No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/21/06 PUBLIC HEARING March 21, 2006 Present: Peter Runyon Tom Stone Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Walter Mathews Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Deputy County Attorney 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 Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussion regarding potential new positions, the Miller Ranch Housing financial review, Colorado River Ranch extinguishment hearing and the coordinated Edwards development work session all of which are appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (t), Colorado Revised Statutes." Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion, Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn from Executive Session which was seconded by Commissioner Stoned and unanimously approved. Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of March 20, 2006 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for February 14,2006 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder c. Fifth Amendment to Sand and Gravel Mining Lease between Eagle County and Lafarge West, Inc. County Attorney's Office Representative D. Resolution 2006-029 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Fair Board County Attorney's Office Representative E. Resolution 2006-030 Appointing Kraige Kinney and Stephen Richards to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority County Attorney's Office Representative F. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Xerox for Attorney Office Copier County Attorney's Office Representative G. Lease Amendment between Eagle County and Geno's Italian Sandwiches Facilities Management Representative H. Emergency Generator for the County Server UPS and Related HV AC Equipment Facilities Management Representative 1 3/21/06 I. Colorado Division of Wildlife Impact Assistance Grant Application (Payment In Lieu ofTaxesPILT) Mike Roeper, Finance J. 2006 Eagle County Human Service Grants Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no revisions or changes. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-J. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none. Special Employee Recognition Chairman Runyon stated that this was a pleasure and an unfortunate oversight. He apologized for the oversight at the State of the County Address and presentation, a very important member of our community who has served 25 years. Linda Nestor started with Eagle County in 1980 in the Assessor's office. It was a lucky day back in 1981 when Linda transferred to the Clerk's office. Linda is the ultimate "go to" person if you want a motor vehicle question answered no matter how complicated or obscure. She has worked in various positions in the Clerk's office from motor vehicle clerk to bookkeeper to motor branch manager, the position she currently holds. Linda is also a great team member; she is knowledgeable in the recording process and is always willing to help in that department, as well as being available to help during election time. She is very quiet but goes about her work diligently day in and day out, all 6474 days to be exact, give or take a vacation or two. We are happy to have Lind as a valuable member of the Clerk's team and hope she'll be around for another 25 years! Thanks Linda - you are terrific. Planning Files PDSP-00021 and ZC-00077Eaele Vallev Relieious Foundation PUD Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development NOTE: TABLED FROM 1/31/06 - REQUEST TO BE TABLED TO 4/18/06 ACTION: 40,000 sq. ft. multi-denominational religious facility which includes two (2) worship chapels; religious education space; meeting space and caretaker residence LOCATION: 5.2 acres west of the Eagle River Mobile Home Park on Highway 6; West Edwards (Section 6 Township 5S Range 82W) Formally the Ruder property Commissioner Stone moved to table File No.PDSP-00021 and ZC-00077, at the applicant's request until April 18, 2006. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 3/21/06 LUR-0059 Eaele County Land Use Reeulation Amendment Zone Chanee Submittal Requirements and Standards Bob Narracci, Community Development NOTE: TABLED FROM 2/28/06 ACTION: Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation Submittal Requirements and Standards for Zone Change Applications. APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Eagle County Eagle County Department of Community Development Approval EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: On February 15,2006 the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval ofthis proposed amendment without condition. ROARING FORK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: On March 2, 2005 the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this proposed amendment with one condition: That the Zone Change criterion for 'Public Benefit' be modified as follows to include the bold, underlined language: "Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits. other than economic or commercial1!rowth. that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture / sensitive lands. " Staff is of the opinion that the Board of County Commissioners should have the ability to find economic or commercial growth as a positive Public Benefit. As such, staff has not incorporated the RFVRPC recommendation at this time. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to strengthen the submittal requirements and standards for evaluating proposed changes in zoning. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: This draft regulatory amendment was referred to 280 local, state and federal public and private agencies for review and comment. The following three responses have been received as of this writing: Mid-Valley Trails Committee: No recommendations. Colorado Geological Survey: Please refer to the attached letter dated February 8, 2006. CGS provided two recommendations and one favorable comment: 1) Suggestion that the availability of water be expanded to include a rigorous review including water rights, well pump rates of sufficient duration, documentation that the use of ground water will not cause a reduction in the base flow of streams or create a decrease in historic static water levels or degradation of water quality, documentation of acceptable water quality parameters; 2) Substitute an 'Engineering Geology Report / Geotechnical Study' with a 'Geologic Hazards Report' that specifically discusses geologic site conditions and constraints, and; 3) CGS endorses the concept that sand, gravel and other mineral resources should be considered as part of a zone change. Vail Resorts Development Company: Please refer to the attached letter dated February 6,2006. Vail Resorts recommends that in Section 5-230.D. Standardsfor Zone Change, of the draft regulation, that reference to' .....in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners.....' be eliminated due to the fact that Section 5-230.C.3. General, already states that, 'At the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application, the relevant support materials, the Staff Report, the Planning Commission recommendation, and the public testimony given at the public hearing. . . ..' It is further recommended that ifthis qualifying language is 3 3/21/06 required that the wording in Section 5-230.D. Standards for Zone Change, should be modified as follows: the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. . . ..' , . ... ..In STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals. the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice HAS been given. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. No changes to the map are proposed. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided (please see attached). Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable: STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l.] B Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the Master Plan. This amendment will not result in any change to the Future Land Use Map or its application. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district. The issue of compatibility does not pertain to this proposal. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity. Conditions have changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] B There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. The potential for adverse effects to the natural environment does not apply to this proposal. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need 4 3/21/06 [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment addresses a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern, and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. Development patterns do not apply to this proposal. STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. The issue of land uses or densities that might or might not be in the public interest is not related to this proposal. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci spoke to the Board and showed a PowerPoint presentation. He indicated that the changes had been reviewed with the County Attorney's office as well as with Barbara Green. Commissioner Menconi asked that Cliff Simonton be present for this file. Mr. Narracci explained that the filing fee is standard pursuant to the current schedule. This would require a conceptual site plan be provided to show how the zone district would be implemented upon approval. Zone changes are awarded at time of preliminary plan as opposed to sketch plan so there is more certainty, and must be acted upon within a five year period. Commissioner Stone asked about item B. He stated that it appears to be more than a conceptual site plan would be. He didn't understand why location of signs would be included. Mr. Narracci gave the example of a ground sign which would have to be visible. Commissioner Stone wondered about proposed limits of disturbance. He also spoke about other issues under items A-J. He doesn't understand the location and size of signs, barriers and screening, size, location and character of landscaping. He feels these things make sense at a preliminary stage, but he wonders why it should be included on a conceptual site plan. He used Palmero sa as an example. Typically a zone change is asked for to increase density. He feels there is no risk because this detail will be provided at the preliminary plan stage. Mr. Narracci stated that the notion of a conceptual site plan has been copied from another county. They were trying to tie enough information together that would equate a preliminary plan. Commissioner Stone stated that if speculative zone changes are trying to be prevented, then why doesn't the County only allow zone changes to happen at preliminary plan stage. Walter Mathews asked if there would be times when someone wouldn't do a subdivision or PUD and simply ask for a zone change, and if so what would the requirements be. He believes the conceptual plan is intended to catch these types of situations. Commissioner Stone stated that if zone changes were restricted to the preliminary plan stage it would address the problem entirely. Walter Mathews asked if a strict zone change would have a preliminary plan. He wondered if something could be implemented. Mr. Narracci indicated that if zone changes were made at preliminary plan stage which would include special use permits it would solve the problem. Commissioner Stone again referred to the Palmerosa situation, where up-zoning was denied at preliminary plan stage. He was simply offering a different approach. He suggested only allowing zone changes to happen at the appropriate level, in the case ofPUD, Preliminary Plat approval stage and in the case of Special Use Permit. Cliff Simonton stated that there might be a rare instance of down zoning. He suggested that these be exempted from the requirements. Commissioner Menconi asked to continue with the presentation prior to having lengthy discussion. Chairman Runyon agreed, but wondered if these requirements would be making the process more complicated. He wondered if anything in this proposal is in addition to what would be required with a preliminary plan. He wondered what the thinking was related to this change in procedure. 5 3/21/06 Mr. Narracci stated it was simply more speculative in nature. Chairman Runyon wondered if it would be even tighter with the use of a preliminary plan. He doesn't like the idea of allowing any open door for speculative up-zoning. He believes this procedure is more customer service focused as the process would be less involved prior to decisions being made about up-zoning. Walter Mathews asked for examples. Mr. Narracci stated that one example would be for a zone change to allow for a 3-4 lot subdivision but there was no guarantee that it would actually be developed, but might be sold speculatively. Chairman Runyon stated that this would increase property values with very little expense. Mr. Narracci stated that this was intended to discourage such speculation. Mr. Montag stated that the preliminary plan approach would be stronger. Mr. Narracci incorporated some statutory references that are currently absent from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Current zone district boundaries and property boundaries do not necessarily match. They are requiring information regarding water and sewer provisions; geologic restraints and challenges. The regulations would provide minimum requirements for property boundary surveys. The applicant would be required to address, in writing, all pertinent elements of the Eagle county Comprehensive Plan, as well as, a written statement of compatibility. Information regarding the adequacy of existing roadways to accommodate the use must also be provided. Mr. Narracci summarized that all existing standards would be replace with updated standards and statutory language changes that would be made. In the case that the planning commission denies a file all three Commissioners must be present and the majority must approve of the file. It used to be possible for two Commissioners to approve or disapprove these files if one Commissioner was absent. The proposal was referred to 280 private and public agencies seeking review and three had responded including Vail Resorts. Eagle County planning commission unanimously recommended approval. The Roaring Fork planning commission decided that the particular proposed criteria for public benefit be modified to include "other than economic or commercial growth". Staff believes this is a Board determination. Mr. Mathews stated that the Attorney's Office has looked at the standards and had decided that they support these standards. Chairman Runyon wondered how staff felt about the suggestion of making this part of the preliminary plan process. Keith Montag stated that this is the preferred method for zone changes. All of the other information will b provided if this direction is taken. Chairman Runyon wondered why this might not be a good idea. Mr. Montag stated that if someone was trying to zone speculatively, and really didn't plan on developing the property it would not be as easy to do. Mr. Narracci stated there had only been a couple of these situations in his experience. Mr. Montag stated that in each of these situations it would have been easy for them to take the next step to achieve the same result. Chairman Runyon wondered if an up zoning was tied to a preliminary plan and an approval was granted, what would happen to the up zoning if the preliminary plan was not activated within the five years. Mr. Narracci stated that staff would be interested in exploring this possibility, but it is not yet in the works. Mr. Mathews stated that this would be unconstitutional. Mr. Simonton brought up the possibility of a small parcel within a commercial development which is still zoned resource. If these owners were trying to sell the property they would have considerable expense to change the zoning to commercial. Mr. Mathews stated that the Board could decide to legislatively re-zone the property. Mr. Montag stated that perhaps there would be a clause in the contract that would require the potential developer to pay for the zoning process. Commissioner Menconi wondered what the rational was for requiring this much detail. Mr. Narracci stated that one would be to address the new findings of the comprehensive plan in trying to tie the change in zoning to a specific development plan. Commissioner Menconi clarified that tying it to the preliminary plan process would be a cleaner process. Mr. Narracci stated that preliminary plans would be applicable to PUD's and subdivisions. Minor type A subdivisions are a one step process. Commissioner Menconi asked about variances and wanted to be sure that the preliminary plan zoning approval covered the same types of zoning as the proposed changes would cover. Mr. Narracci gave an example of special use permits and the details they would include. 6 3/21/06 Commissioner Menconi asked about general staff comments about what had been achieved. He believes that this is the most critical regulation to be adopted during the up zoning moratorium. Mr. Narracci stated that the language is more specific for a person seeking a zone change. It gives the Planning commission and the Board greater specificity related to standards and criteria. The comprehensive plan is quite a document and it would be difficult for a developer to use the document. The regulation provides a greater level of detail starting with the application. Commissioner Menconi wondered what a planner would see with the new criteria that they would not have seen before. He stated that there didn't seem to be any objection by the development community. Mr. Narracci stated that if this is approved additional information would be provided with a zone change application. The new requirements would allow for responses to each regulation by developers. Commissioner Menconi wondered if this would require more work on the part of the planning staff or land owners. Mr. Narracci stated that this would not be the case. The potential applicant would be required to spend more time addressing each of the pertinent policies from the comprehensive plan and adequately address the criteria. Commissioner Menconi stated that he believes the criteria leaves some flexibility for the Board's interpretation. He also believes the regulations have enough "teeth" to be sure impacts are being offset. He asked for a specific example related to an up-zoning request which would impact service sector jobs and whether a developer could look at the comprehensive plan and prove that they could offset the impact. Mr. Simonton stated that if the developer goes through the policies labeled "housing" these answers would have to be included in the application. Transportation impacts would be addressed under infrastructure and services or general developments. Commissioner Menconi asked about bus stops for ECO transit. Mr. Simonton stated that policy G "infrastructure and services" addresses this point. Recreational needs are also addressed under "infrastructure and services". Commissioner Menconi asked about square footage requirements. Mr. Simonton indicated that the comprehensive plan does not include any specific information about this requirement. Mr. Mathews stated that it would depend on zoning. Mr. Narracci stated that the comprehensive plan doesn't refer to square footage requirements. Each of the standard zone districts has a minimum lot size which governs the size of a home that could end up on a particular lot. This might be covered in a compatibility discussion by the Board. He doesn't believe this would need to be a written regulation as the Board has this discretion. Commissioner Menconi spoke about revenue generated from changes in zoning. Mr. Mathews stated that "public benefit" criterion is discretionary for the Board. Commissioner Menconi thinks that it is important to discuss the commercial or economic growth. Mr. Simonton stated that the comprehensive plan speaks about economic and commercial growth. Commissioner Menconi wondered why the commission keyed on to this particular piece. Mr. Narracci stated that the Roaring Fork Planning commission felt that a big box store would not necessarily be determined to be a public benefit. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment as there was none. Chairman Runyon wondered whether another public hearing would be required if any of the suggested changes were approached as discussed. Mr. Narracci suggested that this be brought back to the Board in the form of a resolution. Mr. Mathews indicated that this would be appropriate, with specific direction of language change given to staff. Commissioner Menconi wondered which section refers to child care needs within the comprehensive plan. Mr. Simonton stated it was under "infrastructure and services", specifically under community services on page 79 and 80, policy 353 and 1. Mr. Mathews asked for clarifications of the changes. Mr. Narracci read the following changes that were suggested: Removing all references to a conceptual site plan as a submittal requirement and make it a requirement that a zone change must accompany either a special use application or PUD preliminary p]an or a subdivision preliminary plan. 7 3/21/06 Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No.LUR-0059 to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations with the suggested changes. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Commissioner Stone indicated he would vote against the amendment. Commissioner Stone thanked staff for doing this as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. However he believes that the reason the public isn't present at the meeting is because the Board has always had the ability to make these types of decisions. He doesn't believe the moratorium was necessary because he is concerned that more is less and the flexibility that the Board had in the past is a better situation. He referred to Adam's Rib Ranch as an illustration of the Board's discretion related to development requests. He believes it would be better to leave future Boards more discretion. He believes specific references to dated plans, but rather the wording of "the most current plan". Commissioner Menconi thought that the language of "other than just economic or commercial growth" should be added. Commissioner Stone referred to the City Market situation in Basalt. He doesn't think the Board should restrict itself in these instances. He is concerned about the words ''the change is justified in that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" and he suggests definition of advantages and disadvantages. This does not provide clear direction to the development community. He believes in making the rules less complicated and he doesn't believe the wording helps in this goal. He is in favor of cleaning up the technical and legal areas and more direction to the development community. Chairman Runyon thanked Commissioner Stone for his thoughtfulness and perception. He agreed that the specific dates referred to should be eliminated. Commissioner Menconi moved to withdraw his motion. Commissioner Runyon seconded this motion. Commissioner Menconi added that section d and item I should be reviewed to insure flexibility. He asked for reference to sub area master plans. Under number 3, he asked that multi modal transportation and child care be added to impacts. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve LUR-0059 to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations with the suggested changes to Section 4b, items 1-7 that the requirement concerning the conceptual plan would be deleted and replaced with sentences that all zone change applications must accompany preliminary plan applications or special use permits. Also in Section d, that all requests for zone changes must be in compliance with current sub area plans, open space and water shed plans and under section D3 that additional items of child care and multi modal transportation should also be added. This would all come back as a resolution for approval. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Commissioner Stone voted against the motion. The motion passed with a 2-1 vote. LUR-0061 Cul-de-Sacs and Access Standards Cliff Simonton, Community Development ACTION: Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to clarify Cul-de-sacs and dual access standards. LUR-00611 Amendment to Land Use Regulations Eagle County Eagle County Department of Community Development FILE NO./PROCESS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Approval 8 3/21/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to provide the following: . Clearer direction on the use of dead end roads within proposed developments in Eagle County. Two new terms, Urban Cul-de-sacs and Rural Cul-de-sacs, are defined. . Provide design standards for Urban Cul-de-sacs. Urban Cul-de-sacs are short dead end roads equipped with adequate fire fighting water, and are proposed to be exempt from the requirement for dual access. This clears a grey area in present-day regulations. . Provide design standards for Rural Cul-de-sacs which, in the event this type of long dead-end road is approved by the Board, will better assure adequate fire suppression resources. . More concise text for Dual Access requirements Of significance, these proposed amendments to text of the Land Use Regulations do not create new regulations as much as they clarify and refine existing regulations. Dual Access is already required. A variance for projects that do not have dual access is already required. A new definition is proposed, however, which will exempt short "urban" type roads with adequate water and fire service from the dual access requirement. Driveways will also be exempted - a situation which does not currently exist. In short, the proposed changes provide better guidelines, exempt roads where dual access should not be a concern, and elevate the standards for dead end roads where hazards potentially do exist. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction is provided opportunity to make recommendations on all new proposals. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: This draft regulatory amendment was referred to 280 local, state and federal public and private agencies for review and comment. The following three responses have been received as of this writing: Eagle County Engineering Please refer to the attached memo dated February 21, 2006-Responded with no comment Vail Resorts Development Please refer to the attached e-mail dated February 21, 2006 Suggested inserting language on lines two and three, item 4-620J.1.h so that it would read "two (2) points of ingress/egress to the public roadway system shall be provided, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions and a variance is granted as provided below, such that in the event a road.... " The Planning Commission agreed with staff that this is not necessary. There may be any number of reasons why a development cannot be provided dual access. In the end, a variance from improvement standards by the BoCC is still required Eagle River Fire Protection District: Please refer to the attached memo dated February 2,2006 . The proposed amendments adequately address fire department concerns. . The amendments provide clear definition of cul-de-sacs and driveways . Meeting the requirements for an Urban Cul-de-sac will greatly reduce the need for secondary access in those situations . Regarding water service for Rural Cul-de-sacs; if a monitored fire sprinkler system is being considered, it should be coordinated with the local building official as well as the local fire authority. The text has been modified to incorporate the last bullet point above STAFF DISCUSSION: 9 3/21/06 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals. the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed AMENDS ONLY THE TEXT ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and does not amend the Official Zone District Map. No changes to the map are proposed. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided (please see attached). 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable: STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l.] B Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 3.8.2.a of the 2005 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan states "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard" and includes the implementation strategy "Create incentives and negotiate with land owners and developers to locate development away from hazard areas". The proposed amendment will provide developers with the incentive to design rural projects with safety and access in mind, and will provide the Board with the ability to deny projects that may place future inhabitants at risk as a result of poor access. Policy 3.2.4.e encourages "urban and suburban type growth to be located within or immediately adjacent to towns and community centers". Policy 3.2.4.h states that "open corridors between towns should be preserved" The proposed text amendment could provide incentives to place future development in the most appropriate locations. This amendment will not result in any change to the Future Land Use Map or its application. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.] The proposed amendment IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This text amendment WILL NOT result in any change to the Future Land Use Map or its application. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district. The issue of compatibility is not related to this proposed text amendment. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity. Lands most suitable for development will grow increasingly scarce as development continues in Eagle County's, and as a result there will be increased pressure to develop lands less suitable and more difficult to access. These amendments will provide clear expectations regarding access and safety for future developments. Conditions hav changed and are changing such that the proposed amendments should be considered. 10 3/21/06 [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to the text of the County's Land Use Regulations in order to better control future uses and densiti es/ intens ities. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. Effects on the natural environment is not directly related to this proposed text amendment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need Designs that provide safe access to and from neighborhoods in the event of an emergency clearly fit the description of a community need. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] The proposed text amendment DOES address a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern, and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. The proposed amendments could be used to encourage higher densities (on urban cul-de-sacs) in areas where water service is available, and to discourage sprawl and development in more sensitive areas (requiring access by rural cul-de-sacs) of the County. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] The proposed text amendment MAY result in a more logical and orderly development pattern. It IS NOT related to the topic of spot zoning, but IS related to a determination regarding provision for public facilities and services to future developments. STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. This text amendment is not related to any specific land area, or a new use or density. It would seem, however, that a provision to encourage safe access in remote areas of the County, and to discourage sprawl and encourage development in existing community centers, given the stated values of the community as expressed in Eagle County's Comprehensive Plan, is in the public's interest. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] The proposed text amendment IS in the Public Interest. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Menconi requested Ms. Migchelbrink be present for this file. Mr. Simonton provided some background details on the change. He provided some examples of how this regulation might work. Singletree has dual access to most roads with the exception of short roads. These short roads would now be defined as urban cul-de-sacs and as such would be exempt from the requirements. Across the 11 3/21/06 valley in Homestead many of the roads are also in compliance. Commissioner Stone clarified that Winslow road was added after Singletree was developed and as such provided dual access. The local fire authorities usually carry 1000 feet of hose. Eby Creek is a rural cul-de-sac with only one way in and out. If this development were presented today a variance would be required for approval. Chairman Runyon asked about the live/work place above Edwards and whether a variance would have been needed. Mr. Simonton indicated that it was connected to the existing road system and it would become a point of condition. This provides an additional mechanism to evaluate the suitability of a development. In the event of rural cul-de-sacs standards for improvement related to fire fighting are being suggested to better insure the safety and welfare of future inhabitants. He provided the example of Siloam Springs to exemplify successful negotiations with the local fire department. 280 referrals were sent out, three responses were received. Vail Resorts asked that languages recognizing difficulties of terrain or other physical conditions be kept in the standard form for dual access, but maintained that a variance from improvement standards should still be required. Eagle River Fire asked that in the event that a fire sprinkler was proposed on a rural cul-de-sac, the building official be involved. Language has been modified to accommodate this suggestion. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment as there was none. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Migchelbrink for her opinion. He wondered about onerous regulations for small housing situations being required to provide dual access. Ms. Migchelbrink is very happy with the proposed changes and believes they will eliminates nuisance files for small developments. She believes it was originally an oversight in the land use regulations. Commissioner Stone moved to approve File No. LUR-0061 to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations regarding cul-de-sac and access standards as presented this day by staff. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Clerk to the Board 12 3/21/06