attached response dated March 29,2005. At Preliminary Plan, the applicant will need to provide specific information regarding the anticipated size of the homes. These square footage figures will directly affect the calculations for affordable housing units. A housing plan will be required at Preliminary Plan. ransportation - 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. ECO Transit did not identify a significant impact upon the transit system resulting from the proposed development. Eagle County Engineering's response indicates that each of the two access roads into the subject property is intended to serve four homes apiece. As such, all homes in this development will need dual access. The most readily obvious solution would be to construct a connection between the two existing roads. Also, based upon the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan, the applicant is expected to provide a recreational path along Lake Creek Road for pedestrians and cyclists. Condition No.2 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 based upon a current Summary Appraisal Report at the time of Final Plat. FLUM -The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for 'Countryside' development. Countryside is defined as areas of primarily single family residential development. Historically, these lands have been characterized by individual homes on lots of two (2) to ten (10) or more acres located in subdivisions containing a relatively small number of lots. Open space in these subdivisions is typically found within individua110ts and not as commonly-owned lands. The proposed subdivision is for a relatively small number of lots within the identified density range and open space is proposed as part of the individual lots. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservati on Quality Patterns Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed X Conformance Not X Applicable 9 6/13/05 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". Thi,s Subdivision Sketch Plan being considered capitalizes on the existing Agricultural Limited zoning and is not a Planned Unit Development. The proposed development does, however, endeavor to create and maintain the effect of open space by arranging the building sites along the perimeter of the subject property in areas which are clear of any natural or man made hazards that have already been disturbed in the past and by defining a substantial no-build area closest to Lake Creek Road. fu this manner, the view corridor up the Lake Creek Valley will be maintained. Unique Character Preservation - There are no unique landforms identified on the subject property. Visual Ouality - Based upon the Visual Quality map, the subject property is located in an area designated as 'highly' to 'moderately' constrained. The proposal will establish no-build areas on a significant portion of the site adjacent to Lake Creek Road to reduce 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 consistent with land uses in the immediate vicinity. The proposal will result in a subdivision that is substantially less-dense than existing adjacent deye10pment further south on Lake Creek Road. The proposal will define a more gradual density transition from south to east on the west side of Lake Creek Road. Hazards - It is the applicant's intent to constrain the residenti~J building sites to those portions of the subject property which are clear of any known natural or man made hazards and which have already been disturbed through the historic ranching use of the property. The Colorado Geological Survey in its referral response dated March 17, 2005 stated that a full geotechnical and geologic hazards report should be conducted at the preliminary plan stage of development. C.G.S. provided four observations that need to be considered when the geotechnical and geologic hazards report are prepared. Condition No. 6 Wildlife ~ The CDOW has not provided comment as of this writing. The applicant's intent, however, is to avoid and enhance the wetland and riparian areas adjacent to Lake Creek and to introduce ponds and landscaping throughout the site. Both of these actions will serve to improve wildlife habitat. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Confonnance 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 10 6/13/05 Land Use - The stated goal is, "The location and type ofland uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, ost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of fe found in Edwards". Housing - Please refer to the attached response dated March 29, 2005. At Preliminary Plan, the applicant will need to provide specific information regarding the anticipated size of the homes. These square footage figures will directly affect the calculations for affordable housing units. A housing plan will be required at Preliminary Plan. 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. ECO Transit did not identify a significant impact upon the transit system resulting from the proposed development. Eagle County Engineering's response indicates that each ofthe two access roads into the subject property is intended to serve four homes apiece. As such, all homes in this development will need dual access. The most readily obvious solution would be to construct a connection between the two existing roads. Also, based upon the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan, the applicant is expected to provide a recreational path along Lake Creek Road for pedestrians and cyclists. Condition No.2. 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 majority portion of the subject site as no-build open space although it does not entail coordination with outside parties. Potable Water and Wastewater - It is anticipated that the residences will be provided potable water via individual wells although the applicant is still exploring the possibility of tying into a public water source. Per the Environmental Health Department response, the applicant should be required to prepare a feasibility analysis to eigh the pros and cons associated with individual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer ystem. If it is determined that individual sewage disposal systems are deemed appropriate, then they must be engipeered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent so as to ensure that groundwater will not be compromised. Condition No. 3 Services and Facilities - This goal pertains to recycling of solid wastes and provision of public schools, occupational training and higher education and, as such, is not applicable. Environmental Quality - The Plan sets forth six goals pertaining to Environmental Quality all of which pertain to the greater Edwards area and are not necessarily intended to be site specific. This proposal does satisfy many of the stated objectives: Through the orientation of the home sites, a substantial no-build area and use oflandscape buffers, the proposed development endeavors to maintain scenic vistas up the Lake Creek Valley. Natural hazards are being avoided and riparian areas and wetlands will be protected and enhanced. Per the Environmental Health Department response, the applicant should be required to prepare a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated with individual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. If it is determined that individual sewage disposal systems are deemed appropriate, then th~y must be engineered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent so as to ensure that groundwater will not be compromised. Condition No. 3 Western Ecological Resource, Inc. has prepared a detailed Wetland Delineation Report for the subject property which the Army Corps of Engineers concurs with. Further, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments finds that overall the project seems to embrace water quality protection. NWCCOG made several recommendations to be addressed at Preliminary Plan. Condition No.4 Economic Development - Not applicable. ~ecreation 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 11 6/13/05 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. The Eagle County Historical Society had not provided comment as of this writing. Implementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) - The FLUM identifies the lands on the west side of Lake Creek Road as appropriate.for residential rural density at a net density of one unit per 10 acres or a gross density of one unit per 20 acres. The Plan, however, specifically states that, "The agricultural nature of this group of properties has been protected by language of the 1985 Area Community Plan. However, several of these properties are zoned Agricultural Limited and Rural Residential which would allow for one unit per five acres or one unit per two acres respectively. Steps should be taken to keep the rural, agricultural character of the Lake Creek Valley". Further, "Potential Uses: This group of properties is appropriate for rural densities of development. The current zoning allowances may be acceptable if the development is clustered in a manner that will maintain the rural character of the Lake Creek Valley". The subject property has indeed been zoned Agricultural Limited since November 12, 1985. This proposed subdivision of the subject property does endeavor to preserve a majority of the subject . property as a no-build area and the eight individual building sites are 'clustered' around the perimeter of the site. Each building site will be screened through the use of extensive landscaping. Together, these subdivision design techniques satisfY the Plan's stated intent to maintain the rural character of the Lake Creek Valley. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN 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 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 12 6/13/05 . 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 lS stated above, the project does create a need for affordable housing. At Preliminary Plan, the applicant will need to provide specific information regarding the anticipated size of the homes. These square footage figures will directly affect the calculations for affordable housing units. A housing plan will be required at Preliminary Plan. Condition No. 7 [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] This proposal IS consistent with the majority of the Master Plan recommendations. The applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance with the Preliminary Plan application with regard to Environmental Quality, Transportation, Hazards and Potable Water Source & Sewage Dis osal. STANDARD (2): 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 the Land Use Regulations including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develooment Standards. Articie 3, Zone Districts [+] The uses proposed by this plan are in conformance with the standards for the Agricultural Limited zone district. Article 4, Site Development Standards +] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1). It is reasonable to assume that on lots offive or more acres, that the minimum off-street parking and loading standards of three spaces per dwelling can be met. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2). Any landscaping and/or illumination introduced to the site will conform to all applicable standards and requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. lllumination will be minimal. Lighting will be generally limited to exterior lighting on homes and some minor landscape lighting near driveways and the entrances to homes. We do not anticipate any street lighting. The intent is to keep the site in a rural character and not have typical subdivision lighting. Landscaping on the site will be extensive. Landscaping will consist of the addition of trees and some landscape benning as well as wetland enhancement (as approved by the Army Corps of Engineers). Landscaping will be concentrated around home sites to create privacy but strategically placed as not to create a fire hazard. A detailed landscape design will be presented at Preliminary Plan and will focus on having homes disappear into the landscape as viewed from Lake Creek Road. The open pasture areas will be maintained as open areas with accent landscaping provided periodically. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). Any signage associated with the proposed development will conform to the applicable standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards. (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - At the time of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not responded to this application. The application, however, does avoid riparian and wetland areas on the site and will preserve a majority of the site as a no-build area. The Palmerosa Ranch has operated as a ranch for more than 30 years. The site is fenced to maintain cattle on the property. The Eagle County wildlife maps indicate that this area of Eagle County is not located in a Mule Deer winter range or concentration area. The area is, however, indicated as an Elk Winter Range and Elk Winter Concentration Area. There are no wildlife corridors mapped on the property. Since the majority of the site will be maintained in its existing state with wetland areas 13 6/13/05 and large open pastures, impacts to wildlife will be minimal. Also, the applicant will be required to provide bear proof refuse containers located within garages or similar enclosed facility. The covenants will contain requirements for dog kennels and leash requirements. A detailed wildlife analysis will be provided with Preliminary Plan application. [+/-] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The applicant has prepared a geotechnical report at a sketch plan level of detail. The Colorado Geological Survey (C.G.S.) referral response reinforced that a full geotechnical and geologic hazards report should be conducted at the Preliminary Plan stage of development. C.G.S. provided four observations that need to be considered when the geotechnical and geologic hazards report are prepared: 1) The access road to Lot 1 must cross a steep (32%) slope above the existing house on Lot 2. This road should be engineered to avoid potential slope instabilities. The building envelopes on Lots 4 and 5 should avoid the steep banks of Lake Creek to the west of the lots. It appears that the building envelope on Lot 5 encompasses some of these steep slopes. The building envelope should either avoid these slopes or a slope stability analysis should be performed; 2) The property is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite, which is susceptible to subsidence due to solution. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is prone to sinkhole formation. C.G.S. recommends site-specific soil investigations as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site; 3) The slopes above the property to the west have the potential for debris flow. This would only affect Lots 1,2 and 3 but should be investigated in the geologic hazards report; 4) The land that will be developed has been pasture for a number of years the geotechnical report should be clear that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. Evaporite soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete. Any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive should utilize Type II cement. Condition No.6 [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service has rated the subject property as a low wildfire hazard. Even with this low rating, the State Forest Service recommends the use of noncombustible roofing materials and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Condition No.5 [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - Development of the site shall conform to the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not in an area designated on Eagle County's Ridgeline Protection Map. [+/-] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - A preliminary Environmental Impact Report was not submitted with the application. With the preliminary plan application, the applicant must provide evidence that adverse environmental impacts will not result or, if they exist, that they will be properly mitigated. Pursuant to Section 4-460.F, a full Environmental Impact Report may not be necessary for this proposal. The applicant has already provided information pertaining to geologic and hydrologic conditions, riparian areas, wetlands and slope. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that all impacts resultant from development will be acceptable or adequately mitigated at Preliminary Plan application. The applicant should be required to prepare a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated with individual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. If it is determined that individual sewage disp-osal systems are deemed appropriate, then they must be engineered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent so as to ensure that groundwater will not be compromised. Condition No.3 (nla] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) Standards in this section are not applicable. [ +] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) 14 6/13/05 [+/_] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - 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. ECO Transit did not identify a significant impact upon the transit system resulting from the proposed development. Eagle County Engineering's response indicates that each of the two access roads into the subject property is intended to serve four homes apiece. As such, all homes in this development will need dual access. The most readily obvious solution would be to construct a connection between the two existing roads. Also, based upon the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan, the applicant is expected to provide a recreational path along Lake Creek Road for pedestrians and cyclists. Condition No.2. [+/-] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - Based upon the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan, the applicant is expected to provide a recreational path along Lake Creek Road for pedestrians and cyclists. Condition No.2 [+/-] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - The application materials indicate that it is the developer's intent to continue irrigation of the pasture land portion of the property. An irrigation plan must be provided with the Preliminary Plan application. Condition No. 8 [+/-] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - At Preliminary Plan application, detailed drainage plans must be provided. Condition No. 9 [+/-] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660):"'- At Preliminary Plan application, detailed grading and erosion control plans must be provided. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) -lllumination will be minimal. Lighting will be generally limited to exterior lighting on homes and some minor landscape lighting near driveways and the entrances to homes. We do not anticipate any street lighting. The intent is to keep the site in a rural character and not have typical subdivision lighting. As applicable, detailed utility plans must be provided at Preliminary Plan application. [+/-] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - It is anticipated that the residences will be provided potable water via individual wells although the applicant is still exploring the possibility of tying into a public water source. At Preliminary Plan application, the applicant must provide either an agreement from a public water provider to serve each of the eight residential lots proposed, or. verification that the necessary water rights have been obtained to allow eight individual wells. If well water is the chosen course, then the applicant must also demonstrate that the minimum separations required between individual wells and septic systems can be maintained including both primary and secondary leach field locations on each lot, as well as, between lots. Condition No. 10 [+/-] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Per the Environmental Health Department response, the applicant should be required to prepare a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated with individual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. If it is determined that individual sewage disposal systems are deemed appropriate, then they must be engineered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent so as to ensure that groundwater will not be compromised. Condition No. 3 [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) - At the time' of Final Plat, the applicant will be required to submit a current Summary Appraisal Report to determine the amount of fees in-lieu of school land dedication. At the time of building permit for each of the proposed residences, a Road Impact Fee will be assessed pursuant to Section 4-710 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - This roposa1 IS consistent with many as ects of the land use regulations. The a licant MAY BE 15 6113/05 able to demonstrate full conformance at application for Preliminary Plan with regard to Geologic Hazards, Potable Water Source & Sewage Disposal, Roadway Standards, Sidewalk and Trail Standards, Irrigation System Standards, Drainage Standards, Grading & Erosion Control Standards. STANDARD (3): Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities or result in a' 'leapfrog' pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Cavital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The spatial patterns proposed by this development are not anticipated to cause the kind of inefficiencies contemplated by this standard. The applicant is required to demonstrate that these standards will be met with the Prelimin Plan a lication. STANDARD (4): Suitability/or Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man~made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. As identified throughout this report, the developer is required to demonstrate conformance to the applicable recommendations of the Master Plan and requirements of the Land Use Regulations at the time of Preliminary Plan application with regard to Environmental Quality, Transportation, Hazards and Potable Water Source & Sewage Disposal. [+/-] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance with the Preliminary Plan application with regard to Environmental Quality, Transportation, Hazards and Potable Water Source & Sewage Disposal. STANDARD (5): 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. The proposed development is maximizing the Agricultural Limited Zoning that was approved for the subject property 20 years ago. Efforts have been made to preserve and maintain the agricultural and rural character prevalent to the north of the subject property on the west side of Lake Creek Road. The resulting development, if approved, will be less dense than existing development located to the south ofthe subject property on the west side of Lake Creek Road. The proposed development may be viewed as providing a more gradual transition between the low density development located to the north of the subject property and the denser Lake Creek Meadows Subdivision which consists of 83 residential lots on 270.296 acres. This equates to a gross density of one dwelling unit per 3.25 acres, with lot sizes ranging from 1.6 acres to approximately 8 acres in area. This proposed Sketch Plan provides substantial structural setbacks from adjoining properties. The proposed subdivision layout also endeavors to respect the primary views from neighboring residences by orienting the building sites to minimize visual impacts. I [+] FINDING: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - This I 16 6/13/05 proposed Subdivision S~etch Plan IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and it should not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. DISCUSSION: Bob Narracci of Community Development presented this file to the Board. He stated that he had received nine additional letters since last week, one for and eight against the proposal. The Board has received copies of these letters. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he showed various maps and photographs to the Board to summarize the proposal. The applicant wishes to sub-divide the property into seven residential lots. He gave the zoning specifics of the proposal and explained that Lot 8 was eliminated due to the existence of wetlands. He showed photographs of the various proposed lots to the Board. He cited the Edwards Area Community Plan and the Eagle County Land Use Regulations that applied to this file. He went over the recommendations of the Staff, stating that this file is consistent with Land Use Regulations and the Edwards' Community Plan. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of this request. He listed the suggested conditions set forth by Staff for approval of this file, which are in the Staff Report. He listed the densities of the surrounding neighborhoods to show how the application was consistent in terms of density. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant and future owners of the property, was present. He introduced the various persons that would be available to speak to the Board. He also utilized a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the proposal and stated that this is not a PUD and they are not requesting an up zoning. He showed photographs ofthe property, as well, supplementing Mr. Narracci's presentation. There is an access easement for crossing the Pyle Ranch, but they may rebuild a bridge to eliminate the need to utilize that easement. They are proposing to have development that is similar to other properties along Lake Creek Road, building along the creek. He showed the Pyle property, stating that there were 9 structures located on 41.4 acres ofland. He went overthe current zoning of the property and showed how it related to the other nearby subdivisions' zoning, stating that their proposal was less dense. He went over the background of the property and explained the 1985 rezoning and the Commissioners' fmdings. He went over the Open Space Covenant established in 1985 and explained its tenets. He explained how this proposal conforms to the Eagle County Master Plan, stating it was consistent with "liLUM designations. He also went over the Edwards Area Community Plan and how it applied to this proposal. ...e also detailed how this proposal complies with the Agricultural Limited Zone District. They have net developable land of 41.669 acres with only seven homes being proposed, along with one caretaker unit attached to the barns and stables that will comply with the housing Guidelines. He showed sketches of both the original and revised Sketch Plans, detailing the changes made and showing the open space that would be included. Chairman Menconi asked if the open space would be part of an easement for the entire property. Mr. Mauriello stated there would be an overlay easement that would not allow the property owners to modify or build upon the easement. He showed the migration corridor that exists on the property and showed how they have positioned the lots to respect that corridor. He showed the turnarounds that would be built to allow for emergency access and the trees that would shield the development from the road visually. He stated that 30.6 acres, 70% of the site, would remain as open space. Homes are clustered to the west on 30% of the site to preserve that open space. He showed the building setbacks from Lake Creed Road that would exist, ranging from 750' to 975', and further from the road than the Pyle residence (740'). They will dedicate the Lake Creek Road right-of-way to the County with approval of this project. He addressed the wetlands issues, stating the Army Corps of Engineers has approved their delineation. He talked about how the wildlife concerns would be mitigated, including removing dangerous fences to help migration. He went over the key elements of the project, including: establishing building envelopes, common area easements, maintaining wildlife corridors, removal of livestock grazing, limitation of two horses per home, and maintenance of water rights. They will address all of the Staff and Planning Commission conditions at Preliminary Plan Approval. He addressed all the letters of support and opposition received and addressed the concerns of those who opposed the project. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mauriello about the Staff condition limiting the square footage ofthe homesites and if the applicant had accepted it. Mr. Mauriello stated that they haven't fully accepted it, but they are willing to discuss it. They have also a list of proposed covenants that will detail what is allowed to be built. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci to explain the process that Mr. Mauriello talked about and how this /plication is not a zone change. Mr. Narracci stated that the zone change was granted many years ago with a sketch plan, but that sketch plan had expired. This does not require a PUD, but the property was not subdivided, thus the reason for this hearing. 17 6/13/05 Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Judy Pyle, adjacent property owner, spoke to the Board. She considers this land to be a precious resource, spoke about the character of the Valley, and doesn't feel the development would be appropriate. She speaks for her neighbors in wanting to keep the agricultural nature of the land. She wants three or fewer residences built on this property and encouraged that the Board make a site visit before making a decision. Chairman Menconi reiterated that Public Comment be kept to three minutes and that comments be made with regards to the criteria. Troy Dixon, Ranch Manager for the Pyle Ranch, spoke about the wildlife corridors and how the applicant neglected some other corridors that exist. He feels that this development will push the wildlife migration further onto the Pyle Ranch. Susan Miller, ,adjacent property owner, talked about the Edwards Master Plan and the maintenance of view corridors. She also questioned the size of the proposed homes and asked the Board to consider what makes the Lake Creek Valley "rural". She asked that the Board deny this proposal. Fred Green, Lake Creek Road resident, detailed the history of this plot of land, as he was a former owner. He talked about the covenant that allowed 1 home per 5 acres. He would like to see access through the Palmer property maintained so they could reach the property that he owns to the west of the property. He feels the setbacks should be measured from the creek and not the road, as the creek bends to the west putting the homes further into the meadow. Chairman Menconi asked if Mr. Green had a density compromise. Mr. Green suggested that the Board use its discretion, but it should be less than what is proposed. Wendell Porterfield spoke on behalf of Judy Pyle and stated that the applicant is not the owner ofthe property. He spoke about the Agricultural-Limited zoning how they are actually building 7 homes on 13 acres of land and the gerrymandering that has been done to achieve five acre lots. He talked about the ambiguous easement that exists on the property and the potential legal proceedings that may have to occur. Spence Denison, Lake Creek Road resident, also spoke about the Edwards Area Community Plan and its intent to keep the area agricultural and rural in nature. He also questioned the true density of the proposal and feels the Board should stay with the one unit per 10 acres of net density, which would allow two homes. He next spoke about the 1985 rezoning and the covenants and Sketch Plan that resulted. He questioned the calculation of the net developable land, especially considering the covenant that exists, as one cannot include open space when calculating the net developable land. He feels that Lot #4 is in a wetlands area, is unbui1dab1e, and is against this proposal. Chupa Nelson, Lake Creek resident, concurred with Mr. Denison's and Mr. Green's earlier comments. He would like to see some development on this property, but not at the level that is proposed. Jim Ferrell, Lake Creek Meadows resident, agreed with the proposed clustering in general, but was concerned about how the open space and common facilities would work. He feels that this should have a PUD-type set-up and was concerned about the amount of horses that could be on this site. , Kara Campitelli, President of the Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners' Association, told how her residents are opposed to the density proposed and don't feel that the open space should be considered in the calculations. Sandy Treat, Pilgrim Downs resident, spoke how the beauty of the area would be eliminated with this development and would like to see fewer homes put here. Chairman Menconi asked if there were a compromise figure that could be given. Mr. Treat gave his opinion as to what could be done to the property and would allow three homes. Michelle Harmon, local resident, talked about the topography change that allows for the higher densities of the properties located to the south of this proposal. She was concerned about the septic issues. Jane Chipman, Lake Creek resident, opposed the development. Chairman Menconi asked if they had moved from their property. Ms. Chipman stated that they had recently moved. Katie Gaylord, adjacent homeowner, was concerned about the number of cars that would be generated by the development, feeling that each house would bring 3-4 cars with it. She agrees with the other ranch owners and wants it limited to four houses and no more. Buck Elliott, Lake Creek Meadows resident, was concerned about the wildlife and the density of the project. He asked the Board to consider the attendance of the people at this meeting and that their desires are respected. Hatsie Hinmon spoke about the events that transpired in 1985, as she was present then. She talked about the proposed home sizes and asked that it be addressed. She was concerned about the number of septic systems bordering Lake Creek and wants the project denied or reduced to 3-4 homes. 18 6/13/05 Bill Andree, Division of Wildlife, talked about the migration corridor and how the developer has moved the corridor to the neighbor's land. He talked about his concern for the riparian areas and asked the County to help protect them. He talked about why it was hard to draw elk migration patterns. He is not concerned about the number of houses, but is concerned about the clustering and the impact on the migration corridor. Chairman Menconi asked about the wildlife protection finding being positive in the Staff Report. Mr. Narracci stated it was based on the maps that they had and there was no response from the Division of Wildlife referral. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Andree about wildlife corridors being established through Lots 3 and 4. Mr. Andree stated it would create a straight line shot for the elk. Chairman Menconi asked if the removal of Lots 3, 4, and 7 would create a Positive review. Mr. Andree stated he would give a recommendation, not a yea or a nay. Don Johnson, Lake Creek Subdivision resident, feels that this is a quite dense development. He concurs with the current landowners and would like to see no more than three dwellings. Elizabeth Holland, Lake Creek Meadows resident, talked about the two years she spent in developing the Edwards Master Plan. She stated that their intent was to keep the Palmero sa as is, with one home on the property. She talked about their thought processes they went through when developing the Master Plan and is opposed to the proposed density of the project. Jerry Flynn, Lake Creek resident, would like to see the proposed density reduced to about 3-4 homes. Don Welch, Lake Creek Meadows resident, listing agent, and former County Commissioner, spoke about the history about the rezoning that happened in 1985. The Board, in 1985, felt that they were preserving the rural character of the Valley when they considered the request. They did not intend to remove the open space corridor. They felt the County would have difficulty keeping the density less than one per acre, so they felt they were doing the County good. Walter Mathews, Deputy County Attorney, asked Mr. Welch to address the quid pro quo concerning planning the zoning and the exchange of open space in return. Mr. Welch stated that the quid pro quo was to approve the zone district in exchange for the open space corridor that was created. Mr. Mathews asked ifit was done in a public hearing. Mr. Welch concurred, Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Welch about the visual impact on the East side of Lake Creek as opposed to the West side of Lake Creek. Mr. Welch stated that there would be no difference as to what already exists and questioned the square footage of the current homes in the area. Michael Moser, long-time Valley resident and nephew of Bud Palmer, felt that his uncle would like to see the proposed development share his respect for the land. He would support as few a number of units as possible. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. George Gregory, Singletree resident speaking on behalf of the applicant, thanked the members ofthe public for their attendance. He reiterated that this property was zoned after the Edwards Sub-area Master Plan was developed, and he was member of the committee that adopted the plan. He feels that this proposal coincides directly with the Edwards Community Plan and explained to the Board how it met with the Plan. The covenants and declarations will not allow clear cutting of trees to provide creek views. They have preserved the open space, as well, increasing its size. He believes they have maintained the rural character through the clustering ofthe homes and feels that people should be able to rely on the Edwards Master Plan when coming before the Board with their proposals. He feels that everybody should have already known what the zoning was and there are no surprises in their application. He feels that, if the Board, is against development, they should make it a blanket statement and let everyone know up front. Mr. Mauriello feels that a site visit is warranted and encouraged the Board to visit. They have hidden nothing from the Board or the public and would be agreeable to a tabling, if the Board desired it. Mr. Narracci stated that he would like timely written responses from the Division of Wildlife. Commissioner Runyon admitted that he had received two phone calls today, one in support and one against the project. He did not comment to their statements, though. He was concerned about the visual impacts of the houses on the east side of Lake Creek and the proposed landscaping and is agreeable to a site visit. Chairman Menconi asked if the proposal included 43+ acres, one existing unit, and an accessory dwelling ..l1li t. Mr. Mauriello stated that there is not an official accessory dwelling unit. There would be seven total dwelling units and one Accessory Dwelling Unit that would comply with the affordable housing standards. 19 6/13/05 Chairman Menconi talked about the criteria and the +/- finding for Consistency with the Master Plan. Mr. Narracci stated that it had to do with water and sewage facilities and the uncertainty that exists. It also has to do with transportation issues and the two points of access that are required, and the housing requirements and the need for additional information. Chairman Menconi asked about the Department of Wildlife testimony. Mr. Narracci felt that things would have to be adjusted or this would be a negative finding. Chainnan Menconi asked how an Accessory Dwelling Unit could comply with Housing Guidelines. Mr. Narracci talked about the Green Ranch proposal and how it was similar to this one, in terms of affordable housi:p.g. Chairman Menconi wanted to see if the guidelines have any requirements for the unit to be for sale or rent to the general public. Mr. Narracci stated he would do some research. Chairman Menconi asked about the densities listed in Mr. Narracci's Staff Report and asked him to explain what they meant. Mr. Narracci explained to Chairman Menconi what the Plan would like to see, but the Plan acknowledged that there was already existing zoning that should be utilized in a way to preserve the character of the Lake Creek Valley. Chairman Menconi asked how far this zoning went. Mr. Narracci gave the history of the Agricultural Limited zoning for the various properties. He showed a photograph to the Board to illustrate his point. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci to elaborate on the Environmental Impact finding being +/- and if it had to do with riparian areas. Mr. Narracci stated that it had to do with the septic system design. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci about the riparian areas. Mr. Narracci stated that there are setback regulations and there would be covenants that the County could not enforce, though it could enforce the setbacks. Chairman Menconi asked if there was an access agreement. Mr. Narracci stated that it had not been discussed. Mr. Mathews asked about the applicant possibly denying access to someone who had an easement. Mr. Gregory stated that it was a recorded easement that states that Mr. Green granted Mr. Palmer an easement. There was no language limiting or restricting the easement's use. He stated that they would re-align the road to avoid any possible legal questions that may occur and they would be willing to upgrade the existing bridge, if an agreement could be reached. Mr. Mathews asked that it be a condition for approval, if this file were to be approved. Mr. Gregory stated that the existing easement could be used for access, but that is not the only access to the property in question. Mr. Porterfield read from the minutes ofthe 1985 meeting regarding the access, but it further confused the Board and others present. Mr. Mathews stated that he does not want to deny access to those who have a right to it but believes that there should be no access to that parcel in question anyway. Mr. Mauriello stated that this property shares only a very small property line and should not be totally responsible for providing its access. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Porterfield to clarifY some of his earlier testimony, especially with regards to the Agricultural Limited zoning. Mr. Porterfield gave the definition of Agricultural Limited zoning. He reiterated that these lots have been gerrymandered to achieve the 5 acre lot size and the lots have been restricted as to what could be built on them. Chairman Menconi felt that there was also testimony that a zoning for 5 acres given in 1985. Mr. Porterfield feels that there has been a change in circumstances. He feels that 5 acre_lots should be entirely usable, not as the applicant has proposed for this file. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mathews for his interpretation as to the zoning in 1985. Mr. Mathews feels that net developable land was discussed in 1998 and there is no law that prevents _gerrymandering to come up with net developable land. The Land Use Regulations only prevent development in 100 year flood plains and wetlands. He feels that there was never discussion about deducting open space from net developable land calculations and believes open space cou1dbe.us,ed in net developable acreage calculations. Mr. Porterfield feels that is not the intent and believes the easements could be removed by the owners. 20 6/13/05 Mr. Mauriello clarified some of Mr. Mathews' statements. He believed Mr. Mathews meant to talk about water bodies instead of wetlands. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mathews his opinion for the zoning ofthe property and the testimony that was given by members of the public. Mr. Mathews feels that it is up to the Board to decide what is irrelevant or not pertaining to the file. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mathews his opinion as to whether the zoning is for five acres. Mr. Mathews feels that it was zoned Agricultural Limited and there is no confusion as to that issue. Chairman Menconi feels that the applicant feels that it has vested rights In this property. --------------~------ Mr. Mathews stated that his opinion is, that when people have a zoning, they feel they have a vested right. He feels that they have a potential to that right as they need to comply with Land Use Regulations and feels that the Board needs to recognize that whatever decision they make needs to be backed by Land Use Regulations and not reflect an opinion or something that is not in the regulations. Chairman Menconi asked about the dissenting votes from the Planning Commission and the reasoning. Mr. Narracci believed that one was related to wetlands concerns and the migration corridor. They did leave it open that the applicant could come back and prove it otherwise to his/her satisfaction. There was concern with the arrangement of the homes so that they would not create a wall to prevent wildlife migration. Chairman .Menconi stated that he would accept the applicant's offer of a site visit. He has a negative finding for Consistency with the Master Plan based on the wildlife corridor testimony and the housing criteria. He is comfortable with the 1985 zoning document that was discussed and concurs with staff finding of +/- with Suitability for Development. He addressed Mr. Gregory's statements about the Edwards' Master Plan and feels that there is a zoning for 5 acres, but it is not a vested right. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Mauriello how water would be handled. Mr. Mauriello stated they would connect to the District's public water supply. Commissioner Stone wants no septic systems and is adamant about that. He wants them to connect with the central sewer and doesn't feel it would be cost prohibitive. He would have appreciated more timely comments about the wildlife. He feels the gerrymandering of the lot lines is a function of clustering and would like to see the applicant avoid development in the wildlife corridor areas, if possible. He thinks that there may be a substantial nancia1 gain to having fewer hom.es, making them more valuable. The applicant will need to come up with li1ding envelopes that minimize the view ofthe homes and the landscaping will haye to be very precise. He feels that zoning is not a vested right and believes in following the Land Use Regulations as closely as possible. He asked Chairman Menconi ifhe shared his thoughts. Chairman Menconi feels that it would work better with the area if there were fewer homesites. Mr. Mauriello replied that they would go back and re-visit the clustering idea. They would like to work more closely with Mr.. Andree, also. He stated that a lot of this information is not required at sketch plan. He addressed the septic system issue and stated that they were following the Land Use Regulations directly in choosing to go that direction. Commissioner Stone stated that he wants to make a finding that recognizes their proximity to Lake Creek. He shared his possible concerns to doing a site visit without a concrete plan. Mr. Mauriello committed to having a plan available prior to the site visit. Commissioner Runyon felt that seven units would be excessive in terms of compatibility. Chairman Menconi asked that the applicant work with the neighbors, as he takes public comment seriously. Commissioner Stone moved to table File SUS-OOO 15-Pa1merosa Ranch Subdivision Sketch Plan, at the applicant's request, until June 14,2005. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board meeting was adjourned until June 14, 2005. A~ C1~k to th~ ~. ~rdD - (\, ^-;t. \ro: ~~I~vJ 21 6/13/05