The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 07/18/05 Mr. Mamiello explained the proposed road, paths and berming. Chairman Menconi asked about the proposed round-about. Mr. Mauriello explained it's merely a conveyance and would be low volume. Jerry Powell, wildlife expert sum.m.arized the proposed plans for vegetation, fencing and corridors that will remain open for wildlife.He also stated he is working with Bill Andree to come up with the best plan. Co11lt11issioner Runyon asked about the isolated home site. Mr. Mauriello stated that they are trying to maintain a buffer to the existing homes and leave ample corridor space for wildlife; The tom proceeded to lot 4. Mr. Mauriello defined the proposed clustering plan and points out the creek. Chairman Mel1coni asked about the setback from the river. Mr. Mauriello stated that the setbacks were greater than 50 feet from the river with lot 2 being the closest. Chairtnan Menconi asked how they're distinguishing the footprint from the envelope. .. .. Mr. Mauriello stated that once they get to the preliminary planning stage they'll have an actual defined building outline. He explained the buffeting and landscaping and referenced Susan Miller's home site and the proposed screening that would be added to lessen the impact on her future home. The tom proceeded to lot 6 Chairma.n Menconi asked Ms. Miller if this was a good time to show her plan. Ms. Miller provided a site map Of her property and pointed dut her property lines and proposed home site. Mr. Mauriello pointed out the open space and area where lot 8, a barn and caretaker unit were proposed, which are 110 longer apart of the plan. Commissioner Runyon asked if there was going to be any public access or an easemeht to BLM land. Mr. Mamiello stated that he wasn't aware of any easements that went aCross the property because it wasn't a publicly owned property and the 43+ acres do not border any BLM land. The tour proceeded to lot I Ms; Millet stopped to explain their approved home site plan and asked the Co11lt11issioners to look at the wild1ifecorri'dor in reference to the plaIlIled development. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Miller to give an example of what she wanted to illustrate. Ms. Miller stated that shewartted to show elk tracks that crossed Lake Creek and which are right below lots 4 and 5. Chaitl11an Mel1coni requested the adVice of Mr. Powell, the wildlife expert for the project. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Miller to explain her issues. Ms. Miller stated as she pointed across the creek that there is a well established elk and deer trail that crosses the river and the area is right below lots 4 and 5. JerryPowell explainedthewildlife movement apd that they are trying to protect and maintain the corridor to allow the seasonal :t:t1igration. Mr. Mauriello pointed out the pre-existing ponds and berms and stated that they are to rem.ain in the plans. Chaifl11an Menconi questioned the existing home in site 1. Mr. Mauriello stated that the home will be torn down. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Miller and Mr. Mauriello to explain the proposed fencing. Mr. Mauriello explained the fencing around the barn. Mr. Millet stated that they would have 3 non-barbed wire fences for liability issues. As the tour proceeded towards down the driveway Mr. Mauriello explained the proposed landscaping arid berming. Commissioner Runyon asked the age of the existing trees and if they were going to plant large trees. Mr. Mauriello stated that the trees being proposed are fast growing cottonwood trees and that mature trees would be considered. Tom Kallenbach, Waste Water Engineer stated that the existing sewer system is approximately 1400 feet down Lake Creek road and to bring that line up, and hook up 5-6 homes would be more of a challenge than installing more m.anageable well maintained indiVidual systems. Ms. Miller infotnied the Co11lt11issioner that the square footage of her old home is 8080 square feet and the Pyle home is 9000 square feet. Mr. Mauriello summarized the wildlife situation through Creamery Ranch and the surrounding areas, and 2 7/18/05 thehpdiIfted to the :Pyle tesidel1ce in comparison to the Miller home to illustrate how the landscaping and berming makes the Pyle home (which is slightly larger) less Visible from the road. Chaitnian Menconi adjourned the SpeCial Meeting property tour. StJS~OO()15:- PalmerosaJlanch Subdivision Sketcb Plan Bob Nartacci, PlaMing Manager, COmniunity Development NOTE: ACtION: Tabled frOM June 13,2005 To subdiVide the 45.18 acre property into six single-family residel1tial building sites. Each lot will encompass 5 or more acres. Ld'CATION: 887 Lake Creek Road Approximately % mile south of U.s. Highway 6 onLake Creek Road trl'LE: FILE. NO./PROC"ItS8: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: RE:erotS:ENrAtJ:\TE: palmerosa Ranch SubdiVision SUS..OOO 15 / SubdiVision Sketch Plan 887 Lake Creek Road Pahnerosa Ranch, L. L. C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company Palmerosa bevelopment Company, L. L. c. / Jim Comerford Mauriello PlaMing Group, L. L. C. / Dominic Mauriello STAFFRECOMMENDAttON: Approval with conditions. PLANNlNGC0MN11SSioN RECOMMENDATION: The Eagle County Pla:n:ning CotIlrtrission requested responses to each of the following questions: I) 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 daled April 6, 2005. 2) Is a: caretaker's unit considered as density? Ptfrsuantto Section 3..310.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 ofthe 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, hei ht, lot covera e, floor area and other dimensiona1)imitationsofthe underlying zone distric '. (am 3/12/02) 3) How Will Lake Creek Road be dedicated to the County? Historically, Eagle Co1.iflty 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 / 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 of the lots are subsequently left with less than five contiguous acres on the west side of 3 7/18/05 take Creek Road. . This type of layout 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 Cou:nty 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 , addressed by the Applicant. 6) How is the acreage calculated 1 Developable land quandary? Please refer to the attached Memorandumfrom 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 tegard to the current definition of 'Developable Land'. 7) Other than the single-family homes, what other types of buildings are allowed? Ate these structures requited to be located Within the defined building envelope on each lot? ill 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 Dwelliflg Units are subject to a titnited ReView process prior to building petniit issuance. Fronta zorting 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 COrflmission and the Board have considerable latitude indeterrtrining whether or:not ancillary structureS must be located Within a defined buildiflg envelope or must merely satisfy rninirrtur:n zoning setbacks. The applicant may prepare private covenants litniting the number and placement or artcilIary structures above and beyond zoning. A plat note should beptoVided on the resulting Final Plat document specifying the purpose and restrictions on the buildiIigeIivelope. Building envelopes are typically not used unless there is a compelling reason to do so - ridge line issues; natural hazard areas, etc. '. For the purposes of this subdiVision. proposal, staff recorflmends 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 I Can building envelopes limit the size of homes? Other than IIl.inirrtulll setbacks and maximum height, no other constraints exist with regard to the maximum allowed size ofhorne in the Agricultural-Limited Zone District. The applicant may prepare private covenants to restrict home size. Ifbuilding envelopes ate 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 maximtlIIl height to something less than the maximum 35 foot height allowed in the Agricultural-Limited Zone District. 9) 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 1 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. 4 7/18/05 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 delibetations,the Planning Commissioners cited the following concerns: I) 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) COllcern 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 ownerscantiot change the CC&R's; I 5) Rigorous restrictio1'1S on dogs should be proVided due to wildlife sensitiVity and corridors traversing site; 6) Several of the home sites should be clustered closer together; 7) 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 isa lot of ammals on that property and will require much work and maintenance. Responsible management of the horses is imperative. Ih making amotion recommending approval of this SubdiVision Sketch Plan application, the PlaIlIling Commission incorporated staff findings and conditions1 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 C01.iflty 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 prior Board of County Commissioner hearing, this Subdivision Sketch Plan proposal now is to subdiVide a 43.689 acre parcel of land into six single-family residential lots 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. This equates to a density of one dwelling unit per 7.28 acres. .'he proposed building sites are generally grouped along Lake Creek in the center of the subject property with the exception of one home site that is situated adjacent to the southern property perimeter. The pastoral fields prevalent 5 7/18/05 in this vicinity of the Lake Creek Valley will be preserved as a no-build area. This current lot configuration was developed in close consultation with Bill Andree of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. CIIRONdLOGY: September 3, 1984 Application made to Eagle County to rezone and subdiVide the subject property from Resource to Agricultural Limited. November 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 residerttiallots 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: Su:rrouudhig Land Uses 1 Zoning: East: Single family residential 1 Pla:n:ned Unit Development West: Single fatnilyresidential 1 Agricultural Limited . North: Single family residential 1 Planned Unit Development South: Single family residential 1 Rural Residential Existing Zoning: Proposed No. of Dwelling Units Total Land Area: Mhiifuum Lot Area: Gross Density: Agricultural Limited Six plus one Accessory Dwelling Unit 43.689 Acres 5 acreS One dwelling unit per five acres. Water: Sewer: Access: Exploring Public Connection IndiVidual Sewage Disposal Systems / Exploring Public Connection Via Lake Creek Road STAFF REPORT REFFERAL RESpdNSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached Memoranda dated March 29,2005 and July 13,20bS. 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 applicant has committed to constructing 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 100 year floodplain boundary and must maintain a minimum 50 toot 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 of layout 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. 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 6 7/18/05 priVately i11aintained. The intersection of the' South Road' may have sight distance concerns where it intersects Lake Creek Road. Eagle County Department of Environmental Health: Please refer to the attached response dated April 6, 2005. EnVironmental Health's memorandum addresses the adequacy of public facilities; conservation and management of natUral reso1.itces, arid; minimizing air and water pollution. Condition No. 3 Please also reference the attached response from the Mauriello Planning Group dated April 7, 2005 AND the attached response from Ecognitive, Inc. dated July 8, 2005. Eagle County Housing Department: Please refer to the attached response dated March 29,2005. At Prelirriinary 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 April 4, 2005. Five types ofnoxious 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 Scllool DistrictRE-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 amollht Of fees'-in4ieu will be determined at the time of Final Plat based upon a current Summary Appraisal of the subj ect property . Lake Creek Meadows Homeo'wn.et'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 natl.lteof the Lake Creek Valley and the current plan falls short of that mark. Concern is expressed about the number and scaleofhotnes proposed. They also question the proposed lot configuration extending across Lake Creek Road. Wetlands and the existing View 1 open space easement ate not adequately addressed per the HOA esponse. The useofISDS is also questioned; Eagle CountyCollservation District: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 23,2005. The ECCD recOri1fi1e:nds that no mote than four hotses utilizing approximately 20 acres of the pastUre land be allowed and that the horse ownetswill have to prdVide 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 offthe pastUre for two months each year. NottliWestColorado Council of Governments: Please refer to the attached letter from Lane Wyatt dated Match 25, 2005. Overall the project seertJ.S 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 Departll1ent of Public Health and EnVironment.. the CPDES requires a Stotmwater 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 ofwetlartds 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 Colotado Department of Public Health and EnVironment. Condition No.4 Colora.do 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. .. ~olorad() State Forest Service: Please refer to the attached letter dated March 16, 2005. The response letter ndicates a wildfire hazard rating of'low' for the subject property; however, it is recommended that noncombustible roofing materials be used and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Condition No.5 7 7/18/05 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 conducted atthe 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: I) The access road to Lot I must cro' 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 perfofl11ed; 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 fotniation. 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 I, 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 he 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 cemertt;Condition No.6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Please refer to the attached response dated March 2, 2005. The Corps concurs with the estirnate of the wetlands arid 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 of the property investigated). The Corps und~stands that the applicant may proVide a'dditional hydrological inrormation, at a later date, to re-define potentially, artificially irrigated areas which would revert to uplands if the irrigation ceased. Otller referral agencies nut :responding: Eagle County Attorney's Office Eagle County Animal Control Eagle County Sheriff's Office RE-50J Transportation DiVision Colotad6 Department ofTiansportation Natural ReSol1tce Conservation SerVice Qwest 1 PTI 1 Century Tel Public Service Co IlCN Energy Holy Cross Energy Eagle River Fire Protection District Edwards Metropolitan District Eagle River 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-seven letters from citizens have been received, all are atta.ched. Eight letters of support have been received from: Albert Beedie and Joyce Bennis of 45 Angela Lane; 8 7/18/05 Andrew Keiser, Address unknown Nicky White, Forbes Real Estate Group traig Forbes, Forbes RealEstate Group Jen Macartney, Forbes Real Estate Group Gary Carlson, Arrowhead hdme owner Craig Denton, Eagle Co1.iflty Resident Tom D1.iflI1, Forbes Real Estate Group. One letter of concern with emphasis on preserving the southern most boundary of the Palmerosa property was receiVed from Pamela Gteefl. Pamela formerly owned the adjacent 'Pyle Ranch' and now is the caretaker for the Palmerosa Ranch. Eighteen letters of opposition have been received from: R.A.'Chupa' Nelson, take Creek Property Owner; Jim Fertell, Lake Creek Property Owner. The letter submitted is a duplicate 1 draft version otIetter from the Lake Creek Meadows HOA. (Please also see letter of response to Mr. Ferrell, dated March 22, 2005 by the Mauriello Planni'ng Group); lamesM. Moser, take Creek Property Owner Two letters). Hatsie Hi:tlrrion, Lake CteekPtopetty Owner Judith!). Pyle, Lake Creek Property Owner Lauren, Ben, Sydney, HaIlIlah, Jasmine and Picabo Gaylord, Lake Creek PropettyOwners Karski Atelier, 2366 Lake Creek Road Brad Ghent, 369 Ja.cknian Ranch Road Gerald G. Gallegos, Lake Creek Property Owner Elizabeth Holland, Lake Creek Property Ownet Stephen McConahey, 388 Meadow Road Bill and Maggie Rey, 1273 Lake Creek Road SUsan 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 defmition of 'Developable Land' in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, land that is governed by a standard .one district cannot include land area that is encumbered by water or is located within the one hundred (100) year oodplain. 9 7/18/05 In this irista:nce, for each of the ptoposed 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 Palmerosa property: Flood Plain: 1.06 acteS Ma.:nmade 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 hut not conservation or open space easements. Mr. Denison's third letter dated April 12, 2005 indicates that the applicant is required to submit a Geologic Hazards. Analysis in connection with the Sketch Plan since the subject property contains some land in excess of a 30% slope. Mr. Denison dpines that there is not enough land area on the west side of Lake Creek to accommodate more. than one large hdme. 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 he adhered to in terins 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 of the lots. Mr. benison suggest that because the area east of Lake CfeekRoad is steep, and is therefore not buildable and should not be included within the dermition of 'Developable Land'. While staffdoes concur that including the land on the east side of Lake Creek Road within severa/of the proposed lbts is indeed awkward; staffbelieves the definition of 'Developable Land 'was intended to specifically exclude lands encumbered by d 100 year floodplain or other water features. PlellsereJer to the attached Memorandum from Bob Narracci to the Eagle County Planning Commission dated ApriI2lJ,2005. This Memorandum helps to establish 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 ofthe 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 Co1.iflty Commissioners granted a zone change from 'Resource' to 'Agricultural-Limited' on a 160 acte swath of land located dn the west side of Lake Creek Road; inclusive of the subject property. DlSSctfSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursua.nt to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.l, Overview of Procedures. Subdivision Sketch Pla.n 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 generallocati()n 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 he 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 finding indicate 10 7/18/05 where Staff has found thatthe 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 [+1-]. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards for Sketch and Preliminarv linn fol' Subdivision: STAN1>A:RD(l): Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)J - the proposed subdivision shall be co'nsistentwith the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. The following Master Plan Andlysisconsiders the ptiJpiJsalas submitted. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space! Development Affordable Transportation COmIl1unity FLUM Oualitv Recreation Housing Services Conformance X X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X . AooliciLble. EnVirdrn:nel1tal Quality ~ Pet the. EnViro111llental Health Department recotnn:iendation, the applicant has prepared a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and Cdns assdciated with indiVidual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. The outcome of this evaluation is that. the installation and continued proper maintenance of six indiVidual sewage disposal systems will create overall less enVironmental impact than would extending the public sewer line up Lake Creek Road and throughout the subject property. If the Board determines that indiVidual sewage disposal systems ate appropriate, then they must be engineered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent sO as to ensure that gro1.ifldwater will not he cdmpromised. Condition No.3 Western Ecological Resource, mc. has prepared a detailed Wetland Delineation Report for the subject property which the Artny Corps of Engineers concurs with. Further, the Northwest Colorado Council of GOVerl1ments finds that overall the project seems to embrace water quality protection.NWCCOG made several recotnrtJ.endations to be ddressed at Preliminary Plan. Condition No. 4 ()Pen 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 ripa.rian areas where it traverses the subject property. Building sites are situated to avoid these areas. 'the applicant intends to install sl.1bstantiallandscape bl.1ffersatound each respective home site. Ponds, landscaping al1dearthen hetnis Will be disbursed throughout the site. A no-build area has been designated over the pasture portion of the subject property. :Development -"- the Plan teconirflends that cluster style development should be encouraged to promote creative and efficient site design, to eriable development to avoid locations, which adversely impact environmental resources, and to create designated open space Jot public and private use. With the exception of the building site on Lot 8, which is on the southeast cotner 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 - Plea.se 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 of the two access roads into the subject property is intended to serve four e.omes apiece. As such, all homes in this development will need dual access. The applicant has committed to onstructing 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 11 7/18/05 Corriniunity 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 Pinal Plat. PLuM '" The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for 'Countryside' development. Co1.ifltryside 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 indiVidual lots 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 CotrNty OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Ptovision Preservation . Quality Patterns Cofifonnance X X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Confotimllice . Not X Aoplicable . . Land Use Cooperation -'-'- Not Applicable. Open Space ProVision ~The Plan states that, "Eagle COllnty should recognize that planned unit developments and cluster housing assist in open space maintenance". This SubdiVision Sketch Plan being considered capitaliZes on the existing Agricultural Limited zoning and is not a Planned Unit Development. The proposed development does, however, endeavdr 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 alread, been disturbed in the past and by defining a substantial no-build area closest to Lake Creek Road. In thismanne the View corridor up the Lake Creek Valley will be maintained. Unique CharacterPl"esetvation- There are no llnique landforms identified on the subject property. Visual. Quality - 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 enco1.itage development to occur in and around existing co:tl1II1unities in order to erihllnce open space values in the outlying areas". The proposal does not reptesent 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 development further south on Lake Creek Road. The proposal will define a more gradmd density transition from south to east on the west side of Lake Creek Road. Hazards - It is the applicant's intent to constrain the residential 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. 12 7/18/05 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 afid 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 amaIlIlet that protects and improves the qu.ality of the natural and man made enVironment, ensures the timely, coW.effective proVision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". -=d~ ;~:~:::i~%:~7o~~~~~~i~;~~~~~~~;~t:~~~ :;it~~~~m~~:~~~ns;a~~7c;:::~:~::\~~~1 need directly affect the cakuHltions for affordable housing units. A housing plan will be required at Preliminary Plan. Transpbrtation ~ This proposal must be accompanied by a commitment to improve Lake Creek Road to, at a minimum, off-set the traffic impacts that wduld 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 su.ch, an homes in this development will need dual access. The applicant has committed to constructing t1ConnectiOh betweeh 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 PlaIlIling Area through coordination with landowners,devel()pers 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 - The applicant intends to tie into a public water source. Per the EnVironmental Health Department response, the applicant has prepared a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated with indiVidual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. The outcome of this evaluation is that the installation and continued proper maintenance of six individual sewage disposal systems will create overall less enVironmental.impact than would extending the public sewer line up Lake Creek Road and throughout the subject property. If the Board determines that individual sewage disposal systems are appropriate then, they must be engineered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent so as to ensure that groundwater will eot 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. 13 7/18/05 EnVironmental Ouality - 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 of landscape buffers, the proposed development endeavors to maintain scenic vistas up the Lake Creek Valley. Natural hazard- are being avoided and riparian areas and wetlands will be protected and enhanced. Per the EnVironmental Health bepartment recommendation, the applicant has prepared a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated With indiVidual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. The outcome of this evaluation is that the installation and continued proper maintenance of six indiVidual sewage disposal systems will create overall less enVironmental impact than would extending the public sewer line up Lake Creek Road and throughout the subject property. If the Board detetniines that individual sewage disposal systems. are appropriate, then they must be engineered utilizing technology to eliminate nitrates from the effluent so a.s 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 tlie Army Corps of Engineers concurs with. Further, the Northwest Colorado Council of Govermnents 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. Recreation and Tourism -- The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are proVided to meet c1.irtent 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 arid open spa.ce system". This proposal will proVide private passive and active open space opportunities for the residents of the development and visual open Bpace for surrounding land owners and the public. lIistoricPreserva.tioh ~The Colorado State Historical Society response states that no identified historical sites exis on the subject property. The Eagle County Historical Society had not proVided comment as of this writing. :Itnblernentation ~ If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Fufure Land Use Ma.p (PLUM) - 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, agriculfural 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 five of the six individual building sites are 'grouped' along Lake Creek 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. EAGLERlVER WATER.SIlED PLAN x x x x x 14 7/18/05 Based upon much of the above, redundant discussion pertaining to wildlife, recreation and land use, the initial inding 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 STATEM.ENT: 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 cOmrriunity-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 Ii Housing is prima.rilya private sector actiVity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be. only limited succeSs Ii It is impdrtant toptesetVe existing local residents housing Ii 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. At Preliminary Plan, the applicant will need to proVide specific information regarding the anticipated size of the homes. These square footage figures Win directly affect the calculations for affordable housing units. A housing plan will be required at Preliminary Plan. ;onditionNo.7 [+] FINDING: Consistency with Mastel' Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] This proposal IS consistent with the Master Plan recommendations. SfANDARD(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 Development Standards. Article 3, Zonel)istricts The uses proposed by this pla.n 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 ass1.inie that on lots of five 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 confotni 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. .~andsCaPing will consist of the addition of trees and some landscape berming 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 15 7/18/05 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 ofEagleCo1.ihty 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 majdrity of the site will be maintained in its existing state with wetland areas 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 aild 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 I must cross a steep (32%) slope above the existing house on Lot 2. This road should be engin:eered 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 sirikhole 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 yeats 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 cortosive to concrete. Any Structures in contact with soils that are found to be cdTtosive should utilize Type IT 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 roofmg 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 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not in ail 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 has prepared a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated with indiVidual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. The outcome of this evaluation is that the installation 16 7/18/05 and corttin4ed proper maintenance of six indiVidual sewage disposal systems will create overall less enVironmental impact than would extending the public sewer line up Lake Creek Road and throughout the subject property. If the Board determines 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 :ompromised. Condition No.3 Cdm1Ilercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) Standards in this section are not applicable. Improvement Standards (DiVision 4-6) Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - This proposal must be accompanied by a coriunitment to improve Lake Creek Road to, at amirtimum, off-set the traffic impacts that would result from the development at full build-out. Eea Transit did not identify a significant impact upon the transit system resulting from the proposed development. Eagle Cotirtty 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 applicant has committed to constructing 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 arid cyclists. Condition No.2. Sidewalk and trail Standards (Sectioh4-63()) -Based upon the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan, the applicant is expected to proVide a recreati6nal path along Lake Creek Road for pedestrians and cyclists. Condition No.2 Irtigation System Standards (Section 4-'640) - The application materials indicate that it is the developer's intent to continue irrigatiori 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) - Illumination 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 Standatds (Section 4-680) - The applicant has committed to tying into a public water source. At Preliminary Plan application, the applicant must provide an agreement from a public water proVider to serve each of the proposed residerttiallots. Condition No. 10 Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) ~ Per the Environmental Health Departinent response, the applicant has prepared a feasibility analysis to weigh the pros and cons associated with indiVidual sewage disposal systems versus tying into the public sewer system. The outcome of this evaluation is that the installation and continued proper maintenance of six indiVidual sewage disposal systems will create overall less environmental impact than would extending the public sewer line up Lake Creek Road and throughout the subject property. If Board detetmines that individual sewage disposal systems are 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 (Divisiort 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 edication. 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. 17 7/18/05 [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - This proposal IS consistent with many aspects of the land use regulations. The applicant MAYBE ableto demonstrate full cOnIormance at application for Preliminary Plan. 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 Ea~le County Road Capital 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 Withthe Prelimina Plan a lication. STANDARD (4): 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 hazards that may affect the potential development of the property and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. the applicant has demonstrated suitability for development at a sketch plan level of detail. As identified throughout this report, the developer is required to demonstrate confotniance to the applicable recotnn:lendations of the Master Plan and requirements of the Land Use Regulations at the time ofPrelinii:nary Plan application. [+] FINDING: SuitabilityJor Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations with th~ Preliminary Plan application. S'fANDARD(S): 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 of the 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. 18 7/18/05 [+] FINDING: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - This proposed Subdivision Sketch 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. DISClJSSION: Bob Nattacci presented the file beginning with the most recent tally ofletters received; 31 total, 11 in support, 19 in opposition and I classified of concern. He followed with a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included photds of each proposed building site and a proposal summary. He explained to the Board that the applicant has taken into acco1.iflt wildlife and considered manageable indiVidual sewage disposal systems. The applicant originally had proposed S single residential lots, eliminating lot 8 which was in the wetland area and lot 3 which was identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as a key wildlife corridor, this leaVing a potential for up to.3 caretaker 1.iI1its. He displayed a revised sketch plan of the 6 remaining lots and read the staff recommendatioh. Chainnan Menconi asked Mr. Narracci to read for the record, the suggested conditions of approval and clarify number 12 that stated the size of homes limited to 4,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Mr. Narracci stated that this condition was one that the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended. Chairman Menconi asked which findings in the last staff report were negative or a plus or minus and the reason for changing those sta:fffindings. Bob Nattacci explained the negative findings; public water, sewer systems, transportation issues, dual aCceSs and trail easements. The positive findmgs were; being consistent with the Master Plan, and the elimination ofIots to become more wildlife friendly. The irrigation standards, drainage standards, water supply, and sanitation disposal standards have all been changed to positive. Chaitnian Menconiasked for clarification on the number of accessory dwelling 1.iflits. Mr. Narracci stated they could have up to 31.iflits. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant and fut1.ife home owners, presented a PowerPoint presentation illustrating the reVised 6.10t layout, He stated that the plans comply with Agricultural Limited zoning nd slimtharized the proposed plans for open space, existing home and out buildings. The presentation included hotos ofthe site, pdndsand the Pyle home with its mature landscaping, berniing and open meadow to illustrate its proximity and Visibility &omthe road. Mr. Mauriello stated that they comply with the Master Plan and the Edwards areacomrnui1ity plan recommendations, (5 acre lots and cluster development to maintain a rural character). TIrey are tidt requesting up zonirig or a PUDand 30 acres will be a no build zone. He reiterated their elimination and relocation 6f1ots to thaintainthe wetlands and wildlife corridot. Chaitnian Menconi asked about the fencing along the road. Mr. Mauriello stated that the fencing would be minimal and natural looking to maintain a rural character. there would only be fencing where there were going to be horses. Chaitnian Menconi asked Mr. Narracci to clarifY the sanitation land use regulations. Mr. Narracci read from the site development standards portion of the Land Use Regulation Section 4-690, sanitation disposal standards. He felt that option 2 was the direction that the applicant was leaning towards. Mr. Malltiello stated that many trees were being proposed for the area and all of the homes would be pushed back to the west to preserve the open meadow. Jerry Powell, a wildlife specialist and consultant for the Palmero sa Ranch project explained the wildlife movement through the area and the proposed wildlife friendly fencing. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Powell to explain the definitions of wildlife fencing. Mr. Powell explained that the wildlife fencing would be no higher than 42" with allowable space on the bottom for wildlife to pass under. There would also be refuse containers that are bear friendly and safe. Mr. Mauriello explained the proposed covenants and restrictions pertaining to size of homes and open space usage. Chairman Menconi asked the specific square footage of the homes. Mr. Mauriello stated that all would be 3,500-7,000 square feet, except I and 6 would be slightly larger. Mr. Mathews asked if they would have a Home Owners Association to enforce the covenants. Mr. Mauriello stated that they would. Mr. Mauriello summarized his presentation and explamed that there were 2 less units, they have avoided enVironmentally sensitive areas, and are preserVing the View corridor along Lake Creek Road, and all findings are positive. 19 7/18/05 Wendell Porterfield believes that this property.deserveS special attention and doesn't feel there have been sigl1ificant changes made, Visibility still being an issue. He has additional concerns with haVing septic systems so close to the river. He suggested fewer lots, something around 3-4 and restrictions on square footage. Chaitnian Menconi asked him to explain his concerns for Lots 3, 4 and 7. Mr. Porterfield stated that there hadn't been enough lots eliminated, that they've just moved lots around. Re'd like to see lot 2 moved. He told the Board that he would prefer to see 1 home per 10 acres; this being more appropriate in maintaining the rural character of the area. DaVid Lang lives north of the Pyle property. He has home sizing issues and feels that the density and septi Systems for the 1.ifiits is alarming. JudyPyle thanked the Board for the site Visit and stated her issues are still with the overall density ahd that the proposed number of homes would stick out like a sore thumb. Chaifl11an Menconi asked Ms. Pyle to s1.imniarize her thoughts on the new density changes that have been made. Ms. Pyle stated that there should be no more than 4 homes built, any more would impact the area greatly. Elizabeth Dooher, lifelong resident of the Vail Valley and caretaker next to the Pyle property is concerned about the elk and their young that she sees crossing the property on a regular basis. James Fosnaught, attorney for Palmerosa Ranch read a letter from John Palmer Jr. that in favor of Mr. Comerfords development plans. Michael Moser, great nephew of John Palmer read a letter from the elder JohnS. Palmer Sr. that expressed his thoughts and wishes for the property. He would like the property to remain rural and is opposed to development on this scale, adding his concerns for the wildlife. Bob Dorf mentioned his last meeting with Bud Palmer and believes that Mr. Palmer did not want to take a stand on this issue. Kim West expressed her concerns for water usage, primarily landscaping usage. She's also concerned With past1.ites not having enough time to recover With horse restrictions at a minimal, and mag chloride usage on roads. Gerty Flynn has attended each One of the hearings, and continues to have septic concerns and would like to see less density. Susan Miller stated her concerns for the septic system requirements for hdmes of the proposed size. Chaifl11an Menconi asked Ms. Miller the size of her proposed home Susan Miller stated that she didn't know, but it would less than 5,000. Al Beedie, Lake Creek road resident stated that he was one of the 11 letters in support of the project and had just built a home of 7,000 square feet. He just recently became aware that a home was going to be built in the past1.iteand he's now opposed to the development. Steve Walker lives south east of the property and has concerns about the proposed septic systems, and would also like to address the wildlife friendly fencing. Mr. Walker stated that he doesn't want the fencing because he believes that all the elk will end up on his property. 20 7/18/05 Spence Denison stated his concerns with density, and believes the meadow should remain open. He thinks Lot 5 and 6 are to far out in the meadow and there is only room for 4 homes, which would have less impact on wildlife. Stan Cope agrees on most of the other comments made earlier and continues to have septic system ~oncerns. Kata Campitelli, President of the Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners Association, stated her concerns with the homeowners' covenants and would like the county to enforce open space and square footage issues for fear that the homeowners could change them down the road. Jim Ferrel, Lake Creek Meadows resident would like to see the toad and septic systems in the flood imgated areas addressed. Elizabeth Holland, Lake Creek Meadows resident has concerns with density and how this development would affect the local residents in the area, especially their tax rate. Craig Denton stated he has an economic interest and is in support of the development. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. George Gregory representing the applicant, asked Thomas Kallenbach to address the concernS of the public regarding the proposed septic systems. Mr. Kallenbach, licensed professional engifleer explained to the Board that he doeSn't feel the property is a challenging site for dealing with septic systems and explains why some septic systems fail. Chairman Menconi stated the septic system is not an issue for the land use regulations, andis not an issue that he is applying to the file. Mt. Kallenbach explained that septic systems are not necessarily one size fits all. Comniissioner Runyon had no added concerns and agreed with Chairfuan Menconi j s earlier thoughts on the issue. 'Mr. Kallenbach added that the septic system issues will continue to be a concern as the area grows. Mr. Gregory presented clOSing statements and responded to the wildlife and density concerns of the public. lIe pointed out the five standards 5280-B3E of the land use regulations. He feels that full conformance has been lade and stated 3 points of compliance; it's 25% less than then is permissible in this zone, clustered, and it complies with the standards in the land use regulations He summarized that they will be hooked to Edwards water, and feels confident with the use of Mr. Kallenbach septic systems, which will be equipped with alarm systems. He explaine'd to the Board that their judgment should be based on topography. In short, the subdiVision is a preservation of open space and the neighbors should have known that it would be developed eventually. He feels that the law allows for the proposed density and requires approval. Mr. Mathews asked that Mr. Gregory point out the reason that this file requires approval based on the land Use regulations. Mr. Gregory read from article 5 ofthe land use regulations, and believes the Board should approve or approve with conditions. Chaifl11a:n Menconi requested that Wendell Porterfield come down to the podium. Mr. Porterfield questioned the land use regulations interpretation, and how it related to clustering and maintainirigthe rural character of the Lake Creek Valley. Mt.Gregoryexpressed his respect for Mr. Porterfield and his position. Walter MatheWs moved that the Board of County Cortunissioners go into Executive Session for the pUTpdse ofreceivirtg legal advice on the pending Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision Sketch Plan file which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). Chairman Menconi seconded the motion which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn from Executive Session and Chairman Menconi seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Commissioner Runyon voiced his concerns. His first concern was the wildlife and the development of unit 6, and suggested the applicant work with the Millers so as not to create a barrier for wildlife. He questioned the compatibility with all ofthe adjacent properties to the north and would like the proposed visual bamers to be kept 'ompatible with the surrounding area. Chairman Menconi stated that Mr. Comerford had put a lot of effort into turning the negatives into positives. But he still has a couple of concerns. He was concerned with the 2 caretaker units, and the wildlife. 21 7/18/05 Although, some progress has been made on wildlife issues, he was still concerned with the one way in or out. He asked Mr. Andree to come down and proVide more wildlife input. Mr. Andree stated that the one way in and out was correct. Chairman Menconi asked why this was not happening at the north end of the property. Mr. Andree explained that north is fUrther away from the winter range. Chaifl11an Mehconi asked Mr. Andree ifhe felt that the wildlife issues had been resolved. Mr. Andree stated that he believes there is a combination of reasons why the elk continue to flee the surrounding area and end up on major highways and interstates. He believes this will continue to be an ongoing problem as long as there is continued growth in the area. ChaitniaIl Menconi asked Mr. Andree how these additional homes would affect the elk. Mr. Andree stat~d that the elk can't go south and these homes would have all impact on their migration. Chaitnian Menconi asked what could be done to improve the situation. Mr. Andree stated that there is no easy answer to that question and he to has regulations to follow. Chaitnian Menconi read from a letter that Kim West wrote. The letter stated her concerns about the herds of elk she sees running back and forth through the Palmerosa Ranch. Mr. Andree stated that he had only received an 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper that wasn't to scale and would need an officialdocllment that was to scale to determine the actual impact, he feels that the applicant has followed through with some of the changes, but will need an official document to make his final decision. The plan he received explained that the applicant had followed through with some changes, but he needs some form of official document with a scale to detetIIiine the actual impact Chairman Menconi asked Mr. AndIee ifhe were proVided with what he needed to make his decision, would the applicant receive a 100% approval from him. Mr. Andree stated that might be the case and he believes that if there's going to be development in an area that couldjeopardizecritical wildlife, impact should be minimized. The fact that the applicant is proposing wildlife protective fencing is a plus because most of the properties on Lake Creek road do not have that type of fencing and over the years he has witnessed the adverse affects of this. Chaitnian Menconi stated that even though he has concerns about wildlife, he doesn't want to kill the file... Mr. Andree emphasized that this is a critical wildlife area. Chaitnian Menconi asked Mr. Mauriello about the flexibility of the applicant regarding the wildlife issue. Mr. Mauriello suggested the applicant has been very flexible and continues to be cooperative, and the applicant has proVided more than is necessary at sketch plan. Mr. Mauriello requested an approval With conditioIls. Chairman Menconi asked if they would be willing to go with fewer units, less square footage, re- positioning lots and possibly eliminating lot 6 to allow for the wildlife issue. Mr. MaUriello suggested the possibility of moving 6, instead of eliminating it, and indicated that they would be willing to shift lots if needed. Chaitnian Menconi reiterated his concern for the wildlife issue and stated that the wildlife iSsue will way heaVily on the preliminary plan. He asked Mr. Mauriello ifthey would still be willing to move fOrWard, knowing that testimony regarding wildlife could come in and possibly change things. At this time he would not be approving the number of units. Mr. Mauriello explained three proposed scenarios after speaking with the applicant; they would wait until Susan Miller built her home, relocate lot 6, or eliminate lot 6 all together. He explained their desire to leave with an approvaL Commissioner Runyon stated that he would prefer lot 2 be moved and lot 6 to be eliminated, and landscaping would be criticaL Mr. Mauriello suggested moving lot 6 and not eliminating it. He thinks it is one ofthe best sites on the property . Commissioner Runyon reiterated his concern with wildlife and would like to see lot 6 eliminated and the property to remain compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Mauriello suggested the possibility of shifting lot 2 and stated that at preliminary planning they intend to have Mr. Andree's approval. Commissioner Runyon stated that he would be very concerned with regards to the landscaping issue at preliminary planning. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mathews if there were to be a motion for approval, what changes he would recommend. Mr. Mathews suggested that condition #12 be deleted, lot 6 be eliminated, require that the applicant work with the Department of wildlife for an approval, move lot 2 to the south and produce a detailed landscape plan. 22 7/18/05 Commissioner Runyon asked if would be possible to limit vertical size of buildings. Mr. Narracci explained that the Board has the ability to define the building envelope two dimensionally and they could define it three dimensionally, allowing for a height cap of 35 feet. CommiSSioner Runyon asked if it would be possible to have a 25 foot vertical limitation. Mr. Mauriello suggested a 35 foot height limitation, it would be more reasonable to allow for a sloping roof. He asked for an opportunity to come back with potential covenants and suggested a wildlife mitigation plan from the Department of Wildlife. Chaitnian Menconi read the revised conditions. .Mr. Mathews approved the wording of the reVised conditions. Mr. Narraccisuggested codification of the covenants. Mr. Mathews asks Mr. Montag ifthere was anything in the policy or ifthe County has ever enforced HOA docunients. Mr. Montag stated they had not and that the condition may not be appropriate. Mr. Mauriello asked for a recol111llendation to request a variance from the dual access standard. Mr. Mathews stated it would have to be a separate hearing. Chaifl11an Menconi presented his closing statement. He stated that the applicant had made big leaps from a proposal of 8 units to 6, in their effort to cluster and address wildlife concerns. CofrimissionerRuhyon moved to approve File No. StJ8-00015, incorporating all staff findings and with the following conditions: I) That all material representations made by the Applicant in submitted materials and in public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2) At the time of Preliminary Plan application, all comments of the Engineering Department as delineated in its memorandum dated March 29,2005 and July 13,2005 must be addressed to the County Engineer's satisfaction. 3) At the time of Preliminary Plan application, all comments of the EnVironmental Health Department as delineated in its memorandum dated April 6, 2005 must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Director of EnVironmental Health. 4) At the time ofPreliminlity Plan application, all recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments letter dated March 25,2005 must be fully addressed. 5) Anhe time of Preliminary Plan application, the subdiVision plat should include notations that reflect the recommertdations ofthe Colorado State Forest SerVice in its letter dated March 16, 2005. 6) At the time of Preliminary Plan application, all reconill1endations of the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated March 17, 2005 must be fully addressed. 7) At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a housing plan that meets the intent of the Eagle County Housing GUidelines must be submitted as described in the Eagle County Housing Department memorandum dated March 29, 2005. 8) At the time of Preliminary Plan application, an irrigation plan must be proVided. 9) At Preliminary Plan application, detailed drainage plans must be proVided. 10) At Preliminary Plan application, the applicant must proVide either an agreement from a public water provider to serve each of the proposed residential lots. 11) At Preliminary Plan, all recommendations of the Eagle County Weed & Pest Coordinator in their memorandum of April 4, 2005 must be adequately addressed. 23 7/18/05 12) Remove lot 6. 13) Work with Department of Wildlife to develop an acceptable mitigation plan. 14) Move lot 2 to the south. 15) A Detailed landscape plan is needed and a preliminary housing elevation plan. Chairman Mencdni seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. ., Attest: 24 7/18/05 From: John S. PaI.mer, Sr. To: Those Concerned Purchasing the PaImerosa propedy in 1978, I ~udOO my house in 1982 It was zoned for 8 lots in the middle 1980s. s.dJeting a serious medical problem in 1996, I bequeathed the PaImerosa completely to my 4 dJildren. They own it outright. Since I am medically restricted to the south during the winter, and since my children show little iDtaest in the Palmerosa, 1hey decided to sell the property. I have no legal rights to the ~ but since I spent 15 years of time and money in rebuilding the PaImerosa to i1s cum:nt beautiful condition, I feel I have the right to express my opinioa Since the initial rezoning of81ots in 1985, futute sttxIies ofwater', wildlife corridors, and wetlands, make this number excessive. Besides the proposed plan with i1s contemplated square footage of residences, and its vehieuIar sI:rudme is cedainly not a reflection of the rural atmosphere of Lake Creek, but IIlOIe of suburbia. It's JDOSt abrasive to me and almost all my neighbors. The wildlife was here long before ,)~l0YI \lJ)\J~ /\~om 'L'{~ ~~_~lb~ \ ) ~ STATEMENT OF JOHN PALMER, JR. A good day to everyone and thank you for taking the time to attend this meeting. My name is John Palmer, Jr. and I am the manager of Palmerosa Ranch, LLC. We have owned the PaImerosa since 1979 and we love our ranch. It was a very tough decision to put our place up for sale, but we put it on the market last spring and Jim Comerford stepped forward last fall. Lake Creek has changed considerably since 1979 and much development has occurred around us. Our property is zoned for one lot per five acres and it has always been my understanding that we could develop this property and obtain permits for up to eight houses. Our family actually had preliminary plans drawn up for a seven house development several years ago, but never moved forward with the project. For the last 10 months, Jim Comerford and his people have worked to create a plan to develop the acreage. We understand that Mr. Comerford's proposal is for less density than could be allowed under the existing zoning. The density is also considerably less than the adjacent developments to the south, and apparently will increase the protected open space on the property beyond what my family has already committed to preserve. We also understand that Mr. Comerford is willing to work to provide screening and berming to preserve sight lines in the Lake Creek Valley. We hope the county, neighbors and Mr. Comerford are able to work together to create a use of the property that everyone can be proud of. We ask you to listen to Mr. Comerford's presentation and to evaluate his proposals with an open mind. Thank you for listening and for taking the time to come to this meeting. Our best to all, John Palmer Jr.