No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/20/05 PUBLIC HEARING December 20, 2005 resent: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Walter Mathews Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was no Executive Session held this day. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of December 19 and December 26,2005 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department So Approval of Payroll for December 22,2005 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Care Medical Clinic for Prenatal Health Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services D. Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County and Prater Lane School for the Early Childhood Partners Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services E. Agreement between Eagle County and Summit County Concerning a Joint Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services F. Agreement between Alpine Area Agency on Aging and Eagle County for Nutrition Services under the Older Americans Act Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services G. Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle River Youth Coalition for Services to Reduce Adolescent Drinking and Driving Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services H. Early Head Start Audit Response Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services I. Certification of Mill Levies Mike Roeper, Finance 1 12/20/05 J. Approval of Bi-Weekly Payroll Schedule for 2006 Alicia Holder, Finance Notice of Award to Newstrom-Davis Construction Company for the Freedom Park Restroom Facility Pete Fralick, Facilities Management L. Memorandum of Understanding between Alamosa County and Eagle County for Tire Shredding Services Ron Rasnic, Landfill M. Modification to Project Agreement Cooperative Road Agreement between USDA Forest Service and Eagle County Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge N. A Resolution 2005-140 for a Special Use Permit for the Installation of Two Temporary Masts for the Collection of Weather Data (Eagle County File No. ZS-00129) Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development O. A Resolution 2005-141 for the Approval of a Permit to Construct Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and for the Efficient Utilization of a Municipal Water Project in Order to Serve the Cattleman's Club Development Located in Edwards (Eagle County File No. 1041-0064) Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney asked that Item I be pulled and heard on the record. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-O with the exception ofItem I, which will be dealt with separately. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Certification of Mill Levies Cindy Preytis, Deputy Finance Director Ms. Preytis stated that the Certification of Mill Levies is a summarization of all of the taxing districts in the Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the adoption of the Certification of Mill Levies as presented. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and Cruz Construction, Inc. for 2005 Guardrail Project on Various Eagle County Roads Attorney's Office Representative Mr. Treu stated that the matter is appropriate for final settlement. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and Cruz Construction, Inc. for 2005 Guardrail Project on Various Eagle County Roads Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ~esolution 2005-142 for Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Wl>eriod for Edwards Corner Special Use Permit, Amended Final Plat, ParcellS, Remonov Center Helen Migchelbrink, Engineering 2 12/20/05 Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2005-142 Resolution for Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Edwards Comer Special Use Permit, Amended Final Plat, Parcel 15, emonov Center. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2005-143 Adopting a Fifth Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2005 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies Mike Roeper, Finance Department Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2005-143 Adopting a Fifth Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2005 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2005-144 Establishing Public Meeting Days for the Eagle Board of County Commissioners for Fiscal Year 2005 and Establishing Days and Office Hours for County Offices to Transact County Business for Fiscal Year 2006 and Designating Legal Holidays for Fiscal Year 2006 County Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2005-144 Establishing Public Meeting Days for the Eagle Board of County Commissioners for Fiscal Year 2005 and Establishing Days and Office Hours for County Offices to Transact County Business for Fiscal Year 2006 and Designating Legal Holidays for Fiscal Year 2006 Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Other Liquor A. Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. d/b/a Cordillera Mountain Club This is a request for a Temporary Permit. Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. has applied for a Transfer of Ownership of the Tavern Liquor License (Private Use) currently held jointly with Fandango Cordillera LLC. The applicant seeks a temporary permit in order to continue liquor operations until the formal transfer is approved. All necessary paperwork and fees have been submitted and paid. B. Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. d/b/a The Lodge and Spa at Cordillera This is a request for a Temporary Permit. Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. has applied for a Transfer of Ownership of the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License currently held jointly with Fandango Cordillera LLC. The applicant seeks a temporary permit in order to continue liquor operations until the formal transfer is approved. All necessary paperwork and fees have been submitted and paid. 3 12/20/05 Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for December 20, 2005, consisting of Items A-B. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Swearing-in Ceremony for New Eagle County Undersheriff, Jeff Layman Joe Hoy, Sheriff Mr. Jeff Layman was sworn in by Judge Tom Moorhead. Mr. Layman thanked SheriffHoy for the opportunity to serve Eagle County residence and make Eagle County an even better place to live. Commissioner Stone extended a warm welcome. Chairman Menconi added that Mr. Layman is a man of great integrity and has provided great service to the community. Commissioner Runyon thanked Sheriff Hoy for convincing Mr. Layman to accept the position. Planning Files LUR-0059 - Eco-Build Eat!1e County Efficient Buildin2 Pr02ram Adam Palmer, Community Development iOTE: Request to Table to 1/31/06 ACTION: Eagle County is proposing an amendment to the Building Resolution, which, if approved, would create a points-based code in which 50 points would need to be met for issuance of a building permit for new residential development. The code would also offer a 25% building permit rebate for projects meeting 100 points or above. In addition, the code is proposing a Renewable Energy Mitigation Program which impacts homes 5,000 square feet or larger, as well as exterior energy uses above identified amounts in the draft code and checklist. Mr. Palmer brought the Board up to date on the status and changes made to the file. Commissioner Stone moved to table file LUR-0059-Eco Build Eagle County Efficient Building Program at the applicants request until January 31,2006. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SMA-00022 - Marmon Minor Subdivision Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development ACTION: To subdivide an existing 10 acre lot into two (2), five (5) acre lots. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Limited which permits development of single family dwelling units on relatively larger lots of five (5) acres or more. Currently, there is an existing home on one of the proposed lots. The subject property is located in the Mosher Subdivision, south of the Town of Eagle on the west side ofthe Brush Creek Valley. LOCATION: 0231 Cedar Lane TITLE: Marmon Minor (Type A) Subdivision 4 12/20/05 FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: ,PPLICANT: EPRESENT A TlVE: STAFF PLANNER: SMA-00022 / Minor A Subdivision 0231 Cedar Lane; South of the Town of Eagle Ronald Marmon and Jan Kaechele Ronald Marmon and Jan Kaechele Knight Planning Jena Skinner-Markowitz STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: In January of2003, approval was granted to re-zone the subject 10-acre Marmon/Kechele property (known as Lot 5, Mosher Subdivision) from Resource (35acre minimum) to Agricultural Limited (5 acre minimum). The zone change was approved to accommodate a subdivision of the subject site into no more than two lots. This proposed Minor Type A Subdivision is consistent with the zone change approval. Lot 5B, as proposed is five (5) acres in area and encompasses the existing home. Lot 5A, as proposed consists of five (5), undeveloped, acres. Building envelopes have been proposed on both Lots 5A and 5B (around the existing home and other improvements) as part of this plat. CHRONOLOGY: 1974 B 1979 B 1987 B 2001 B January 2003 Map recorded which created ten 10 acre parcels, collectively known as Mosher=s Subdivision, including this Lot 5. Final Plat approved for Mo=s Subdivision, immediately south of Mosher=s Subdivision, which created four lots ranging in size from 8.095 to 10.435 acres. Final Plat approved for Ladybelle View Subdivision, immediately north of Mosher=s Subdivision, which created one lot of 28+ acres and four clustered lots of 5+ acres. Final Plat approved for Abrams Subdivision, immediately east of Mosher=s Subdivision, which created two lots of 5.1 acres and 9.7 acres, respectively The Zone Change for Lot 5, Mosher Subdivision was approved, rezoning the property from Resource (R- min. 35 ac) to Agricultural Limited (AL- min. 5 ac) Eagle County file no. ZC-00057. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential: Unplatted / Resource (9.64 acres) West: Bureau of Land Management / Resource North: Residential: Ladybelle Subdivision / Agricultural Limited (5.56 acres) South: Residential: Lot 4, Mosher Subdivision / Resource (10 acres) Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water: Sewer: Access: Agricultural Limited 10.017 acres Public (Town of Eagle) Private- Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Access via a easement across neighboring lots 4 and 3 of the Mosher Subdivision to Cedar Lane ~ STAFF REPORT ~FERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department, memo dated November 28,2005: . Per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs), separate (i.e. more than one) routes of entrance and exit into the subdivision may be required. Given that only one point of access is proposed, a 5 12/20/05 Variance from Improvement Standards may be required. . After this memo was generated it was determined that given the nature of the subdivision and that no new roads will be required (access for the new lot is serviced by a driveway) it would not be necessary to supply dual access) . The proposed driveway still does not meet the recommendations of the ECLURs/County standards. The applicant should obtain documentation from all emergency service providers accepting the design of the driveway. . See below. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, memo dated September 6, 2005: . The applicant has been working diligently with this department to ensure that the driveway improvements are sufficient and that access meets their standards/needs. As such, the Greater Eagle Fire Department has approved their design. . The Marmon Minor Subdivision is for two lots only on Cedar Drive. . We accept the subdivision with the following stipulations, which have been understood and agreed upon by Mr. Marmon: The driveway access is approved based on all of the following requirements being met: The driveway's turn around needs to be field verified with an Eagle Fire's pumper. . The 10.71 % grade will not be exceeded unless it is in areas needing it due to constraints; only on south facing slopes. . The building will be sprinkled. . The turn-around area at the structure will be determined during the building permit phase and has to be acceptable to the Eagle Fire Department. . Fire flow requirements will be determined after building plans are received. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: MA-00022 'ursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-290.G.1. Standards for Type A subdivision: The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision. STANDARD 5-290.G.1.a. Consistent with the Master Plan. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space! Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance Xl X,,3 X X X4 Countryside Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X Applicable x1-_ While the subject site is located in areas indicated as critical wildlife habitat, it is located on the fringe of those identified areas. By utilizing building envelopes, site disturbance is limited and the majority of the property remains open and undisturbed .2__ This subdivision does not seek to preserve any of the property as dedicated open space; however, given that here is no public access to this property (access easements are reserved for Marmon Minor Subdivision lot owners), it may not have any public benefit to preserve land on these properties. Also, given the size and nature of the properties, it may not achieve the goals of this section as there are no significant sensitive lands to protect. 6 12/20/05 x3-_ This is not an area slated for recreational amenities. Although this property is directly adjacent to BLM lands, it is not appropriate to provide access to these lands via this subdivision. X4_ FLUM - The Future Land Use Map indicates that the subject property is Countryside, which supports AL oning with an expected dwelling unit density range of from 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 35 or lore acres in this area. Given that the surrounding residential subdivisions range between five (5) and 10 acres, this would be consistent with the intent ofthis designation. Major public facilities, such as schools, are not typically located in this area. Instead, these areas rely on nearby community centers to serve their daily needs. Development in this area is typically served by on-site or community water supply systems and sewage disposal methods. EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Community Size Open Space & Environment & Economic Affordable Circulation& FLUP & Character Recreation Sensitive Areas Development Housing Transportation Map Conformance Xl X X X2 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X Applicable Xl__ Although this site is well beyond the "10-20 Year South Growth Boundary" for annexations ofland into the Town of Eagle, the Eagle Area Community Plan recognizes the existing conditions ofthe zoning surrounding the subject property and mimics the Eagle County Master Plan as far as density recommendations. X2__ Greater density on the site may be consistent with the spirit of this Policy. AGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X Applicable EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Xl Conformance Not X X X X Applicable Xl__ While the subject site is located in areas indicated as critical wildlife habitat, it is located on the fringe ofthose 7 12/20/05 identified areas. By utilizing building envelopes, site disturbance is limited and the majority of the property remains open and undisturbed [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The proposed Subdivision IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Ma (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.l.b] The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] Uses - The residential and accessory residential uses proposed are consistent with those allowed by right, by limited review or by special use in the Agricultural Limited zone district. [+] Dimensional Limitations - No change to the current standards is proposed. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parkin2 and Loadin2 Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscapin2 and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Si2n Re2ulations (Division 4-3). [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) It is not anticipated that there will be any significant disturbance to wildlife in the area given that: The property is situated on the wildlife "fringe" as depicted on the Wildlife maps; the applicant has provided building envelopes to control site disturbance; there are adequate open areas for wildlife movement; this subdivision will allow for one (1) additional single family home; and all disturbance will be revegetated with native plants. [+] Geol02ic Hazards (Section 4-420) A plat note has been added requiring site specific geological investigation and engineered design foundation systems is required for both homesites to ensure that the homesites will be properly mitigated ifnecessary. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430). The applicant has already removed a substantial portion of the pinyon, juniper and sagebrush from the building envelopes and is both cognizant and prepared to comply with the Eagle County Wildfire regulations at building permit. [+] Wood Burnin2 Controls (Section 4-440) Any new structure shall comply with any and all wood burning requirements of the Land Use Regulations and building codes. [+] Rid2eline Protection (Section 4-450) The proposed structures are not located on a ridgeline. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was not necessary for this development; however, one was supplied as part of the application. [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) The residential uses proposed as part of this subdivision are not anticipated to create nuisance levels of noise and vibration. [+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the standards are not anticipated as a result of this development. [n/a] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) [+] Stora2e of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) [+] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Both the existing home and the proposed home will utilize water taps obtained from the Town of Eagle. [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Access to this subdivision is adequate; no new roads are necessary as a driveway can service up to three (3) homes). [n/a] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [n/a] Irri2ation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Draina2e Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Gradin2 and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) [+] Utility and Li2htin2 Standards (Section 4-670) [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) Both the existing home and the proposed home will utilize water taps obtained from the Town of Eagle. [+] Sanitary Sewa2e Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) The owner of the future homesite will have to acquire an individual sewage disposal system permit prior to building permit approval. Currently, the 8 12/20105 existing home located on 5B has not had any issues in the past 20 years with the existing system. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Impactfees shall be collected as part of the building permit process; School Land Dedication Fees shall be also be collected as part of this process. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.l.b] The proposed subdivision IS consistent with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts and Article 4, Site Develonment Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-290.G.I.c] The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or required duplication or premature extension ofpublicfaGilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. i. 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 or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eaele Countv Road Capital Improvements Plan. ii. Service Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area in order to both avoid future land disruption, and the necessity of upgrading undersized lines. The spatial patterns proposed by this development are not anticipated to cause the kind of inefficiencies contemplated by this standard. The Marmon Minor Subdivision lies in-between the existing developments of the Ladybelle and Mosher Subdivisions; necessary utility lines are already present and will not create duplication or premature extension. Water and sewer facilities are provided via public water from the Town of Eagle (they recently approved to grant Mr. Marmon a new tap for Lot 5A); an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) for the new lot created by this subdivision will be obtained at building permit. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-290.G.l.c] The proposed Subdivision WILL result in an efficient spatial attem. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-290.G.l.d] The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property and existing and probable future improvements to the area. The building envelopes have been placed around the existing home on Lot 5B and on Lot 5A, and have been specifically placed to encapsulate minimal slopes free from hazards associated from flooding, debris flows and rock fall hazards. On the north-western and western portions of the property, slopes begin to increase; possibly affecting the existing homesite more than the proposed homesite, as it is further away from these slopes. The proposed envelope for Lot 5A has been placed on a previously disturbed area of the existing property. By limiting where the proposed home can be constructed (on Lot 5A) to this area, vegetation disturbance due to defensible space and construction, access improvements and visibility of the subdivision, will be minimized. No other natural or human-made hazards have been identified on the subject property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-290.G.l.d] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the otential develo ment of the pro erty and existin and robable future improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-290.G.l.e] The proposed subdivision shall be ompatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development f the surrounding area. The surrounding subdivisions in the immediate vicinity include residential and agricultural lots ranging from 5 to 10 acres. Subdivision of this property would result in a land use which would be generally compatible with the 9 12/20/05 existing agricultural and residential uses surrounding the subject land. The creation of two, approximate five (5) acre lots in proximity to the existing residential and agricultural uses will be in keeping with the rural nature of this part of Brush Creek, and will not adversely effect the future development of the surrounding area. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-290.G.1.e] The proposed Subdivision IS compatible with existing land uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STANDARD: Improvements Agreements. [Section 5-290.G.l.f] The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. A Subdivision Improvements agreement is not applicable with this plat. [+] FINDING: Improvements Agreement. [Section 5-290.G.l.f] A Subdivision Improvements Agreement IS NOT necessary for this proposal. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.l.g] Its conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards and guidelines. All Final Plat requirements have been met. School Land Dedication is required for the new lot being created. The required amount ofland dedication is calculated pursuant to Article 5, Section 4-700. Fees will be collected prior to the recording of this plat. Road Impact Fees will also be collected; however, prior to building permit issuance. [+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.I.g] The proposed Subdivision DOES conform to all Final Plat re uirements and all other a licable re ulations, policies, standards and uidelines. DISCUSSION: Ms. Jena Skinner-Markowitz presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Board. Her PowerPoint resentation consisted of varies photos of the site and vicinity maps of the area. She explained the applicants equest and background of the property from 1974 to January 2003. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that all finding were positive and staff recommended approval. Tom Boni, Knight Planning spoke to the Board. He stated that they had worked diligently on securing water to the property. Originally they proposed one tap from the town and one well to serve the properties. As they got further into it they were able to secure a second tap from the town. The plan was brought to the town of Eagle and they approved the issuance of the second water tap to serve the five acres. They also met on sight with the fire department for their approval. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Runyon asked about the Town of Eagle's response. Mr. Skinner-Markowitz stated that there were no issues with the Town. Commissioner Stone moved to approve File No. SMA-00022 incorporating Staff findings with the following conditions, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Plat. 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. School Land Dedication fees-in-lieu ofland will be required prior to recording the Marmon Minor Subdivision Final Plat. 3. Road Impact Fees will be collected prior to building permit issuance. 4. All comments from the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District must be adhered to and incorporated as part of any building permit for Lots 5A and B. Further, approval of the proposed improvements must be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 10 12/20/05 Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUP-00008 Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan and LR-00048 Limited Review for Accessorv Dwellin2 Units Joe Forinash, Community Development Subdivision of 43 .689 acre parcel into 5 residential lots and 4 accessory dwelling units with building envelopes clustered along Lake Creek, with public water, individual septic systems, two points of access and open space easement. ACTION: LOCATION: Primarily west of Lake Creek Road, approximately 1 mile south ofHwy. 6 (887 Lake Creek Road). FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNERS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: SUP-00008 / Subdivision Preliminary Plan 887 Lake Creek Road Palmerosa Ranch, LLC Palmerosa Development Company, LLC / Jim Comerford Mauriello Planning Group / Dominic Mauriello STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. (4-1) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Commissioners commented that the Applicant has addressed a number of the concerns expressed at the Sketch Plan review and noted that the proposal had come a long way, lthough it was still not perfect. Discussion and comments regarding specific aspects of the proposed development ncluded the following: Wildlife - More homes in an area definitely impact wildlife and tend to make elk edgier. The Planning Commission has to rely on professional wildlife specialists and the Applicant has worked with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to reduce potential impacts. Two corridors across the site are definitely better than one. Property owners in the area need to work together to develop an approach that will best mitigate impacts on wildlife, rather than relying primarily on government restrictions. Some support of the recommended 75 foot setback from riparian areas was expressed, and that setback should apply on both sides of Lake Creek. Bear proof trash containers should be required and dogs should be limited in number and adequately controlled. Covenants - Main concern is that the covenants are effective functionally and that they include language that restricts changes which weaken the provisions regarding obligations and enforcement. A requirement to monitor impacts on wildlife should be added. Building envelopes - They are generally too large and generally result in a lack of sufficient clustering. Building envelopes should be limited to % acres in size and be somewhat clustered. Trail segment - The proposed location appears to be the best choice. Size of residential units - Some interest was expressed in limiting the size of the units, but the Commissioners were resigned to reliance on the applicable zoning. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) - The Commission recommends that the number of ADUs be limited to one. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The proposed development consists of five single-family home sites, including four accessory dwelling units, on a 43.689 acre parcel of land. Much of the site consists of a view corridor easement and/or wetland areas, causing home sites (building envelopes) to be clustered along the west side of the property on lots veraging 8.7 acres in area. While the two proposed access roads into the site are not connected, turnarounds for emergency equipment are provided. A private water system, owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, will be connected to the Upper Eagle Water Authority. Individual sewage disposal systems will be maintained through a management contract under the direction of the Homeowners Association. 11 12/20/05 CHRONOLOGY: September 3,1984 Application made to Eagle County to rezone and subdivide the subject property from .esource to Agricultural Limited. rovember 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. July 18, 2005 Subdivision sketch plan was approved. October 3, 2005 Applications received for this Subdivision Preliminary Plan and a companion Limited Review for four accessory dwelling units. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential / PUD West: Agricultural / AL North: Agricultural; residential / AL South: Residential / RR, PUD Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: Total Area: Agricultural Limited No change in zoning is proposed 5 primary dwellings and 4 accessory dwellings 43.689 acres Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Water: ewer: Access: 6.55 acres 10.35 acres Central water system connected to Upper Eagle Water Authority system Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Lake Creek Road STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department . The proposed development has a proposed bridge structure for access to Lot 1. This structure appears to be within the 100 year floodplain, and will require a floodplain development permit. In addition, the new bridge structure may require a revised floodplain study. . The Department is in agreement with the Applicant that the Applicant will not be required to contribute towards improvements to the Highway 6 / Lake Creek intersection, as referenced in previous Engineering Memoranda. The Applicant will still be responsible for Road Impact Fees. . The proposed bridge structure for Lot 1 access must be of sufficient strength to accommodate applicable loading standards. . The applicant has stated that a gravel path will be provided along Lake Creek Road subject to Eagle County's direction on placement. Per ECLUR 4-630, trail standards require a 10' wide paved asphalt trail. The Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan recommends an 8' wide paved asphalt trail for spur trails, which would include the Lake Creek corridor. However, given the rural characteristics of the area, an asphalt trail may not be necessary. The applicant should provide a feasible trail alignment. . If the location of the proposed trail is not within County ROW, the applicant must provide appropriate easements to the County. . Additional information is required regarding the proposed development. See Items 6 through 15 in the memo dated 16 November 2005. The Engineering Department has indicated that it is sufficient that this information be provided as part of the final construction plans prior to approval of the final plat. . A detailed organizational and financial structure for the operation & maintenance is required for the 12 12/20/05 private water system, and for the sewage system. . The Applicant must provide a notice of service from the public water provider. . The Applicant must provide "can and will serve" letters from the applicable utility providers, stating that they can and will serve the proposed development. Eagle County Environmental Health . The on-site wastewater treatment systems proposed for this site will adequately address groundwater pollution issues, if properly maintained. It is recommended that the Home Owners Association (HOA) be responsible for over-seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on- site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision. The HOA must have: [1] a dues structure to enable financing the proper routine maintenance; [2] a maintenance agreement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance; and [3] the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting, performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. . The agricultural BMPs (Best Management Practices) suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan should be implemented by the HOA to protect and conserve natural resource. . The HOA should be responsible for efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock grazing. . Air pollution impacts would further be protected by prohibiting wood burning devices. Eagle County Housing Department . The Housing Department finds that the housing plan that has been submitted meets the intent of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. . Two of the four accessory dwelling units in the proposed subdivision will have an Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction placed on them which will be managed by the Eagle County Housing Department. . In addition, should the owners of the deed restricted ADU choose to opt out, they will make a payment- in-lieu (PIL) appropriate to their individual unit at that time. This PIL will be based on the updated Nexus Proportionality Study, the annually updated formula for determining PIL and the specific payment calculated for that unit (currently estimated at $30,605). Eagle River Fire Protection District . The proposed water supply extended from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District via a 10" main and hydrant locations are acceptable for fire fighting operations. . The plans indicate that the water system would be privately maintained. Additional information is needed to ensure adequate maintenance and operation. . Road width, grade, and turnarounds appear acceptable. Turning Radii will need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire District's Pierce Quantum engine. . Each road serves 2 or 3 single-family homes with an additional home and two undeveloped lots, which are not part of this project, accessing via the south road. Based on this density, the District does not believe the requirement for dual access applies. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District . If the developer is expecting public water and sewer service supply to this project, the property will need to be included in both the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District for sewer service and the Edwards Metropolitan District for water service. . If the property is not already included in the Edwards Metropolitan District, conveyance of water rights will be required. . If the property changes zoning that allows an increased density over the zoning in place on February 22,2001 (per Resolution of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority), conveyance of water rights and treated water storage, or cash-in-lieu of these, will be required. .agle County School District (RESOJ) . The Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan would result in five single-family homes and four caretaker units. These units would result in a dedication requirement of O.136 acres - 9 SF units x 0.0151 acres per unit (sic). 13 12/20/05 . As the land dedication acreage is minimal, the district will accept cash in lieu of land for this subdivision. Per County School Land Dedication Requirements, the value of this cash payment will be determined by an appraisal of the land provided by the developer with the application for final plat. Torthwest Colorado Council of Governments . The information submitted in the application addresses earlier sketch plan comments regarding protection of wetlands and control of erosion and stormwater drainage. The project should have not measurable water quality impacts. Colorado Division of Wildlife . CDOW met with the developer on 10/19/05 to review the project's impacts on wildlife. The key wildlife concerns for this project center on loss of elk habitat (winter range and winter concentration area), maintaining the elk migration corridor for east/west movements and protection of riparian habitat. During this meeting, several changes were made to the plan to reduce the impacts of wildlife, including the following: . The southern side of the building envelope for Lot 4 was moved to the north to reduce the size of the building envelope and increase the area available for wildlife movements. . The caretaker unit was removed from Lot 4. . The cul-de-sacs for fire access were reduced to reduce the loss of habitat. . Develop a grazing plan for the property to provide for grazing 50% (25% oflivestock; 25% for wildlife) of the available forage and leaving 50% of the available forage. . The wildlife mitigation section would be updated with costs, acres impacted and that the funds are held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation, not the CDOW. . Since the elk are currently migrating at varying degrees on both the north and south side of the property, it was felt that providing two migration corridors worked better than having one corridor. The migration corridor is complicated by the subdivision directly to the west of the project (former Chipman/Miller Ranch). The Chipman/Miller Ranch was divided into three home sites but building envelopes were not designated for all the units. Since this project has no control of where the units on the Chipman/Miller Ranch development could be built, having two migration corridors provided the best opportunity to maintain a viable corridor. . The wildlife report has a couple of errors on wildlife species using the site. Abert's squirrels are not found in Eagle County. The correct species would be the Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). In addition to this error, the wildlife report does not mention the use of the site by black bears, lions and red fox. . The Edwards area has had increases in bear-human conflicts that have centered on improperly stored trash. The CD OW recommends that bear-proof containers be used throughout the construction, build- out, and finished product of this development. The CDOW can provide information on types or methods of trash storage. . The environmental impact report understates the value of the riparian habitat to wildlife. Riparian ecosystems constitute one of the most limited yet species-rich ecosystems in Colorado. The project map shows a fifty foot (50') setback from riparian areas. It is the Division's recommendation that a seventy five foot (75') setback from all riparian habitats along Lake Creek be implemented. This setback should be maintained in natural vegetation and not be manicured within the seventy five foot (75') setback. Ifremoval of riparian vegetation is required, then mitigation should include replacement of the same amount and type of vegetation. Colorado Geological Survey . Steep Slopes - The building envelopes on Lots 2, 3 and 4 should avoid the steep banks on Lake Creek to the west of the lots. The building envelope should either avoid these steep slopes, or a slope stability analysis should be performed, proving adequate factors of safety for the slopes. . Steep Slopes (cont.) - A proposed pond in Lot 4 is located on a steep slope on the north side of the building envelope. The pond should be moved to the east to avoid this slope. . Subsidence - The Eagle Valley Evaporite, which is susceptible to subsidence due to solution, underlies the property. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is prone to sinkhole formation. There is a known sinkhole within 50 feet of the building envelope on Lot 1. CGS recommends site-specific soil investigations as 14 12/20105 well as direct observation of the foundation excavation in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. . Shallow Groundwater - The borings by HP Geotech indicate that there is shallow groundwater on the site. Engineered septic systems will be necessary in areas of shallow groundwater. The bottom of the leach field should be at least 4 feet above the groundwater level at the high water mark. Below-grade construction, such as basements, will need foundation and perimeter drains. . Debris Flow/Flooding - The slopes above the property to the west have the potential for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding. This would only affect Lot 1. HP Geotech recommends a diversion berm to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1. This mitigation berm should be a condition of plat approval and the associated hazards should be disclosed to potential buyers on the plat. . Soils - The land that will be developed has been pasture for a number of years. The foundation contractor 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. . Soils (cont.) - 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. . Conclusion - The new lot alignment mitigates much of the geologic hazard on the property and is a much better layout than the previous proposal. If the recommendations in the submitted reports and the recommendations in this CGS response are complied with, then the CGS has no further geologic concerns regarding this subdivision. Colorado State Forest Service . The Colorado State Forest Service has given the Palmero sa Ranch PUD a wildfire hazard rating oflow. A low rating means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. . The majority of this property is irrigated pastureland, or riparian area along Lake Creek. This fuel type represents a low fire hazard, with the exception of extreme weather conditions, or in the absence of haying or grazing. Fuel type, terrain, aspect, road layout, and available water all helped contribute to this low rating. . The addition of dual access to this property is another beneficial step in lowering the fire hazard. . Even with this low rating, CSFS suggests that noncombustible roofing materials be used, and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Colorado Division of Water Resources . The Division has reviewed this proposal which includes a water supply which is to be provided by the Edwards Metropolitan District. . Pursuant to applicable statutes, a municipal or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with Eagle County and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included in the submitted materials. Therefore, the Division is unable to comment on the proposed water supply. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, Eagle County Weed and Pest, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Eagle County School District (RE50J) Transportation, Edwards Metropolitan District, Eagle County Ambulance District, Colorado Department of Transportation (Grand Junction Office), Colorado Department of Transportation (Local Office), Water Conservation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), U.S. Postmaster (Edwards), Qwest, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy, Lake Creek Meadows HOA, Creamery Ranch HOA, Homestead HOA, Lake Creek, Pilgrim Downs HOA STAFF DISCUSSION: -'ursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section S-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch 'Ian for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. 15 12/20/05 EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN ~ Environmental Open Space! Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Qualitv Recreation Housing Services Conformance Xl X" x' x' x' x6 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x Xl - Environmental Quality. The proposed development does not adversely affect critical wildlife habitat, surface and ground water quality (with the recommended conditions), or air quality. Development is not proposed in the floodplain. x2 _ Open Space / Recreation. 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 substantial landscape 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 of the subject property. x3 _ 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. This subdivision would result in the five individual home sites being '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. x4 _ Affordable Housing. Mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be mitigated by a limited restriction on the occupancy of two accessory dwelling units within the development. If this Housing Plan is determined to be onsistent with the intent of the Housing Guidelines, conformance with these policies and objectives will be met. x5 _ Transportation. The proposed development would preserve the rural character of the County's roads in rural areas. x6 _ Future Land Use Map (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 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 afthe individual lots. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Coooeration Provision Preservation Quali ty Patterns Conformance Xl x' xJ X XS. xb Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x Applicable Xl - Open Space Provision. The Plan states that, "Eagle County should recognize that planned unit developments and cluster housing assist in open space maintenance". This Subdivision Preliminary Plan being considered capitalizes on the existing Agricultural Limited zoning and is not a Planned Unit Development. The proposed levelopment 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. In this manner, the view corridor up the Lake Creek Valley will be maintained. 16 12/20105 x2 - Unique Character Preservation. There are no unique landforms identified on the subject property. 3 _ 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. x4 - 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 development 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. x5 - Hazards - It is the applicant's intent to constrain the residential building sites to those portions ofthe 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. x6 _ While the site is located in or near elk and mule deer migration corridors, the design will preserve the corridors and minimizes or mitigates adverse impacts. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land Use Xl Housing x2 Transportation x3 Open Space x4 Potable Water and Wastewater x5 Services and Facilities x6 Environmental Quality x7 Economic Development x' Recreation and Tourism x9 Historic Preservation xlO Implementation XII Future Land Use Map xl2 Xl - Land Use. The stated goal is, "The location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs ofthe current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". x2 - Housing. As noted in the discussion above regarding the Eagle County Master Plan, mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be mitigated by a limited restriction on the occupancy of two accessory dwelling units within the development. However, at this writing it has not been determined that the proposal adequately meets the ntent of the Housing Guidelines. The proposed housing plan may ultimately provide housing permanently affordable to local residents, encourage housing that is within close proximity of the employment centers and community centers, and result in ownership opportunities. 17 12/20/05 x3 _ Transportation .A trail along Lake Creek Road is suggested in the application. Its location and design have yet to be specified. Depending on the nature of the trail, it may ultimately contribute to efficiently, conveniently and safely moving people throughout the Edwards area. 4 _ 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. x5 _ Potable Water and Wastewater. The applicant intends to tie into a public water source. As proposed, potable water and wastewater treatment will be provided in a reasonable manner while protecting groundwater and potable water wellheads. x6 _ Services and Facilities. This goal pertains to recycling of solid wastes and provision of public schools, occupational training and higher education. It appears that solid and hazardous wastes will be handled in an environmentally sound manner. x7 _ 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. x8 - Economic Development. Not applicable. x9 _ Recreation and Tourism. The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning u-ea's parks and open space system". This proposal will provide private passive and active open space opportunities for the residents of the development and visual open space for surrounding land owners and the public. X 10 - Historic Preservation - The Colorado State Historical Society has responded that no identified historical sites exist on the subject property. X II _ Implementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure Xl2 _ 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 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. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN 18 12/20/05 Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Xl X2 X3 x' x' Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Xl _ Water Quantity. The development is consistent with the spirit of the water quantity objectives ofthe Watershed Plan. x2 _ Water Quality. The development is consistent with the spirit of the water quality objectives of the Watershed Plan. x3 - Wildlife. The development is consistent with the spirit of the wildlife objectives of the Watershed Plan. x4 _ Recreation. The trail segment along Lake Creek Road will contribute to recreational hiking and biking in this corridor. x5 - Land Use. The development will generally protect riparian areas and wetlands. 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 [ere. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: · Housing is a community-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . · Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes · Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success · It is important to preserve existing local residents housing · Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A I. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in X collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers x in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. x Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part ofthe problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the x responsibility of . . . employers. . . 19 12/20/05 ITEM YES NO N/A 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents Xl 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- x site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x II. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are x provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl - As noted in the discussion above regarding the Eagle County Master Plan, mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be mitigated by a limited restriction on the occupancy of two accessory dwelling units within the development. However, at this writing it has not been determined that the proposal adequately meets the intent of the Housing Guidelines. The proposed housing plan may ultimately provide housing permanently affordable to local residents, encourage housing that is within close proximity of the employment centers and community centers, and result in ownership opportunities. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] This proposal IS consistent with the Master Plan recommendations. ;TANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts The site is currently zoned Agricultural Limited (AL) and correspondingly has a minimum lot size of 5 acres. While this zoning would allow up to 8 lots on this 43+ acre parcel, the subdivision sketch plan was approved with only 5 residential lots. Accessory dwelling units (ADU), proposed on 4 of the 5 lots, are allowed but require a Limited Review pursuant to Section 5-300, Limited Review Use, ofthe Land Use Regulations. A Limited Review application for this use (Eagle County File No. LR-00048) has been submitted as a companion to this subdivision preliminary plan application. Under the provisions of Section 5-300, a Limited Review application may be approved by the Director of Community Development if the applicable standards of the Land Use Regulations have been satisfied. However, ifthere are substantive objections from adjacent property owners, the Limited Review application is to be scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. In this case, substantive objections have been received from adjacent property owners. Consequently, File No. LR- 00048 is a companion file and will be considered by the Board in conjunction with the subdivision preliminary plan. The Planning Commission is not required to provide a recommendation on a Limited Review application. Article 4, Site Development Standards . +] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Three parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling, and up to two are required for each accessory 20 12/20/05 dwelling unit. Building envelopes are proposed and building footprints (presumably, tentative) are indicated. While it has not been demonstrated that adequate parking will be provided, given the size of the lots, adequate space for the required parking should be available. The Applicant/developer will be required to demonstrate the adequate arking exists prior to issuance of each building permit. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Unlike a planned unit development, in which a Detailed Landscape Plan is required as part a preliminary plan application, a subdivision preliminary plan application is required to include only a Conceptual Landscape Plan. A Detailed Landscape Plan for a subdivision which is not also a PUD will be required with the final plat application. A Conceptual Landscape Plan, which generally satisfies the requirements of Section 4-220.B., Conceptual Landscape Plan, is included in the application materials. The Conceptual Landscape Plan is labeled a "Preliminary Plan", Sheets 1 and 2. A condition of approval of the sketch plan requires that the preliminary plan include, in addition to a certain amount of detail in the landscape plan, an irrigation plan and a preliminary housing elevation plan. Both are attached to this staff report. Since the detail of the preliminary housing elevation plan is difficult to read, Staff has provided an enlargement of that part of the preliminary housing elevation plan extending from the south drive to the north drive. The conceptual landscape plan, irrigation plan and preliminary housing elevation plan satisfy the requirements of this Division and appear to be reasonable. The Planning Commission and the Board will want to review these materials to determine whether they adequately address the concerns raised during the review of the sketch plan application. No information is provided regarding proposed lighting and illumination. Lighting and illumination subsequently proposed for the development will be required to comply with Section 4-250, Illumination Standards, ofthe Land Use Regulations. +] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) All signs within the project will be required to comply with this Division. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The application includes a Wildlife Analysis which sets forth certain proposed impact mitigation measures. The most significant impacts are expected to be to mule deer and elk which frequent the site due in part to movement along wildlife corridors which currently cross this site. Proposed mitigation measures generally include [1] the reduction in number (from the proposed sketch plan) and clustering of home sites, [2] potential enhancement of the wetlands, [3] upgrading offencing on the property, [4] controlling domestic animals (dogs and cats) through covenants, and [5] the preservation of the migration corridor, such as through berms providing a "secure" passageway. The Applicant is also proposing to make a one-time contribution to an established trust fund to provide, in perpetuity, enhancement of off-site wildlife habitat to mitigate for that lost due to this development. In its referral response, The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) noted that its key wildlife concerns center on loss of elk habitat (winter range and winter concentration area), maintaining the elk migration corridor for east/west movements and protection of riparian habitat. CDOW reports that several changes were agreed upon between itself and the Applicant, including the following: . Moving the southern side of the building envelope for Lot 4 to the north to reduce the size of the building envelope and increase the area available for wildlife movements; . Removing the caretaker unit from Lot 4; . Reducing the cul-de-sacs for fire access to reduce the loss of habitat; . Developing a grazing plan for the property for grazing 50% (25% for livestock; 25% for wildlife) of the available forage and leaving 50% of the available forage; and 21 12/20/05 . Updating the wildlife mitigation section regarding costs and acres impacted, and providing that the funds in trust be held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation rather than the CDOW. 'he Applicant has submitted a revised Wildlife Section of the Environmental Impact Report which the Applicant states includes changes which were made to address the Division of Wildlife concerns. The changes include [1] a newly developed grazing plan for the property for grazing 50% (25% for livestock; 25% for wildlife) of the available forage and leaving 50% of the available forage; and [2] an updated wildlife mitigation section regarding costs and acres impacted, and which provides that the funds in trust be held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation rather than the Division of Wildlife. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should fully implement all wildlife-related mitigation measures set forth in the revised Wildlife Section of the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Jerry Powell, Wildlife Specialties, LLC, as revised and supplemented by the letter dated November 14,2005, from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. [Condition # 1] CD OW also notes that the environmental impact report understates the value of the riparian habitat to wildlife. Consequently, rather than the proposed 50 foot setback from riparian areas, the CDOW recommends that a 75 foot setback be required from all riparian habitats along Lake Creek be implemented, and that the setback be maintained in its natural condition. (See the letter dated November 14, 2005, from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.) As a condition of approval, a seventy five foot (75') setback, as determined by the Director of Community Development in consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, should be maintained from all riparian areas, and these setbacks should be maintained in natural vegetation and not be manicured within the seventy five foot (75') setback. If removal of riparian vegetation is required, then mitigation should include replacement of the same amount and type of vegetation. This condition should be permanently made a part of the covenants for this development and should be adequately noted on the final plat. [Condition # 2] Nonetheless, it has not been made clear whether the proposed reduction of the cul-de-sacs proposed to reduce the oss of habitat will significantly compromise the ability for emergency equipment to negotiate the site, nor that the Eagle River Fire Protection District has reviewed and is satisfied with the proposed changes. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate, prior to approval of a final plat for this subdivision, that any proposed re-design of drives, turnarounds or cul-de-sacs is satisfactory to the Eagle River Fire Protection District, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Eagle County Engineer. In the event that any proposed re-design is not mutually agreeable to these parties, the location and design of the drives, turnarounds or cul-de-sacs should be determined by the County Engineer. [Condition if 3] [NOTE: This condition was satisfied prior to the Planning Commission hearing and has been deleted.) [+] Geolof!ic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) notes in its referral response that the proposed lot alignment (revised from the sketch plan) mitigates much of the geologic hazard on the property and is a much better layout. CGS further notes that if the recommendations in the reports submitted with this application and the recommendations by CGS are complied with, CGS has no further concerns regarding this subdivision. However, one of the additional concerns noted by CGS related to the steep banks on Lake Creek to the west of Lots 2, 3 and 4. CGS notes that the building envelopes on these lots should either avoid these steep slopes, or a slope stability analysis should be performed, providing adequate factors of safety for the slopes. A related concern is that a proposed pond on Lot 4 is located on a steep slope on the north side of the building envelope. CGS recommends that the pond be moved to the east to avoid this slope. Another concern is related to potential subsidence due to the presence of Eagle Valley Evaporite on the site. Due to . known sinkhole within 50 feet of the building envelope on Lot 1, CGS recommends that site-specific soil nvestigations as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation be required in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. Due to shallow groundwater on the site, engineered septic systems will be required in areas of shallow 22 12/20/05 groundwater. CGS recommends that the bottom of each field should be at least 4 feet above the groundwater at the high water mark, and that below-grade construction, such as basements, include foundation and perimeter drains. ,ot 1 may be affected by the potential for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding from the slopes above the Iroperty to the west. CGS recommends that a diversion berm be required to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot I, that the diversion berm be a condition of plat approval, and that the associated hazards be disclosed on the plat to potential buyers. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, the foundation contractor should be made aware that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. In addition, since evaporate 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. As a condition of approval, the developer should fully implement the recommendations included in and based upon the Revised Wetland Delineation Report, dated August 2005, prepared for this site by Western Ecological Resource, Inc.; the Geologic Site Assessment, dated September 28,2005, and the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated September 15,2005, both prepared for this site by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.; the Preliminary 100-Year Floodplain Study and Drainage Report, dated September 2005, prepared for this site by Alpine Engineering, Inc.; and the following recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated November 7, 2005: a. The proposed pond on Lot 4 should be moved to the east in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer to avoid the steep slope on the north side of the building envelope. b. The developer should be responsible for constructing a diversion berm, satisfactory to the County Engineer, to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1. c. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, the developer should inform contractors that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. d. Since evaporate soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete, the developer should inform contractors that any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive shall utilize Type II cement. e. The final plat should include notes which are substantially as follows: 1. A slope stability analysis may be required by the Chief Building Official prior to the construction of any structures in this subdivision. 11. Due to one or more known sinkholes on this site, a site-specific soils investigation, as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation, shall be required in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. 111. Due to shallow groundwater on the site, engineered septic systems shall be required in areas of shallow groundwater. The bottom of each leach field shall be at least 4 feet above the groundwater at the high water mark, and below-grade construction, such as basements, shall include foundation and perimeter drains. IV. The potential exists for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding from the slopes above the property to the west of the building envelope on Lot 1. A diversion berm, satisfactory to the County Engineer, shall be required 23 12/20105 to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1. v. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, any organic matter in the soil shall not be used for structural fill and shall be removed prior to placement of any foundations. VI. Since evaporate soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete, any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive shall utilize Type II cement. [Condition # 3] [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) notes that it has given this site a low wildfire hazard rating. Nonetheless, CSFS suggests that noncombustible roofing materials be used and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Typically, irrigation occurs during the months of May through October. As a condition of approval, notes should be included on the final plat for this subdivision requiring the following: a. Noncombustible roofing materials shall be required on all structures. b. In order to reduce wildfire hazard, the pasture shall be irrigated throughout the summer months of May through October. [Condition # 4] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to delete "b".] [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The Director of Environmental Health has indicated that air pollution impacts from this development would be enhanced by prohibiting wood burning devices. As a condition of lpproval, a restrictive note should be placed on the final plat which prohibits the use of wood burning devices within this subdivision other than those which may be in place at the time of the approval of the final plat. [Condition # 5] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to allow "new technology devices" as that term is defined in the Land Use Regulations.] [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not located on land designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - An adequate Environmental Impact Report has been provided. [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) No commercial or industrial uses are proposed. This section is not applicable. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - The Engineering Department has noted that a bridge structure is proposed for access to Lot 1. Since the structure appears to be within the 100-year floodplain, a floodplain development permit and a revised floodplain study may be required. Further, the proposed bridge structure for access to Lot 1 must be designed to meet applicable strength standards. In addition, the Engineering Department also notes that there are a number of deficiencies in the construction plans submitted with this application. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County .ngineer. [Condition # 6] The Eagle River Fire Protection District notes that the road width, grade and turnarounds appear to be acceptable, but that turning radii need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire District's Pierce Quantum engine. As an additional condition of approval, the Applicant should clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County 24 12/20/05 Engineer, in consultation with the Eagle River Fire Protection District, prior to approval of the final plat, that the design ofthe drives, turnarounds and cul-de-sacs is adequate to accommodate the Fire District's Pierce Quantum engine. [Condition if 8] ~OTE: This condition was satisfied prior to the Planning Commission hearing and has been deleted.) [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Engineering Department notes that the Applicant has proposed that a gravel path will be provided along Lake Creek Road, subject to direction by Eagle County as to its placement. This Section (4-630) includes trail standards requiring a 10 foot wide paved asphalt trail. However, the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan recommends an 8 foot wide paved asphalt trail for spur trails, including the Lake Creek spur. This Section also provides that the trails standards are not inflexible and that when an alternative design or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflect community values equal to or better than that that established by the standards in this Section, the alternative may be recommended by the County Engineer. The Engineering Department states that, given the rural nature of the area, an asphalt trail may not be necessary. The nature of the trail should be explicitly considered by the Planning Commission and determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The Engineering Department also notes that a proposed trail alignment has not been provided, and that the trail alignment ultimately approved may not be in the public right-of-way. If the latter is the case, an appropriate easement is required, as provided in Section 4-630.A., Trail Standards. While the Applicant has maintained that the 60 foot Lake Creek Road right-of-way is sufficient for the location of a trail, portions of the areas between the pavement and the edge of the right-of-way, especially with respect to the presence of ditches, would make the construction of a trail particularly difficult. Beyond the right-of-way to the east, a portion ofthe adjacent property becomes very steep. To the west of the right-of-way, wetlands would further significantly complicate the location of a trail. roviding a trail along this segment of Lake Creek Road is a condition of approval of the sketch plan. However, no details regarding alignment, width and other design characteristics have been provided. Given potential diffieulties regarding trail alignment and an open question as to whether it should be paved or have a gra'/el surface, the Planning Commission and the Board of COlIDty Commissioners may prefer to revie'.v any proposed alignment, in 'Nhich case this preliminary plan should not be approved until the final alignment is satisfaotory. Alternatively, as a condition of approval, consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the developer should construct a 10 foot wide, asphalt trail along Lake Creek Road, in a manner, design, location and at a time which is satisfactory to the County Engineer, ifnot otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners, which meets the trail standards of Section 4-630.A., Trail Standards. [Condition # 7] [This condition has been modified by the Planning Commission, at the recommendation of Staff, to require an 8 foot trail of either asphalt or of gravel or base course, at the option of the developer. A proposed trail alignment is shown on the attached site plan.) [+] Irrigation Svstem Standards (Section 4-640) - The application indicates that non-potable water available pursuant to surface water rights will be used to irrigate a portion of the site. While some information is provided regarding a water supply plan and an irrigation plan, it is not clear that all of the provisions of this Section have or will be satisfied, including demonstration of compliance with the requirements of applicable Colorado law, the nature of the delivery system, and how the ditches and attendant structures on the site will be maintained. Among other requirements, the irrigation delivery system must be reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Director of Environmental Health, and an appropriate maintenance agreement between the Applicant and the ditch owner must be filed as part of the final approval documents for the subdivision. ~ile much of the irrigation that will occur in the future will be similar to that which has occurred for a number of years, it has not been demonstrated whether changes in the proposed irrigation of the site will be in conformance with the requirements of this Section. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of any final plat for this subdivision, the developer should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that 25 12/20105 all of the requirements of Section4-640., Irrigation System Standards, have or will be satisfied. [Condition # 8] +] Drainafle Standards (Section 4-650) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has mdicated that it is satisfied that the proposal has adequately addressed earlier concerns regarding stormwater drainage. The Engineering Department has not noted any deficiencies regarding drainage. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Department of Environmental Health has recommended that agricultural BMPs (Best Management Practices) suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan should be implemented by the HOA to protect and conserve natural resource and that the HOA should be responsible for efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock grazing. As a condition of approval, the developer should comply with, and the Home Owners Association should be responsible for implementing, the recommendations and suggestions contained in the memorandum dated November 11,2005, from the Department of Environmental Health, and the final plat should include a note substantially similar to the following: The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for implementing the agricultural Best Management Practices suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan to protect and conserve natural resources, and for utilizing efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas oflivestock grazing. [Condition # 9] [+] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it is satisfied that the proposal has adequately addressed earlier concerns regarding excavation and grading. The Engineering Department has not noted any deficiencies. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. Condition # 6] [+] Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-665) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it is satisfied that the proposal has adequately addressed earlier concerns regarding erosion control. The Engineering Department has not noted any deficiencies. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Department of Environmental Health notes that agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP) suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan should be implemented by the Home Owners' Association (HOA) to protect and conserve natural resources. As a condition of approval, the developer should comply with and the Home Owners Association should be responsible for implementing the recommendations and suggestions contained in the memorandum dated November 11,2005, from the Department of Environmental Health, and the final plat should include a note on substantially similar to the following: The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for implementing the agricultural Best Management Practices suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan to protect and conserve natural resources, and for utilizing efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock grazmg. [Condition # 9] [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The Engineering Department has noted several technical deficiencies respect to the proposed utility design. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with .he application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other ngineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Engineering Department has also noted that "can and will serve" letters from the applicable utility providers have not been provided. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final 26 12/20/05 plat, "can and will serve" letters from the applicable utility providers. [Condition # 10] Street lighting is not required in the Agricultural Limited zone district. +] Water Suvvlv Standards (Section 4-680) - Water service is proposed to be provided by a common system, owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, connected to and served by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. As noted by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, conveyance of water rights (or cash- in-lieu) will be required. The Applicant has calculated a water dedication requirement of 1.57 acre-feet, or a cash- in-lieu payment of $19,480. The Engineering Department has noted that the Applicant should provide evidence of the willingness and ability of the Edwards Metro District to provide water service. A condition of approval of the subdivision sketch plan provided that "the applicant must provide an agreement from a public water provider to serve each of the proposed residential lots". The Applicant has indicated that it has submitted a Water Supply Plan to the Edwards Metropolitan District, but that a petition for inclusion into the District cannot be made until the property is conveyed from the current owner to the Applicant. However, the Applicant further indicates that the Edwards Metro District has executed a draft inclusion agreement specifying the terms and conditions required for inclusion. The draft inclusion agreement has !lQ.1: been provided as part of the application, nor has it been demonstrated that Ed'Nards Metropolitan District \vill provide "'later to these lots. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may 'Nant to review, prior to approval of this preliminary plan, evidence that the lots created by this subdivision will be served by a public ',vater provider. Alternatively, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat, evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that the project will be adequately served with potable water by the Edwards Metropolitan District. [Condition # 13] [NOTE: This condition was satisfied prior to the Planning Commission hearing and has been deleted.] _he Engineering Department has also noted that the application lacks detail regarding the private water system, including detail regarding the organizational and financial structure for its operation and maintenance. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may '.vant to revie'.v, prior to approval ofthis preliminary plan, the proposed organizational and financial structure for the operation and maintenance of this private water system. }..1tematively, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat, evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that the private water system will be operated and maintained on a sound organizational and financial basis. [Condition # 11] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to limit the ability of the homeowners to modify the governing covenants.] [+] Sanitary Sewage Disvosal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sewage disposal will be handled through individual sewage disposal systems. The site generally lends itself to this, but the depth to groundwater on Lots 2 through 5 requires special provisions be designed into the type and placement of the systems. This problem is proposed to be mitigated by locating engineered septic systems within the decorative berms proposed on the site. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has indicated that the bottom of the leach fields be at least four feet above the groundwater level at the high water mark. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should comply with all of the suggestions and recommendations contained in the letter dated November 7,2005, from the Colorado Geological Survey. [Condition # 15] .NOTE: This condition is adequately covered by an earlier condition and has been deleted.] The Eagle County Environmental Health Department has indicated that the on-site wastewater treatment systems proposed for this site, if properly maintained, will adequately address groundwater pollution issues. Several recommendations to help ensure proper maintenance of these systems are provided. The Engineering Department 27 12/20/05 has also noted that the applioation lades detail regarding the proposed sewage disposal systems, including detail regarding the organizational and finanoial struoture for its operation and maintenance. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may 'oYant to review, prior to approval of this preliminary plan, the 'oposed organizational and finanoial structure for the operation and maintenanoe of the se'l.'age disposal systems. ,\lternatively, as a condition of approval, the Home Owners Association (HOA) should be responsible for over- seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on-site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision. Further, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Health, prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision, that the HOA will have [a] a dues structure to enable financing the proper routine maintenance; [b] a maintenance agreement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance; and [c] the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. In addition, a note substantially similar to the following should be placed on the final plat for this subdivision: The Palmerosa Ranch Home Owners Association shall be responsible for over-seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on-site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision; shall establish and maintain a dues structure to enable financing of the proper routine maintenance; shall keep in effect a maintenance agreement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance in an appropriate manner and frequency; and shall have the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting and performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. Finally, an appropriate easement should be created on the plat granting to the HOA the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting and performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. [Condition # 12] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to require compliance and provide greater enforceability.] +] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The Eagle County School District (RE50l) has indicated that it will accept payment of cash-in-lieu ofland dedication. The Applicant will be required to conform to the standards of this Section at the time the final plat is considered. [+] Road Impact Fees (Section 4-710) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS been demonstrated that, with the recommended conditions, the proposed subdivision MAY comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) 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 Countv Road Cavital Improvements Plan. (a) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (b) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service 28 12/20/05 into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed development does not create inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, nor does it result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS 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. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Given the above analysis, the property is suitable for development. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS 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. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The surrounding uses are largely agricultural and residential in nature. The residential lots in the area are of various sizes, including both larger and smaller than those proposed for this subdivision. The location of building envelopes away from Lake Creek Road tends to minimize the impact on the more rural portions of the area. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and should not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Housin2 Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The Housing Guidelines were subsequently amended on July 12, 2005, by Board Resolution 2005-90. A condition of sketch plan approval requires that a housing plan that meets the intent of the Eagle County Guidelines as described in a Housing Department memorandum prepared in response to the sketch plan application. The Applicant proposes that of the proposed five lots in the development, four would have accessory dwelling units (ADU). Two of the four lots (initially Lots 1 and 5) would have restrictive covenants which provide that, if the ADU is not "owner occupied", it would be leased or otherwise occupied by a person working at least 30 hours per e. eek in Eagle County. In addition, the Applicant proposes to provide an option for a payment-in-lieu to the Eagle 'ounty Housing Fund or a reputable Local Resident Housing Developer (as provided in the Housing Guidelines) equivalent to one dwelling unit (currently $30,605) or for the purchase of banked housing credits in the Fox Hollow PUD equivalent to one dwelling unit. In either case, Habitat for Humanity is proposed to be the beneficiary of the payment-in-lieu. 29 12/20/05 The Eagle County Housing Department has indicated that the proposal meets the intent of the Eagle County Guidelines, with an exception that, if an ADU were to be "owner occupied", as has been proposed, it would not be vailable for workforce housing. Planning Staff notes that the intent apparently is that the ADUs which are to be ubject to the covenant restrictions are to be 2-bedroom units to satisfy the intent ofthe Housing Guidelines, but that provision does not appear to be specifically set forth in the application materials or the proposed Housing Plan. Discussions between the Applicant and the Director of Housing are on-going. In any event, the County Attorney's Office has not reviewed the proposed restrictive covenant. The proposed Housing Plan seems to be lacking in detail. In addition, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may want to review, prior to approyal of this preliminary plan, a complete description of the proposed Housing Plan. Alternatively, as a condition of approval, unless the Board of County Commissioners approves an alternative means of providing local resident housing, the Applicant should implement the proposed housing plan, or a revised housing plan, that is acceptable to the Eagle County Housing Director. [Condition if 17] [NOTE: The Applicant has provided a Housing Plan which has been determined by the Housing Department to meet the intent ofthe Eagle County Housing Guidelines. Consequently, this condition has been deleted.} DISCUSSION: All three files related to the Palmerosa property were considered and presented concurrently. Mr. Forinash showed a PowerPoint presentation related to the application. He highlighted the details ofthe request. He showed some photos from different perspectives of the sight. Issues that had been addressed included wildlife issues, revised wildlife analysis and mitigation proposal from the Division of Wildlife. The Colorado Geological survey also had some recommendations which have been addressed in staff conditions. The Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan recommends an 8 foot wide paved asphalt trail for spur trails, which would include the ,ake Creek corridor. He stated that given the rural characteristics of the area, an asphalt trail may not be necessary. Environmental Health is satisfied with the septic system proposed. A housing plan has also been submitted by the applicant. Best management practices are recommended for irrigation of the property. Accessory dwelling units are permitted subject to a limited review. Staff has determined that all standards for the Accessory Dwelling Units have been satisfied. There are letters available for review including several from the applicant as well as correspondence from adjacent property owners; nine in opposition and three in support. Findings on the subdivision preliminary plan are positive and staff recommends approval on the limited review with conditions. Some of the outstanding issues include the recommended setback of 75 feet from riparian areas as recommended by staff and the planning commission and the number of accessory dwelling units. Gregg Schroeder, Engineering Department, spoke to the Board about the applicants file VIS 00028, Variance from Improvement Standards. He showed some PowerPoint slides related to site plans. He highlighted on the criteria for approval, hardships for the applicant related to two points of access and the turnaround length. If the applicant must meet the turnaround regulation substantial earthwork would be required. Staff believes that the applicant is making attempts to minimize the amount of new road construction by avoiding wetlands and the Fire Protection District doesn't believe that a dual access is necessary. Because the existing road corridor is being utilized the site will be impacted minimally. Realignment to the South Drive would impact wetlands and the proposed Cul-de-sac is located to the west of the wetlands boundary and any closer distance to the east would impact wetlands. Walter Matthews asked Mr. Forinash to re-display the standards that the Board needed to consider. Dominic Mauriello, planner for the applicant presented his PowerPoint slides related to the request. He stated that the sketch plan was approved for five lots and they were presenting the preliminary plan reflecting this limitation. The plan complies with standards and requirements of the Land Use Regulations. They are not requesting a Planned Unit Development or "up zoning". The plan complies with Zoning of Agricultural limited. .. e spoke about the proposed accessory dwelling units and reiterated that these units could not be sold separately Tom the primary homes. They are proposing two attached and two detached. He stated that there had been no objections relative to development standards. Chairman Menconi asked about the staff recommendation for Accessory Dwelling Units. Mr. Forinash stated that staff recommended no more than one per unit. The staff report was prepared 30 12/20/05 before the Planning commission made its recommendation. The applicant is requesting four accessory dwelling units (with limited review approval) and accessory buildings. Mr. Mauriello stated that the Planning Commission was not the review authority relative to accessory welling units. He showed an area of a slide that the department of geology had identified and this area as well as a eavy elk migration corridor would not be developed. He showed the changes between the original proposal of 7 units to the current 5 unit proposal. He showed the existing barns, stable, home and outbuildings. The property has been zoned agricultural limited since 1985. When the property was zoned it was found to be consistent with the Master Plan. The current request is consistent with the current Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Area Community plan. The applicant is proposing 2 deed restricted accessory units and one pay-in-lieu unit to comply with Housing Guidelines. They also proposed to maintain open pastures and require covenants which would preserve open views of meadow area along Lake Creek Road. They have satisfied the concerns of the Division of Wildlife and the recommendations of Bill Andree. Commissioner Runyon asked how they intended to handle the space that would not be developed. Mr. Mauriello informed the Board that the other parcels will be put into a non-development tract. He showed a proposed new open space area which adjoins the existing nine acres. They propose this open space with development restricted as a plat note for which a future change would have to be approved by a future Board of Commissioners. This prevents development of structures on the property with the exception of other minor structural improvements such as pump structures. He showed some sketches of the rural character of the proposed homes. He indicated that 70% of the site will be open and rural. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Forinash about the dissenting vote from the planning commission. Mr. Forinash indicated that Ken Neubecker was concerned about wildlife corridors and the density of the proposed 5 structures. Mr. Mauriello showed building setbacks from Lake Creek Road which indicate that the closest proposed structure would be further back from the road than existing structures. Landscaping would shield the homes as well. He provided a sketch of a straight line view including future berms and landscaping. He addressed some neighbor concerns. Mr. Green has an easement in gross which equates to permission to cross the property on foot or on a horse. They do not intend to impede this existing easement. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Gallegos have also requested an easement; however neither has the right to request such an easement. Susan Miller's easements will e preserved and she may be unable to develop the second easement due to the presence of wetlands. Mr. Mauriello indicated that all findings were positive. He believes the applicant has gone out of their way to do what is right for the property. He is proud of his clients to be willingness to react and respond in a favorable way to tough concerns and issues. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mauriello to restate the issues that the Board had during sketch plan approval. Mr. Mauriello stated that the Board had requested lot 6 be eliminated, visibility from Lake Creek Road be considered with landscaping and dropping lot 2 to the South of the property. Chairman Menconi opened public comment and asked that questions be directed to the Board. He asked that comments be kept brief and if comments are repetitive that this could be noted. Fred Green spoke to the Board. He wondered about the access to the open space and stated that the property had never been designated as open space. He owns 20% of this land and doesn't believe this occurred. He stated that the property is privately owned. He requested that any approval require the easement in gross be documented in a form approved by Mr. Green and approved by him. He believes there is a right to a broader easement in two forms; it is in the discretion of the Board to require an easement and second it is a constitutional right for access to private property across any other property. He spoke about water rights. He assumes that a water rights augmentation plan will be part of this project. He believes there is some difficulty related to this augmentation. The property was originally ranched on the basis that there was one small head gate. Historically the property was irrigated in sections and owned by one person. He stated that this plan provides for construction of ponds and water features and he doesn't believe a plan of augmentation can be approved to include these features as there isn't enough water in the Dodd ditch. He believes some of the current ponds are illegal and were .. onstructed without augmenting the water right, but he isn't sure of this statement. . Judy Pyle, direct neighbor to the North spoke to the Board. She spoke for many of her Lake Creek neighbors who have argued for fewer houses to minimize the impact. She is concerned about the Elk migration corridor. In the first meeting a discussion arose about four houses in the center of the property, two on the west side and two on the east side. This proposal allowed for better corridors for Elk. She wondered if the Elk would 31 12/20/05 disappear from the lower Lake Creek area altogether. Wendell Porterfield spoke to the Board. He spoke about the issue of limited review related to Accessory Dwelling units. He stated that this is one parcel of property and believes that only one accessory dwelling unit hould be allowed. He believes that the owners of the lots should have to make application for their own accessory dwelling units and not as part of the preliminary plan approval. He spoke about the importance of wildlife, which is set out in the land use regulations and there is a requirement that there be a plan for wildlife protection in order to minimize the negative impact of humans on native wildlife. He believes this includes location, clustering of homes and consideration of the number of structures which is appropriate for a piece of property. Kim West spoke to the Board. Ms. West asked the Board to deny this subdivision on the grounds that it is too big and too grand based on the 9 units being requested. She is concerned about the wildlife impact. She showed photos of elk in the meadows on December 16th, 2005. She believes this is a vital elk corridor. She is also concerned that one meeting of the homeowner's association could over turn the sewer maintenance, domestic animal, and water covenants. She stated that the developer has consistently pushed building envelopes in Eagle County in other developments. She stated that the developer does not own the property but simply has a contract to buy. She doesn't believe he has the conviction necessary to be given approval. She is not anti-development, but she believes this is the wrong property for this subdivision. Chupa Nelson spoke to the Board. He quoted some comments from Ken Neubecker who stated that this is not clustering and there isn't enough room for the elk to move through the property. He also stated that a cooperative effort should be taken by all adjacent property owners to resolve the migration issue. He wondered about the number of residences on the property. He feels that 9 homes will eliminate the elk in the area, and that dogs being allowed will further drive the elk away. He wondered if the bike trail should be on the east side of the road because of the limited driveways on that side of the road. He believes this makes much better sense. He asked the Board to listen to the comments and allow rebuttal. Chairman Menconi asked how many units Mr. Nelson would like to see. Mr. Nelson stated that he believes one caretaker's unit would be reasonable and a reduction of primary units to 3. Bill Alldredge spoke to the Board. He was a Professor of Wildlife Biology prior to retiring. He was chagrined that only one person on the planning commission objected to this plan on the wildlife basis. He believes hat Mr. Neubecker was the only one who read the plan. He doesn't believe this development is "clustered". He 'believes there will be huge impacts if not a total elimination of migration. He believes the project as planned will preclude elk using the property. Wildlife movement corridors should be 1000 feet, and this plan will cut that by one fifth. He encourages a close look at the figures. He doesn't believe the mitigation proposed is adequate. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Alldredge to show the elk migration route corridor. Mr. Alldredge highlighted the area on the slide of the plan and their path across the area onto the 120 acre open space west of the property. He suggested clustering the homes on one side or the other ofthe property. Bill Heicher, retired District Wildlife Manager spoke to the Board. His comments reflect his belief for the benefit of the wildlife. He reviewed the September 2005 wildlife report submitted. His comments are driven by the County Master Plan. One of the guiding policies is that if avoidance of critical wildlife habitat, mitigation is required. He doesn't believe the movement corridors proposed will be maintained or make it viable for the elk. He suggests 1) doing nothing, 2) clustering the development on the north/west comer, or 3) develop in the southern corridor, but this would require elimination of the existing building on lot 1. All adj acent properties must be looked at. He believes things such as dogs and bear proofs trash containers should be part of the approval process and not just included in the covenants to be changed at a later date. Chairman Menconi wondered if Mr. Heicher was being paid by anyone for his comments. Mr. Heicher stated that he had not received any compensation. Chairman Menconi asked for more specific recommendations by Mr. Heicher. During the site visit the representative from the Division of Wildlife was satisfied by the reduction in the lots from 7 to 5. Mr. Heicher responded that the elk move from east to west in the spring and fall. The development activity has limited this. Chairman Menconi asked for the distance from the north to south of the development. Mr. Heicher stated that the distance is about 1260 feet and he recommends tight clustering on the north side f the property to create at least 1000 feet or as close to that as possible. Chairman Menconi wondered what the observation of wildlife corridor movement is today. Mr. Heicher showed the areas that he believed the elk would use. Chairman Menconi wondered if this quantity of space exists currently. He believes Susan Miller's property makes the 1000 feet passage impossible. 32 12/20/05 Mr. Heicher stated that all possibilities should be considered, but tight clustered homes should be part of any plan. Buck Elliot, Meadow Road homeowner spoke to the Board. He stated that he has been observing the vildlife in the area for many years and believes that the wildlife has been pushed to the limit and their migration attern has been significantly impacted. He reminded the Board that to the west is the Cordillera development which further impacts the elk. He believes clustering and downsizing is prudent. Susan Miller spoke to the Board. She indicated opposition to the plan due to wildlife concerns. Maureen Flynn is opposed due to the wildlife concerns. Bill Rey spoke in opposition and suggested one dwelling. Brad Ghent stated that he is also opposed due to the view corridor from north to south and the impact on the wildlife. Elizabeth Holland is opposed because she doesn't believe covenants will guarantee future changes won't happen. She questioned the affordable housing provided and wondered ifthis housing would be open to all residents. Kara Campatelli is opposed. She believes the density issues regarding the wildlife issues need to be ironed out in a way that the County has the ability to enforce. Michael Moser is opposed to the plan. He thinks it smells like a skunk and he doesn't trust the developer. Lindsay McKeller is opposed to the development due to pollution and destruction of the wetlands and congestion on Lake Creek road and for the wildlife issues. Steve Walker spoke to the Board. He stated that he is a proponent of wildlife and is an opponent of Eagle County's continued willingness to put affluence on display, especially on Lake Creek. Troy Dixon is the caretaker of the Pyle Ranch. He stated that he loves the wildlife, but believes that the Pyle Ranch will be the solution to their migration problem if the plan is approved. Spence Dennison reminded the Commissioners that Mr. Andree's original proposal included dropping three residences. He suggests four residences; two on the west and two on the east. He spoke about the accessory dwelling unit and reminded the Board that on the original sketch plan there was only one Accessory Dwelling Unit. He suggests that one be allowed and no more. There is also the issue of irrigation and water rights. The requirement to irrigate the pastures should remain. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Dennison to point to the area he suggested the four houses be place on. Mr. Dennison suggested clustering the development to the south or to the north to provide a movement corridor for the elk. Marka Moser spoke to the Board. She is also pro-wildlife and against the density. She is in favor of maintaining the green space during and after construction. Bill Andree spoke to the Board as a representative of the Division of Wildlife. He stated that this is a very difficult matter and he is neither opposed or in favor of the project. Most everyone stated that the elk are in danger in this area whether the development is approved or not. Creamery Ranch will has a much greater density than this proposal. On the west side of Lake Creek the existing house along with approved future development will eliminate the migration corridor. The Division recommended all neighbors work together to produce a solution. He suggested putting all development on the south side. There is no perfect solution to the issue. He has met with the developer twice and has stopped asking the developer to cluster because the neighbors have refused to cooperate. The Pyle ranch has the right to expand their home. The other lots do not offer guarantees either. The existing owners could work together to allow the wildlife to win in this situation. Elk will use open areas and meadows. He wondered which side the Commissioners should pick based on existing previously approved building envelopes. He is aware that the existing lots one and two may be asking for approval to subdivide also. Mr. Matthews asked Mr. Andree ifhe had reviewed Mr. Alldredge's report. Mr. Andree stated that he had. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Andree ifhe was referencing solely the parcel before the Board or working wholistically with the surrounding areas. Mr. Andree stated that it is important to work with the surrounding area. The Division of Wildlife indicated that density is not the issue. The issue is the location and the activities going on around the development. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Andree what he would propose to have the least impact and how much and where this would be. Mr. Andree proposed staying with a north and south migration corridor on both sides, clustering homes more than they are now. The homes could be tightened and provide more room for elk. Commissioner Stone asked about home site number three and whether it was the one in the middle. He wondered if homes should be clustered around the current lot 3. 33 12/20/05 Mr. Andree suggested moving the homes on the north further south and the homes on the south further north. Matt Moser spoke in opposition to the Board. He wondered how giant trees would block the view. He ives in Maui because of overdevelopment of Eagle County. Gerry Carlson spoke in favor of the development and would like to purchase one of the home sites. Susan Miller responded to concerns raised. She clarified that the reason there is no building envelope on lot 3 is because it was a condition of the subdivision of the three lots. She is willing to reduce the building envelope in conjunction with the Comerford development. Chairman Menconi wondered what the process would be for the Chipmans and the Millers to move forward with her suggestion. Mr. Forinash indicated that a plat would be one alternative to set some building envelopes and that it may also be possible to do with it with a filed covenant. Mr. Nelson responded to Mr. Andree's comments. He has made a commitment to replacing his fences with more wildlife friendly fences. Mrs. Pyle is willing to cooperate with the neighbors. Her consciousness has been raised related to fencing and wildlife corridors. They are replacing 100% of the fencing on their property. There is 200 feet from her property to the north property of line of the Palmero sa that they have no plans to develop and can be used as part of a wildlife corridor. Mr. Green reminded the Board that his property should be zoned between the density of Homestead and the property in question. He suggests less than five units for the property. He has 29 net developable acres. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Chairman Menconi apologized for asking comments to be kept short and thanked those present for testifying. Mr. Mauriello stated that he would like to address some ofthe issues. He suggested Jerry Powell, their wildlife specialist address some of the wildlife concerns. Jerry Powell discussed the concerns about the wildlife. He respects the knowledge of the experts present. Ie believes the issues that the Division of Wildlife had with the development have been addressed. He highlighted the area the elk had crossed in the past. The elk still cross the entire area and he believes this will continue. He has seen tracks in the snow throughout the area. They have tried to incorporate everything they can to allow elk to move through. He believes dogs should be limited and wildlife fencing should be the only type allowed, but they want to educate people as to why these restrictions are needed. They are protecting the riparian areas. They propose to support the elk community and flood irrigate. The November 2005 report is very different from the May 2005 report. George Gregory, attorney for the applicant spoke. He addressed Mr. Green's concern related to the requested easement. The easement is documented and of record which says that there is a non-exclusive easement in gross across the Palmerosa Ranch. He explained easements in gross. An easement in gross is not pertinent to an estate or land, but is a right to use the land of another to cross on foot or horseback. It also says that these easements are primarily to the personal satisfaction of the owner and are restricted to pleasure and not profit. They are intended for boating, hunting and fishing. This easement is a life estate and when Mr. Green dies the easement is gone. He suggested another route for Mr. Green. He indicated that the Board should not insist on this easement. Much of what was heard this evening is characterized by incompetent testimony. The five standards that must be followed are in Mr. Forinash's report include; consistency with the master plan, compliance with land use regulations, location to eliminate inefficiencies, property suitability for development, and compatibility with existing land uses. They propose to keep their structures level with the current impact lines. They have responded repeatedly to every issue that has been raised. He reiterated that planning staff supports the project because they have worked to solve their concerns. He spoke about the ability of homeowner' s associations to change covenants and the fact that 67% of the homeowners would have to approve any changes. Commissioner Stone stated that the longer Mr. Gregory persists in directing the commissioners how to do their job the less he will listen. . Walter Matthews asked Mr. Gregory about the 120 acres west of the property and the fact that it had not een designated as open space. Mr. Gregory stated he is not familiar with ownership of these acres. The only document that shows anything about the property is the easement. He assumes that it is potentially developable space. The applicant intends to honor the easement access during Mr. Green's lifetime. They intend to work with the neighbors. This 34 12/20/05 evening was the first time the neighbors have offered to get together and solve problems cooperatively. The open space or private ownership of the 120 acres is not a current issue. Chairman Menconi asked about comments related to limited review. Mr. Gregory stated that the Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted by right subject to review by the community development director to determine if each unit complies with location, parking, ownership, dimensional limitations and adequate facilities. This is a combined application which requests subdivision into five tracts. Chairman Menconi asked about water right augmentation plans. Mr. Gregory wondered iffeatures presently on the log have proper water rights. Greg Rausch, engineer representing the applicant spoke. He stated that the water supply to the property is adequate and they intend to work within existing water rights. The ponds were adjudicated in a prior court case. Mr. Mauriello pointed out that he is happy that Mrs. Miller's willingness to build in the area she proposes as it will in fact allow an 800 foot elk corridor. He spoke about Mr. Green's parcel which is designated resource. The board's suggestion to Mr. Green is consistent with what is proposed for this property. There are a lot of wetlands on the property which affect the ability to cluster. They believe they have done their best to address the division of wildlife concerns. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan. He hopes that the process can be honored as they have worked closely with concerned parties to address concerns. Mr. Mauriello stated that the condition of one Accessory Dwelling Unit is not favorable for the developer. The second condition is related to the setback distance. They do not have an issue with complying with this on lots 2-5, but they request that the condition be modified to 50 feet for lot 1. Commissioner Stone commented that he found it abrasive that Mr. Gregory indicated that the public testimony was not competent. He thinks a pig in lipstick is still a pig. He doesn't believe it is compatible with the surrounding uses. The developer is asking for 9 units. He recommends the following; a maximum of five single family units and zero Accessory Dwelling Units and these five units clustered in a better manner. He believes the site is naturally constrained because of the wetlands and the wildlife. The wildlife continues to be more displaced. He suggests two wildlife corridors. The number of units takes away from the surrounding uses. The surrounding buildings are not large homes. There is no guarantee of getting approval to build on this type of zoning. The developer needs to meet the Eagle County criteria and he doesn't believe this has happened related to compatibility with surrounding units. He believes for consistency sake this application is questionable. This property has a much ,igger impact on the wildlife and view corridor than Mr. Green's proposal. He will not vote for this proposal in its current fashion. Commissioner Runyon apologized to the applicant for not being as clear as he might have been at the prior meeting, in particularly related to lot 2. He desires to open the entire northern corridor. He is pleased that the property owners have indicated desire to work together to resolve all the issues. He suggests pushing the request back to a later date to gain time to resolve the outstanding issues related to wildlife. He urged the possibility of conservation easements. Commissioner Stone agreed that a tabling would be preferable so that the neighbors could resolve the issues related to wildlife. Chairman Menconi stated that he believes there are two options; one is denial based on testimony that has been heard related to wildlife mitigation and the second is based on incompatibility based on Mr. Green's testimony. The other direction he could take is a solution that hasn't been dealt with. The overriding issue for him is the enhanced testimony by Bill Andree and Bill Alldredge on wildlife. He wonders if the only solution to fix an existing problem is to get the property owners to work together for clustering, covenants, irrigation, fencing and other win / win testimony from the other wildlife experts. He offers a denial or the solution of working with the neighbors to come up with a solution to the wildlife problem. He wants to be as clear as possible to the applicant as to what clustering means. He asked for some clarification and ideas for how to work this out. Mr. Matthews stated that the applicant could ask for a tabling but the Board could not force the applicant to work with the neighbors. If the applicant cannot work out the required details with the neighbors then the Board would have to make their decision based on the facts presented. Mr. Mauriello stated that they have attempted to meet with the neighbors. He feels like the two parties that have a direct impact are Judy Pyle and Susan Miller. They have no issue sitting down with these neighbors to try to resolve the issues. He indicated that lot 2 had been moved 50 feet. They are willing to be limited to the accessory ~welling units on two lots which would be detached. He offered to draw the changes and come back at a later time. ~n unit one there would be one detached unit above the garage and on lot 5 there would be one unit detached, adjacent to the existing barn. On lot 2 they would be willing to move it down towards the southern boundary of the lot. Commissioner Stone stated that these suggested accommodations do not accomplish what he desires. He 35 12/20/05 suggests clustering the lots. He doesn't think there are any guarantees that the Board will approve the file in the future even if negotiations are not successful with the neighbors. Chairman Menconi stated that he understands that Commissioner Stone wants five units and zero I.ccessory Dwelling Units, and that the testimony that was heard from the wildlife experts was that the way the ligration patterns are is such that approving this development is not recommended. The way to enhance this situation is to look at all the issues outstanding. The Board can't mandate how this will be accomplished, but he would rather leave this request suspended until attempts are made to solve the wildlife issues with the neighbors. The applicant requested that the file be tabled until February 7, 2005. 1. The Applicant shall fully implement all wildlife-related mitigation measures set forth in the revised Wildlife Section of the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Jerry Powell, Wildlife Specialties, LLC, as revised and supplemented by the letter dated November 14,2005, from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2. A seventy five foot (75') setback, as determined by the Director of Community Development in consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, shall be maintained from all riparian areas, and these setbacks shall be maintained in natural vegetation and not be manicured within the seventy five foot (75') setback. If removal of riparian vegetation is required, then mitigation shall include replacement of the same amount and type of vegetation. This condition shall be permanently made a part of the covenants for this development and shall be adequately noted on the final plat. 3. The developer should fully implement the recommendations included in and based upon the Revised Wetland Delineation Report, dated August 2005, prepared for this site by Western Ecological Resource, Inc.; the Geologic Site Assessment, dated September 28,2005, and the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated September 15,2005, both prepared for this site by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.; the Preliminary 100-Year Floodplain Study and Drainage Report, dated September 2005, prepared for this site by Alpine Engineering, Inc.; and the following recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated November 7, 2005: a. The proposed pond on Lot 4 shall be moved to the east in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer to avoid the steep slope on the north side of the building envelope. b. The developer shall be responsible for constructing a diversion berm, satisfactory to the County Engineer, to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1. c. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, the developer shall inform contractors that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. d. Since evaporate soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete, the developer shall inform contractors that any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive shall utilize Type II cement. e. The final plat shall include notes which are substantially as follows: 1. A slope stability analysis may be required by the Chief Building Official prior to the construction of any structures in this subdivision. 11. Due to one or more known sinkholes on this site, a site-specific soils investigation, as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation, shall be required in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. 111. Due to shallow groundwater on the site, engineered septic systems shall be required in areas of shallow groundwater. The bottom of each leach field shall be 36 12/20/05 at least 4 feet above the groundwater at the high water mark, and below-grade construction, such as basements, shall include foundation and perimeter drains. IV. The potential exists for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding from the slopes above the property to the west of the building envelope on Lot 1. A diversion berm, satisfactory to the County Engineer, shall be required to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot I. v. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, any organic matter in the soil shall not be used for structural fill and shall be removed prior to placement of any foundations. VI. Since evaporate soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete, any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive shall utilize Type II cement. 4. A note shall be included on the final plat for this subdivision requiring that noncombustible roofing materials shall be required on all structures. 5. W oodburning devices shall be limited to "new technology devices" as that term is defined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 6. The Applicant shall provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. 7. Concurrent with construction of other public improvements, the developer shall construct an 8 foot wide, asphalt trail along Lake Creek Road, in the location proposed by the Applicant and per a design which is satisfactory to the County Engineer, or alternatively, at the developer's discretion, the developer shall construct an 8 foot wide gravel or base course trail along Lake Creek Road in the same location per a design which is satisfactory to the County Engineer, and shall contribute an amount equal to $12.00 per linear foot to the ECO Trails Program for paving in the future. In either case, an appropriate trail easement satisfactory to the County Engineer shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 8. Prior to approval of any final plat for this subdivision, the developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that all of the requirements of Section4- 640., Irrigation System Standards, have or will be satisfied. 9. The developer shall comply with, and the Home Owners Association and shall be responsible for implementing, the recommendations and suggestions contained in the memorandum dated November 11,2005, from the Department of Environmental Health, and the final plat should include a note substantially similar to the following: The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for implementing the agricultural Best Management Practices suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan to protect and conserve natural resources, and for utilizing efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock grazing. 10. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval ofthe final plat, "can and will serve" letters from the applicable utility providers. II. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval of the final plat, evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that the private water system will be operated and maintained on a sound organizational and financial basis and shall demonstrate that the covenant restrictions in this regard will remain in effect will be adequately enforceable. 37 12/20/05 12. The Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be responsible for over-seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on-site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision to ensure the meeting of all requirements herein and in the plat restriction. Further, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Health, prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision, that the HOA will have [a] a dues structure to enable financing the proper routine maintenance; [b] a maintenance agreement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance; [c] the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems and the requirement that such action and maintenance plan be in place; and [d] adequate provisions in the governing document documenting these obligations and requirements and restricting the ability to amend the governing documents in this regard. In addition, a note substantially similar to the following shall be placed on the final plat for this subdivision: Palmero sa Ranch Home Owners Association shall be responsible for over-seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on-site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision; shall establish and maintain a dues structure to enable financing of the proper routine maintenance; shall keep in effect a maintenance agreement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance in an appropriate manner and frequency; and shall have the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting and performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. Finally, an appropriate easement shall be created on the plat granting to the HOA the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting and performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. 13. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. 14. All trash, including that during construction, shall be stored in Wildlife Proof Refuse Container(s) as that term is defined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 15. Only one dog over the age of three months shall be allowed per dwelling, excluding any caretaker or accessory dwelling units. When not confined inside a structure or within a kennel or enclosed run, all dogs shall be kept on a leash and not be subject to control solely by voice command. [NOTE: Words in bold are suggested by Staff to enhance the condition recommended by the Planning Commission.] 16. Building envelopes shall be no larger than three-quarters (3/4) of an acre and shall be situated to result in the clustering of the homes. 17. A weed control plan shall be provided which is subject to approval by the Direotor of En','ironmental Health Eagle County Weed and Pest Coordinator. [NOTE: Words deleted and in bold are suggested by Staff to enhance the condition recommended by the Planning Commission.] 18. The Home Owners Association shall develop and implement a wildlife monitoring plan such that proposed mitigation measures are enhanced as necessary or, if wildlife is being negatively impacted, additional measures are taken. 19. The Planning Commission recommends that the number of accessory dwelling units shall be limited one. 38 12/20105 Commissioner Stone moved to table File No. SUP-00008, VIS-00028, and LR-00048 at the applicants request until February 7,2005. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. VIS-00028 Palmerosa Ranch Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department Variance from Improvement Standard for LUR 4-620J.l.h - Dual Access Requirement, which requires that the applicant provide two points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system. ACTION: LOCATION: Primarily west of Lake Creek Road, approximately 1 mile south ofHwy. 6 (887 Lake Creek Road). FILE NO.: RELATED FILE NOS.: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: VIS-00028, Variance from Improvement Standards SUP-00008, LR-00048 887 Lake Creek Road Palmero sa Ranch, LLC Palmero sa Development Company, LLC / Jim Cornerford Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: .he applicant is seeking a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLUR 4-620.J.I.h), and also from the Cul- De-Sacs and Turnarounds Length requirement (ECLUR 4-620.D.9.a). The proposed development consists of five single-family home sites, including four accessory dwelling units, on a 43.689 acre parcel ofland. Much of the site consists of a view corridor easement and/or wetland areas, causing home sites (building envelopes) to be clustered along the west side of the property on lots averaging 8.7 acres in area. While the two proposed access roads into the site are not connected, turnarounds for emergency equipment are provided. A private water system, owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, will be connected to the Upper Eagle Water Authority. Individual sewage disposal systems will be maintained through a management contract under the direction of the Homeowners Association. CHRONOLOGY: September 3,1984 November 12, 1985 February 4,2005 July 18, 2005 October 3, 2005 December 7, 2005 SITE DATA: Application made to Eagle County to rezone and subdivide the subject property from Resource to Agricultural Limited. 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. Application for this Subdivision Sketch Plan received by Eagle County. Subdivision sketch plan was approved. Applications received for this Subdivision Preliminary Plan and a companion Limited Review for four accessory dwelling units. Planning Commission Hearing, Approved with Conditions, 4-1 39 12/20/05 Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: I East: Residential / PUD West: Agricultural / AL North: Agricultural; residential / AL South: Residential / RR, PUD Existing Zoning: Agricultural Limited Proposed Zoning: No change in zoning is proposed Proposed No. of Dwelling 5 primary dwellings and 4 accessory dwellings Units: Total Area: 43.689 acres Minimum Lot Area: 6.55 acres Maximum Lot Area: 10.35 acres Water: Central water system connected to Upper Eagle Water Authority system Sewer: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Access: Lake Creek Road STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES Colorado State Forest Service Per a letter dated November 3, 2005, from Hans Rinke, Forester: 1. The Colorado State Forest Service has given Palmerosa Ranch PUD a wildfire hazard rating of low. A low rating means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. 2. The majority of this property is irrigated pastureland, or riparian area along Lake Creek. This fuel type represents a low fire hazard, with the exception of extreme weather conditions, or in the absence of haying or grazing. Fuel type, terrain, aspect, road layout, and available water all helped contribute to this low rating. 3. The Addition of dual access to this property is another beneficial step in lowering the fire hazard. 4. Even with this low rating we suggest that noncombustible roofing materials be used, and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Eagle River Fire Protection District Per a memorandum dated November 11,2005, from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief: 1. The proposed water supply extended from ERW&S District via a 10" main and hydrant locations are acceptable for fire fighting operations. 2. The plans indicate that the water system would be privately maintained. Additional information is needed to ensure adequate maintenance and operation. 3. Road width, grade, and tum-arounds appear acceptable. Turning radii will need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire Department's Pierce Quantum engine. 4. Each road serves 2 or 3 single-family homes with an additional home, which is not part of this project, accessing the south road. Based on this density, I don't believe the requirement for dual access applies. Note: The referrals shown above are the only referrals that are relevant to this Variance file. By way of history, this referral request was sent concurrently with the associated planning file's referral request (SUP-00008). Please see the associated SUP-00008 file for a complete listing of all referrals. 40 12/20105 STAFF DISCUSSION: This parcel is located at 887 Lake Creek Road, and presently has two existing accesses to Lake Creek Road. The orth access, ("North Drive") is located near the northwest corner of the parcel, and runs east-west providing access o Lots #1 and #2. The south access ("South Drive") is located approximately 750' to the south, and also runs east- west providing access to Lots #3, #4, and #5. Each drive terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround with lengths of approximately 970' for the North Drive and 1,200' for the South Drive. Variance Request #1 - Dual Access (ECLUR 4-620.J.1.h) The applicant seeks a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLUR 4-620.J.l.h). Specifically, the section reads as follows: Dual Access. The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a usable and unobstructed (with the exception of breakaway barriers) secondary emergency point of ingress/egress for all new development or redevelopment capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles. Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. (am 12/17/02) Reference 4-620.J.1.h: The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. .he applicant seeks this variance because the site is constrained by wetlands, and the impact to the open and environmental qualities of the site. Furthermore, the Palmerosa Ranch is constrained by a view corridor easement and covenant line designed to preserve the rural character of the parcel on the eastern side of the Lake Creek. The applicant has stated that during the July 2005 Sketch Plan Hearing, they were encouraged to apply for this variance as the connection of the two access roads was viewed as unnecessary and interfering with the view of the pasture lands. Reference 4-620.J1.h: Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard The Colorado State Forest Service has given the development a wildfire hazard rating oflow. Furthermore, Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD) has commented that for the low density proposed, they do not believe that the dual access requirement is applicable. The North Drive consists of approximately 970' to the cul-de-sac. The location of the cul-de-sac is placed at the western side of the "meadow" area, to minimize disturbance, and to provide the closest possible access to Lots #1 and #2. The South Drive consists of approximately 1200' of road to the cul-de-sac. This distance does exceed the requirement for ECLUR 4-620.D.9, which states that the maximum length of a dead end street can not exceed one- thousand (1000'). This maximum length will be discussed below. .ariance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds (ECLUR 4-620.D.9.a) The South Drive road is approximately 1,200' long to the cul-de-sac, which exceeds the I,OOO' requirement. A variance from the cul-de-sac and turnarounds requirement (ECLUR 4-620..D.9.a) is requested. 41 12/20/05 Reference ECLUR 4-620.D.9.a: Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Served. Due to mountainous terrain, it may be necessary to have dead end 'oads which exceed ],000 feet in length. In such instances, emergency vehicle turnaround areas shall be provided t the initial] 000 foot mark and at ] 000 foot intervals for the remaining length of the road. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may approve an alternative spacing plan for turnaround areas. The turnaround shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4-620.D.9.c, Cul-de-sacs and Turnarounds, Preferred Design, or as otherwise approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction The South Drive Road length is approximately 1,200' to the cul-de-sac. The road is an existing road that will be improved as a part of this development. The road travels to the south-southwest from Lake Creek Road as it drops elevation to the meadow. The road then heads directly to the west and is bordered on both sides by wetlands. The location of the cul-de-sac is at the western edge ofthe wetlands boundary. An additional turnaround located on the proposed road would have an adverse impact to the wetlands. ERFPD has stated that the "road width, grade, and turn-arounds appear acceptable. Turning radii will need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire Department's Pierce Quantum engine." The applicant has demonstrated that the turning radii can be met with both cul-de-sacs (see enclosed turning diagrams) STAFF FINDINGS: Criteria for Evaluation by the County En2ineer The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610 A.2. of the ECLUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that the normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity that reflect community values equal or better than that established by these standards.. ." or this evaluation, Staff interpreted the standards in the ECLUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values," since the ECLUR were adopted after extensive work and comments by the community. Criteria for Evaluation by the Board of County Commissioners The Board of County Commissioner's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260 G.2. of the ECLUR. It states in part: "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the petitioner of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected." The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the petitioner will be deprived of some or all of his right to use the land if the ECLUR is strictly followed. Staff Findin2s The applicant must demonstrate that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. Variance Request #1 - Two Points of Access he applicant has minimized the number of new roads to be constructed on the site by utilitizing established road orridors. The site is constrained by wetlands on the east side of the property, and the applicant is constructing berms to serve as visual shields for the development near the Creek. The ERFPD has stated that it does not believe that the dual access requirement applies for the low density that is proposed. It further states that the road width, grade, and turn-arounds appear acceptable. The applicant has demonstrated that the Fire Department's engine is 42 12/20/05 capable of negotiating the cul-de-sacs. Staff finds that the discussion from the local fire authority will provide for an acceptable level of safety throughout he neighborhood. Staff finds that granting the Variance from Improvement Standards for the two points of access rill provide for a design that will perform well and reflect the community values established by these standards. Variance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds The applicant has made every attempt in the South Drive Road to utilize the existing road corridor. The cul-de-sac is located at the western boundary of the wetlands. If the applicant were to meet the 1,000' requirement, it would require substantial earthwork and realignment of the South Drive, which would have a substantial impact to the wetlands. The proposed South Drive Road as shown provides for the least disturbance of the site and the associated wetlands. The ERFPD has also stated that the road width, grade, and tum-arounds appear acceptable. Staff finds that the constraints of the site, the ability to minimize further site disturbance and minimize wetlands impacts, and the local fire authority's acceptance will provide for an acceptable level of safety throughout the neighborhood. Staff finds that granting the Variance from Improvement Standards for the Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds will provide for a design that will perform well and reflect the community values established by these standards. Board of County Commissioners Findin2s The Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings in order to approve this file: Findings for Variance Request #1 - Two Points of Access 1. The property is encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. Findings for Variance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds 1. The property is encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned until January 3,2006. ~~ Attest: 43 12/20/05