No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/16/06 PUBLIC HEARING May 16, 2006 resent: Tom Stone Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Walter Mathews Teak Simonton Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Absent: Peter Runyon Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Commissioner Stone moved the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on matters that may be the subject of negotiations regarding pending land acquisitions which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e), Colorado Revised Statutes. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion, Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from Executive Session which was seconded by Commissioner Menconi and unanimously approved. :onsent Agenda Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of May 15,2006 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for April 17, 2006 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder C. Signing of Annual Operating Plan for Wildfire Barry Smith, Emergency Management D. Assignment of Certificate of Deposit from Janet Chenault to Eagle County County Attorney's Office Representative E. Intergovernmental Agreement by and between Eagle County, Grand County, Gunnison County, Park County, Pitkin County and Summit County for Matters of State Interest County Attorney's Office Representative F. Limited Amendment No.2 of the Contract between Eagle County and Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment to Provide Community Consumer Protection Services Ray Merry, Environmental Health ;. Agreement between Eagle County and Donald E. Cohen for the Purchase of Services in the Development of a Community Report on Early Childhood Issues and Model Programs for the Early Childhood Initiative Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services 1 5/16/06 e. .. u. H. Letter Requesting Renewal of the Lease between Eagle County and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for Health & Human Services use of the Edwards Annex Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Appointment of Representatives to the Alpine Area Agency on Aging Regional Advisory Council Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services J. Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado West Regional Mental Health to Provide Family Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services K. Agreement between Eagle County and Olga Wilkins for Infant-Toddler Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services L. Agreement between Eagle County and Linda Foley for Child Care Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services M. Memorandum of Understanding Between Eagle County Health & Human Services and Kari Corbin for Early Childhood Coaching and Consultation Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services N. Agreement between Eagle County and Blue Lake Preschool for Child Care Quality Improvement Grant Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services o. Memorandum of Understanding Between Eagle County Health & Human Services and the Literacy Project to Provide Early Childhood Coaching and Consultation Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Statement of Work to be Completed by Samaritan Software LLC for Eagle County Volunteer Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Q. Limited Amendment No.6 with the Colorado Department of Health & Environment for the Women Infant and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services R. Amendment to the Task Order with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for Family Planning Services Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services s. Agreement with Patriot Highway Markings for Centerline Marking Project Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge Department T. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Craig and M. Brunilda Butters for Water Rights to the Nielson South Ditch Facilities Management Representative AFP-00237, Cordillera Valley Club PUD - Filing 4, Lot 13. An amended final plat, the purpose of which is to amend the existing building envelope on Lot 13 to better accommodate the proposed residential dwelling for this site. The overall size of the building envelope will remain unchanged Joe Forinash, Community Development Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes. Commissioner Stone asked that item G be pulled for separate consideration. 2 5/16/06 Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-U, omitting item G. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked Ms. Forinash to explain item G. Ms. Forinash stated that Item G was a contract to develop written materials that would reflect the work of the Early Childhood initiative over the past year; it includes the services of developing, writing and designing a brochure as well as a more extensive publication for use by Community Leaders, Early Childhood advocates and Elected Officials. A slide show will also be developed that can be used in community forums and meetings. Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated that he would not support this contract because he felt that staff could handle this type of publication. Commissioner Menconi stated that he sees this as a good opportunity for it to be done and he asked that it be considered at a future meeting. Citizen Input There was none Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Diamond Five Ltd. d/b/a Coyote Cafe This is a renewal ofa Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. B. DKM Associates, LLC d/b/a Juniper Restaurant This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. C. Gloria J. Deschamp's EI Jebel Liquors This is a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License in EI Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. D. Ore House Edwards, LLC d/b/a Ore House Mustang Grill This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. Other Consent 3 5/16/06 E. Rink Productions, Inc. Beaver Creek, CO This is a request for a Special Events Permits. Rink Productions, Inc., a non-profit agency, will be hosting the Brews, Blues, and BBQ on May 27-28 from 10:00 am to 8:00 pm. All fees have been paid, no protests have been filed, and the various Eagle County departments have stated no objections. Staff has had no problems with events held by this applicant in the past. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for May 16, 2006, consisting of Items A- E. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of Social Services. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Eagle County Board of Social Services - Review and Approval of Electronic Client Benefit Payrolls for January - March 2006 Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Electronic Client Benefit Payrolls for January - March 2006. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Social Services and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Grant Contract between Eagle County and Habitat for Humanity of Eagle and Lake Counties County Attorney's Office Representative Mr. Treu stated that the County had pledged this land for habitat purposes and the property would be used to finance the building or use it for Habitat purposes within 10 years. Tom Healy, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity spoke. He thanked the Board for their support over the years. Matt Nichols also thanked the Board for their partnership with Habitat for Humanity. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the grant contract between Eagle County and Habitat for Humanity. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Chairman Pro-tem Stone spoke about the history of the organization. He commended Lee Heghner for his leadership prior to the current Board of Habitat Directors. Resolution 2006-052 Designating Mayas Older Americans Month in Eagle County Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services 4 5/16/06 Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2006-052 Designating may as Older American's Month in Eagle County. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared nammous. Resolution 2006-053 to Amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 2-110 Definitions; Section 3-340 Zone District Dimensional Limitations; Section 4-210 Applicability; Section 4-220 Landscape Plan; Section 4-230 Landscape Design Standards and Materials; and Section 4-660 Excavation and Grading Standards (Eagle County File No. LUR-0062) Community Development Representative, Cliff Simonton Mr. Simonton explained the changes. The file is related to landscape berms. Previously Bill Andree presented some concerns related to wildlife which could be affected by these berms. The Board had requested an administrative process to streamline the approval so as not to be burdensome. The Community Development Director could approve minor berms without approval from the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-tem Stone opened and closed public comment as there was none. Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated that he is in favor of changing this is because he looks at berms like road cuts, which unless landscaped properly can have a lot of negative visual impact. There are currently regulations which limit things over 8 feet, but this type of modification would not have been covered previously. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2006-053 Amending the Eagle County Land Use .egulations, Section 2-110 Definitions; Section 3-340 Zone District Dimensional Limitations; Section 4-210 Applicability; Section 4-220 Landscape Plan; Section 4-230 Landscape Design Standards and Materials; and Section 4-660 Excavation and Grading Standards (Eagle County File No. LUR-0062) Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Planning Files PDP-00033 & ZC-00079 Vines at Vail Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development NOTE: Tabled from 2/21 and 5/16 - Request to Table to 7/11/06 ACTION: To create a mixed use PUD on 39.0 acres in Wolcott including: a winery complete with tasting room; lodge/inn; community pavilion; educational spaces, low-impact commercial sues; conference facilities; both free market residential including live/work residences and employee housing rentals; recreational and agricultural and landscape features. LOCATION: Accessed from Hwy 131; Wolcott. Section 15, Township 4S, Range 83W STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners table File No. PDP-00033 and File No. ZC-00079 Vines at Vail to July 11,2006. 5 5/16/06 Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. .JUR-0055 - Eaele County Land Use Reeulation Amendment for Stream Setback Allison Ochs, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 3/28/06; Request to Table to 7/17 Amendment ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulation Stream Setback Standards. LOCATION: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners table File No. LVR-0055, Amendment for Stream Setback to July 17, 2006. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0064 Rideeline Protection Amendment Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department NOTE: Request to Table to 7/17 ACTION: Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations Article 4: Ridgeline Protection (section 4- 50) to further clarify, expand and strengthen the submittal requirements and criteria/standards for development in ertain areas of Eagle County as identified in this section. LOCATION: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners table File No. LUR-0064, Ridgeline Protection Amendment to July 17,2006. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. PDSP-00021 and ZC-00077 - Eaele Vallev Relieious Foundation PUD Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 1/18 and 4/17/06 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 82 W) Formally the Ruder property STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval LOCATION: OWNER: 33636 Hwy 6, West Edwards; South side ofHwy 6 (Formally the Ruder property) Eagle Valley Religious Foundation 6 5/16/06 APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Boni, Knight Planning STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The Eagle Valley Religious Foundation (EVRF) has recently purchased two contiguous properties in West Edwards, and is proposing to create a new Planned Unit Development in which a 40,000 sq ft multi-denominational religious facility which includes two (2) worship chapels; religious education space; meeting space and caretaker residence. Formally known as the 'Ruder Property,' the site contains a variety of pre-existing, "grandfathered," non-conforming uses. When zoning was introduced in Eagle County in 1974, the County assigned Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) zoning to the subject property; thereby creating legal, non-conforming uses. In the RSL zone district, "church" may be permitted via a Special Use Permit. To better serve anticipated the needs of the EVRF, the applicants decided to pursue a Planned Unit Development to ensure that all of the desired mix uses infrastructure could be achieved. PUD zoning allows a more flexible building design and dimensional limitations standards. In addition, the mix of proposed uses would be clearly defined and easier to administer as opposed to a Special Use Permit. The applicant proposes the following: . A 40,000 sq ft multi-denominational religious facility which includes two (2) worship chapels; . Religious education space; . A library and study areas; . Nursery space; . Kitchen; . Meeting space; . Caretaker residence; . Landscaped gardens at the rear of the building for outdoor gatherings such as weddings, baptisms, and other celebratory events; . Columbarium The PUD guide has been provided and incorporates all of the uses as listed above. CHRONOLOGY: 1974- RSL zoning was placed on the properties when Eagle County introduced zoning in September, 1974. 2005- Eagle Valley Religious Foundation purchases properties SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Tract G: Open Space/Utility/Pedestrian/Irrigation / Homestead Filing 3 PUD West: Tract Q: Open Space/Recreation / Homestead Filing 3 PUD North: Highway 6 / Unplatted / Resource South: Tract G: Open Space/Utility/Pedestrian/Irrigation / Homestead Filing 3 PUD Existing Zoning: Resource Total Area: 2.38 acres Water: Public- existing Sewer: Public- existing Access: Direct from Hwy 6 PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS: The Eagle County Planning Commission had several comments regarding this file including the following: . Was the proposed housing plan sufficient; 7 5/16/06 . Who was responsible for maintenance regarding the potential road connection (from Hwy 6, through the EVRF property; through the neighboring property to the east; eventually connecting to the public road in the Fox Hollow PUD); . Are there water rights with this property, and what is the applicant intending for them; . Approving the proposed limitation of outdoor activities to 10 pm, without knowing what the future uses of the neighboring properties may be problematic. As an outcome of the deliberations, the Planning Commission agreed that the proposed, single, caretaker unit was sufficient for this project given the nature of this particular PUD (a religious facility which predominantly utilizes an existing staff; no commercial uses, etc.). The Planning Commission also recommended that the applicants dedicate any water rights associated with this property to the local water provider; although this was not formulated into an additional condition. Three additional comments; however, were added to Staff's conditions, relating to the other concerns listed above. Those conditions are labeled as 10 thru 12 on page 24 of this report and as listed in Section E: Planning Commission Recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission Recommended unanimous approval of files ZC-00077 and PDSP-00021 incorporating all Staff findings and conditions; and with the addition of the following conditions: 10. No amplified music shall be permitted outside after 8 pm. The PUD guide must be amended to incorporate this restriction. II. All of the necessary infrastructure, including but not limited to access and utilities, shall be completed in one phase. Any amendment to the current phasing plan must be received and approved by the Eagle County Engineering Department prior to Final Plat application. 12. All internal road maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation. If a future through-road is completed connecting the EVRF property through the neighboring property to the east to connect with the public right-of-way at the Fox Hollow PUD, other maintenance arrangements may be considered. Other arrangements may include, but is not limited to, shared road maintenance responsibilities between one or more property owners or other interested parties. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: (see attached) Eagle County Conservation District, memo dated November 21 st, 2005: . The runoff flooding and drainage report refer to the Brett Ditch that passes above the property; however, neither report addresses the possibility of the ditch being a source of floodwater contributing to the overland flow or contributing to the floodwater quantity. . If the ditch were to fail due to blockage from debris down slope, this could impact the quantity of water across the property. . The ditch is referenced as being a possible diversion in a flood situation. . Again, if the ditch was full or blocked it would have the opposite effect and would be a source of additional floodwater rather than diverting water away from the site. . While these conditions are remote, they have occurred in several locations in Eagle County. Engineering Memo, dated October 31 st, 2005: I. In referencing the August II, 2005 memorandum from Pete Fralick, Engineering Department, a comment refers to the US 6 Corridor Feasibility Study ("CFS"), and that this project is located within an access management area. While the applicant has provided an easement shown to the eastern property boundary, the horizontal location may not allow for horizontal & vertical layout standards to be met. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design demonstrating the feasibility of this road with all adjacent properties to the east and to the west. Please also note that road profiles are not included, per ECLVR 5-280.BA.a.2.(s) and ECLUR 4-620. 8 5/16/06 2. The applicant has provided a 24' wide access and utility easement to meet the requirements of the CFS. This easement and the road do not conform to ECLUR Section 4-620. The the road should be classified as a "Commercial Road", and meet all requirements per ECLUR 4-620.J. In addition, there is on-street parking located adjacent to this access easement, which is labeled as "maybe" for allowance within a commercial road, per ECLUR 4-620.D.7. The applicant shall provide a road design consistent with ECLUR Section 4-620 for a "Commercial Road" classification, and shall also provide ROW dedication to the County. 3. The Engineering Department does not support the assertion with the applicant's September 22 letter addressed to Jena Skinner-Markowitz, item #8; "...It was our understandingfrom that meeting that the Engineering Department was not fundamentally opposed to a secondary access easement through the parking lot to provide access to the property to the east rather than the looped public roadway as illustrated in the Corridor Feasibility Study... " 4. At the highway access point, the grading plan (Sheet 5) shows an inverted crown section. This may cause a drainage issue or may cause a buildup of ice during the winter season. Please refer to ECLVR 4-620.J.2.d.l. 5. At the highway access point, the vertical grade connecting to the US6 access point does not conform with CDOT's State Highway Access Code, Section 4.9.(2). 6. Referencing Sheet 6, Utility Plan, shows a 8"x8"x6"x6" cross, with a cap and thrust block for a future water main connection. The cap size is not labeled. Please verify that this is an adequate size with the appropriate water jurisdiction. Furthermore, the proposed layout of the water extension would cause an adjacent developer to have to remove and replace a significant amount of infrastructure, namely the retaining wall, asphalt paving, and curb and gutter. The applicant shall consider a revision to allow for minimal infrastructure replacement for a water extension. 7. It is unclear as to who will construct the shown trail along the south side ofUS6 following the along the parcel's north frontage. Please verify that the trail meets ECLUR Section 4-630. 8. Per ECLUR Section 4-140.B, Minimum Dimensions of Parking Areas, allows a space to have a minimum length of eighteen feet (18') provided that the overhang ofthe vehicle does not reduce the width of the walking area to less than four feet (4'). Please demonstrate that this condition is met in all parking areas, especially those adjacent to the north side of the building. 9. Provide information on snow storage, per ECLUR 4-140.K. 10. Please provide information on the entrance design, per ECLUR 4-620.J.9.c.(10). 11. Provide irrigation ditch easements for the existing ditches per ECLUR 4-640.D 12. Dimensions are shown on Sheet 4, Site plan, but are not legible. 13. Storm sewers connecting the curb inlets are not shown. 14. From inspection of the grading and drainage plan, it appears that drainage may enter the public highway system through the proposed access point. Please note that this is not allowed per CDOT's State Highway Access Code, Section 4.11.(1), and by ECLUR 4-650. 15. Referencing Sheet 6, Utility Plan; the existing sewer is not shown. 16. The vicinity map shall be of a scale of 1"= I 000', or a USGS 1 :24,000 scale is acceptable, per ECLUR 5-280.BA.a.2.(j) 17. Please provide evidence that the Edwards Metropolitan District will supply water per ECLVR 5- 280.BA.v.aa.3. 18. Please provide evidence that the sanitary sewage treatment facilities will provide treatment, per ECLUR 5-280.BA.v.bb 19. Please provide evidence that the utility companies are agreeable to provide service, per ECLUR 5- 280.BA.v.cc 20. From inspection of the Grading Plan, Sheet 5, and the Utility Plan, Sheet 6, it appears that there is no information shown on how the curb inlets channel the storm drainage into the detention ponds. Furthermore, based upon inspection of the proposed grading, it appears that there are two main drainage basins created in the parking lot, which is not indicated in the included drainage study. The applicant shall provide consistent information regarding the drainage study. 21. Per Sheet 7, "Details Sheet", the typical pavement section suggests an initial 1.5" asphalt layer during construction, with a final 1.5" overlay after the major construction. Please provide a pavement design and recommendations, with special attention emphasized on the impacts of the construction traffic. 22. Please show a detail for the Straw Bale Dikes, per the Erosion Control Plan, Sheet 3. 23. Culverts should have flared end sections. 9 5/16/06 24. Per Sheet 4, Site Plan, near the northwest corner of the parcel is a note saying "Future Connection Point to Adjacent Property" and is pointing at an unknown structure. Please provide more information this structure . Please see attached, updated memo from Engineering :CO Transit, electronic memo dated October 2i\ 2005: . We do not anticipate a significant amount of transit usage from this proposed religious facility; not enough to merit a pullout or other transit infrastructure. . However, I think it's important to have the bike/ped trail extended from the current western boundary-somewhere near the Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park-to the proposed PUD, and to have the trail extend along the frontage of the project for future westward connections. . This will allow people safe access from the religious facility to the shelters in front of Eagle River Village, and eventually access west to the bus stop. Housing, memo dated October 26th, 2005: . The updated housing guidelines adopted July IS, 2005 do not specifically exempt religious, educational or governmental offices and therefore housing requirements do apply; however, the Board of County Commissioners did grant a housing exemption to the Vail Christian High School upon their request. . This PUD application has no housing plan except to identify a "caretaker" unit on-site. This plan is currently not in compliance with the Eagle County Master Plan or the Affordable Housing Guidelines. Environmental Health Department, memo dated October 26th, 2005: I. A Dust Suppression Plan should be prepared and approved by Eagle County Environmental Health prior to conducting any grading on this site. The approved Dust Suppressant Plan must be kept on-site and be implemented at all times during construction in order to continue with grading activities. The Plan must identify who can be contacted immediately to abate dust issues. 2. Failure to adhere to the implementation of the Erosion Control Plan will result in a cessation of work until the Best Management Practices (BMPs) are re-established. The Plan must identify who can be contacted immediately to abate erosion issues. 3. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) should be submitted and approved by Eagle County Environmental Health prior to conducting any grading or staging any contractor's equipment on this site. The approved SPCC must be kept on- site, implemented at all times to allow construction to continue and must include the minimum information: a. A detailed site plan showing the location of heavy equipment and hazardous materials/fuel storage b. Details regarding how the staging area is prepared to effectively contain materials on site and prevent ground water contamination c. Details regarding secondary containment of hazardous materials/fuel storage demonstrating the ability to contain 110% of the volume of the largest storage vessel d. An inventory of hazardous materials kept on site and a method of product inventory to detect leaks or spills e. The spill response materials that will be available on-site at all times (such as absorbent pads or booms) with a list employees trained as the Oil Discharge Response Team f. A list of contact information for individuals and agencies who can assist with response to an environmental release of a hazardous material 4. Set construction hours should be established to curtail adverse noise impacts on adjacent properties. 5. The commercial kitchen must be designed to meet the specifications of the Colorado Retail Food Rules and Regulations, and all equipment shall be National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) approved. Colorado Geological Survey, memo dated October 18th, 2005: . In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited the site and reviewed the site plan on October 10,2005. . The site consists of approximately 5.2 acres. The proposed subdivision includes a 40,000 sq ft facility and parking lot. . The Eagle River Water and Sanitation district will supply water and sanitation services. . Included in the review package was a sketch plan application, which included a site map and a grading and drainage plan, by Marcin Engineering (Sept. 2005), a Geologic Hazards Investigation of Site of 10 5/16/06 Eagle Valley Religious Foundation, Edwards, CO by Dr. Robert G. Young, Geological Consultant (6- 20-05), a Drainage Report by Marcin Engineering, LLC (June 2005), a Storm Water Management Plan by Marcin Engineering (9-26-05) and a Soil and Foundation Investigation for Proposed Eagle Valley Religious Foundation Buildings by LKP Engineering, Inc. (l1-16-04). 1. Soils/Subsurface. . The geologic report by LKP Engineering states that the soils and underlying bedrock found on the property are corrosive and can produce detrimental effects on concrete. They recommend that Type II cement be utilized for any structures in contact with the soils. They also note that the Eagle Valley Evaporite is susceptible to subsidence due to solution. A site-specific investigation should be conducted in the foundation area to insure that there are no sinkholes on the property. . Foundation perimeter drains are recommended by LKP Engineering to reduce the risk of surface water infiltrating the foundation subsoil. LKP Engineering also makes recommendations for site grading and drainage that should be followed closely during construction. 2. Rockfall. . There is a minor hazard due to rockfall that was not discussed in the Geologic Hazards Investigation by Dr. Robert G. Young, Geological Consultant. . I encountered an approximately 4-foot diameter boulder on the SE corner of the property, whose source area is the slope above the site to the south. Small boulders (1 to 3 feet in diameter) were observed on the southwest corner of the property. . There are rock outcrops of the Minturn formation including the Eagle Valley Evaporite which could serve as source areas for rockfall on the slopes to the south of the proposed proj ect. . I recommend that a rockfall simulation program, such as CRSP, be run to insure that the rockfall source areas mentioned above do not pose a rockfall hazard to the proposed building. 3. Environmental contaminants. . There are old gas tanks located on the property that were part of the previous owner's construction company. . The soils around these tanks should be tested to insure that there are no contaminants that could adversely affect human health, especially in areas where children could play. . If contaminated soils are encountered, a mitigation plan to remove the soils should be implemented. . In conclusion, while there are no geologic hazards that would preclude development of this site, a rockfall simulation model should be prepared as a condition for preliminary plat approval. Also recommendations in the Soil and Foundation Investigation by LKP Engineering, Inc. should be complied with. CDOT, email dated October 13th, 2005: . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Eagle Valley Religious Foundation (EVRF) PUD. The EVRF is proposing access off US 6. In the Preliminary Plan! Sketch Plan dated October 2005 doesn't have the traffic study. However, I do recall Fox Hollow development and EVRF did a combined traffic impact study. . The permittee will need to get an access permit for this development. . Since this is a level three permit, CDOT will be the lead on this permit. Additional Referrals were sent to the following agencies and Homeowner's Associations: . Eagle County Assessors, ECO Trails, Attorney, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Housing Division, Assessor, Sheriff, and Weed and Pest . Colorado Division of Wildlife . Ambulance District, Fire District, Metro District, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District . Edwards Metro District; Eagle River Water and Sanitation District . Colorado and Eagle County Historical Societies . Cordillera, Brett Ranch, St. Clare of Assisi, EVMHP and Lake Creek HOAs TAFF DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary plan for PUD: 11 5/16/06 STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (I)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and tandards of the PUD. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire area affected by this PUD Preliminary Plan is in single ownership. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is art of this POD IS owned or controlled bone erson and/or entit . STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule, "for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. The subject property is currently zoned Residential Suburban Low Density; Eagle County assigned this zoning to the parcels when zoning was adopted in 1974. Many of the proposed uses are currently allowed under the RSL zone district via Special Use Permit; however, office and columbarium uses are currently not permitted in this zone district. The catering kitchen and events such as weddings are ancillary to the primary uses; there are no commercial uses proposed with this PUD. All of the uses proposed will work harmoniously together; are typically found in conjunction with one another; and should not create conflicts. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT all uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule." however, given that the uses not found in the table are typically found associated with a church 0 eration, the a ear to be com atible. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. There are two (2) Variations for dimensional limitations that will be necessary for this application. The applicant is requesting an increase in floor area ratio (.20 to .25) and impervious coverage ratio (.35 to .65). Given that the minimum lot size in the RSL zone district is 15,000 sq ft or over a quarter of an acre, the property consists of 4.66 acres or almost 203,000 sq ft, and should be reasonably accommodate these variations. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in the existing RSL zoning for this property; however, this finding may be found positive assuming approval of the Variations and/or deviations b the Board of Count Commissioners at Pre1iminar Plan STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading Jrovided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading '\tandards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 12 5/16/06 Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parkingfor those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or lctual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The PUD guide includes parking calculations for the shared uses. The breakdown is as follows: I parking space for 3 seats for worship space; 1 space for 250 sq ft of net office/meeting space (exclusive ofrestrooms and hallways) and 2 spaces for the caretaker unit. Per these calculations, it appears there will be a sufficient number of parking spaces for this proposal; however, one deviation from our standards that should be noted is the proposed parking space size reduction to 9' x 18'. This has been an acceptable modification to the standard (10' x 18') in other developments. Staff had one concern regarding parking: events or gatherings such as weddings could impact these calculations. As such, Staff requested that a provision be added to the Pun prohibiting parking from occurring on US Hwy 6 with the enforcement being the responsibility of the applicants. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses rom each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The current landscaping plan details all types and location oflandscape materials to be utilized as part of this development. Site lighting and illumination standards have been satisfactorily addressed with this application. These standards have been incorporated as part of the PUD guide. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] It HAS BEEN demonstrated that landscaping provided in the PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landsca in and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (P UD) , the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Certain sign code standards have been incorporated as part of the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation PUD guide. Where the PUD Guide is silent, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations shall govern. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. The PUD uide ro erl references that si ns shall be as allowed ursuant to the Ea Ie Count Land Use Re lations. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable 13 5/16/06 water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Existing facilities such as electricity, telephone, gas, cable, etc.; solid waste removal and fire protection currently ervice this property. The applicant has been in contact with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. They are requiring a certain dollar amount be paid to the District prior to service. This arrangement must be finalized and evidence of this 'approval' must be provided to Staff prior to the BoCC hearing. As of the writing of this Staff report, correspondence from the District requiring a certain cash in lieu of water rights payment amount has been received; however, an actual Ability to Serve letter has not been received. (See Condition 2) [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] AS CONDITIONED The Applicant HAS NOT BEEN clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in this SketchlPreliminary Plan for PUD has been provided adequate facilities for potable water and for wastewater services. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire rotection, and emer enc medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages offsite. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from offstreet parking areas. This development currently has received the necessary US Hwy 6 Access Permit and related documentation from CDOT for this proposal; however, there are several outstanding engineering criteria which require resolution. (See Condition 4) [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] AS CONDITIONED It HAS NOT been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e Snow Stora e. 14 5/16/06 STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. he existing/proposed uses for the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation PUD are found in both residential and commercial zone districts. Currently, one, narrow property separates this project from the approved Fox Hollow mixed-use PUD. Like Fox Hollow, if this development is approved, several non-conforming uses such as contractor storage and other miscellaneous storage of debris and possible contaminants will be eradicated and "cleaned-up." In addition, this is not a commercial use, but is a community oriented establishment. This proposal is also situated near other religious developments- St. Clare of Assisi and the Vail Christian High School. What sets this proposal apart from these establishments is the actual use. Both St. Clare of Assisi and the Vail Christian High School are private schools dedicated for educational purposes. The Eagle Valley Religious Foundation seeks to provide a community-wide, multi-denominational facility for a wider range of religious and community activities. Much of the traffic generated by this development is "off peak" hours (Sundays). This is complimentary to traffic generated by the commercial traffic uses in the Fox Hollow PUD. When contemplating the design of the project, the building is setback from Hwy 6 and is situated at the toe of the southern hillside. Most of the outdoor events, therefore, would be separated and buffered from the existing residential homes north and to the west of the development, as the area specified for these events are proposed behind the structure. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] All aspects of the development proposed for the PUD MAY BE compatible with the character of surroundin land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation &I Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance X X X X Community Center' Non Confomlauce Mixed X2 X3 Conformance FLUM - lCommunity Center. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation is within the designated Community Center. Community Center has a suggested residential density of3-12 dwelling [nits per acre, in areas typically found along major transportation routes which are accessible by public water and sewer, and have not been identified as sensitive lands. This designation promotes Community Centers as appropriate locations for affordable housing, with cluster and Planned Unit Developments being encouraged. 15 5/16/06 Community Centers are also places where a mix of non-residential activities takes place, including neighborhood commercial activities to serve the population ofthe Community Center and community-oriented commercial or service which may serve surrounding areas or the entire County. Development in a Community Center is primarily served by centralized water supply and sewage treatment facilities. This application does provide community open space; however, active recreation areas are not anticipated. Given that this is neither a true residential nor a commercial development, this should be acceptable. 3This development offers one (1) onsite caretaker unit. As this is an operation which has other facilities found around the county, all "employees" currently live offsite. According to the applicant, many of the people who will be working in this facility share their time with the other religious facilities. Pursuant to the Housing memo, this project is not exempt from consideration of the housing guidelines, and one caretaker unit may not be sufficient; however, staff has not received a recommendation to the contrary. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Unique Char. Preservation x x x x x x x The Eagle Valley Religious Foundation is not located in a recognized unique landform area of the county, nor is it located in a natural hazard area; however, pursuant to CGS, there may be a potential rockfall hazard which should be evaluated. :AGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Water Quality Use Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable The Eagle Valley Religious Foundation is currently in the Edwards Metropolitan District for water; and is within the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for wastewater service. It appears as though service will be provided for this project. It does not appear that a 1041 will not be necessary. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue. . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes. 16 5/16/06 . 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 for other infrastructure needs. . 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. POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A 1. 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 collaboration with the X municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle X County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job X 5. Seasonal housing is part ofthe problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility X of. . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents X 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will X provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-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 provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements X 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land Use X Housing X Transportation X Open Space X Potable Water and Wastewater X II Services and Facilities X 17 5/16/06 Environmental Quality X Economic Development X Recreation and Tourism X Historic Preservation X Implementation X Future Land Use Map X Pursuant to the Edwards Area Community Plan, this property is designated "medium density residential." Further, it goes on to suggest that in addition to residential uses, ".. .minimal mixed use commercial to serve the surrounding neighborhood. . ." may also be acceptable in this location. This proposal, although it does not meet all residential or commercial recommendations for land use, does offer uses typically found near or mixed in with residential and commercial developments and is an allowed use in both the residential and commercial use schedules. Land Use - The stated goal is, "The location and type ofland uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and human 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". This proposal does serve to balance the social, cultural needs of the Edwards area- especially being multi-denominational. This development is not necessarily a tourist destination; however, many services this facility will provide are open to the public. As a result of this development, many non-conforming uses like contractors storage will be eliminated. As such, redevelopment of the property will have an aesthetically beneficial affect the West Edwards vicinity. lousing - "Affordable" housing is not offered in the current application as the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation; with the exception of a single, onsite caretaker unit which is incorporated as part of the PUD. The actual nature of the proposed project (religious facility and associated uses) is not identified within the local resident housing guidelines; this does not mean that this project is exempt from the recommendations of the guidelines. Because the uses are not identified, however, the Housing Guidelines do not provide a recommended employee housing/affordable housing density for this project. After hearing testimony from the applicants at the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission felt that one (I) unit was sufficient. Transportation -The Eagle Valley Religious Foundation has received their necessary US Hwy 6 Access Permit, and a connection from US Hwy 6 to the internal road system that was approved with the Fox Hollow PUD has been implemented with this design. Open Space - "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with land owners, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal will not be able to set aside the entire site as usable Open Space because parking requirements will utilize much of the lot area; nevertheless, a significant portion of the property around and to the south of the building will be landscaped and utilized for gatherings such as weddings. Potable Water and Wastewater - Public potable water and sanitary sewer service currently serve this project. Services and Facilities - This element of the Edwards Area Community Plan pertains to the management of solid and hazardous wastes and the support of public schools, occupational training and higher education. Although many of these goals do not apply to this development, there is opportunity for the community to use some of the pace for group meetings. 18 5/16/06 Environmental Oualitv -This proposal does not necessitate the creation of any new wastewater or water supply facilities, Stormwater runoff and related issues have been adequately addressed; drainage plans have been submitted although final plans have not been approved by Engineering. :conomic Development - This element of the Edwards Area Community Plan suggests, "...a balanced mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses to encourage a diverse economy." Given that this development is a non-profit organization, this aspect of the plan does not apply.. Recreation and Tourism - The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". This application does not offer any recreational amenities, and only landscape contributions to limited, open space areas; however, with this application, the County will gain additional improvements such as storm water quality management and a contribution to the existing ECO trail which will be constructed on the Fox Hollow property to the east. Given the type of development is a destination oriented facility, additional open space areas may not be necessary. Historic Preservation - No historic resources were identified on the subject property. At the time of this writing, neither the Colorado State Historical Society nor, the Eagle County Historical Society had provided comment. Implementation -The proposed development is required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Compliance with the Highway 6 Access Control Plan has been satisfied. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) -The proposed commercial site is identified on the FLUM as an area appropriate for, "medium density residential," or, ".. .minimal mixed use that would address the service and office needs of the surrounding community." Fox Hollow, approved in 2005, already offers both residential and commercial uses to this area of Edwards. This development is typically found in areas associated with this type of development. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The proposed SketchlPreliminary PIan IS predominantly consistent with all stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of all applicable master plans; however, there ma be a inconsistenc with the amount of ro osed em 10 ee housin for this ro'ect. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The proposed improvements are to be constructed over a brief period of time. Pursuant to the CGS comments dated October 18th, 2005; environmental testing should be completed first ensuring that there are no potentially hazardous materials to be removed from the existing, non-conforming uses. (See Condition 9) [+] FINDING: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] AS CONDITIONED A phasing plan IS NOT necessary for this development; however, priorities should be set for certain im rovements. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. 19 5/16/06 (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. (c) (d) (e) (f) As quoted above, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations recommend that 25% of the total PUD area be utilized as open space. The total acreage of the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation is approximately 4.22 acres. As proposed, no more than 65% of the site may be impervious in nature, leaving a potential, 1.5 acres available for green space; a significant amount of this area to be used in the proposed garden/gathering area, south of the building. At this time, however, the applicants have not provided calculations to staff. Given the proposed uses, additional, common ecreation areas may not be necessary. A new portion of the ECO Trail system shall be required to be constructed with this project. This portion of path will eventually connect to the new portion of path that is required to be built by Fox Hollow. The path will be constructed along the frontage/Hwy 6. (See Condition 5) Information regarding maintenance responsibilities has been provided as part of the PUD guide. [+/-) FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS NOT demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards wi th respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. The Board of County Commissioners mav find that 25% common open space would not further benefit this oroiect. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The applicants have provided designs for new drainage improvements to help enhance existing property stormwater runoff quality. Wildlife-proof trash containers have also been required pursuant to the PUD guide. No other concerns have been identified for this proposal in regards to Natural Protection standards. (See Conditions 4 and 6) [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. 20 5/16/06 FILE ZC-00077: .eQUirements for a Zone Chanee. In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other available information, Staff makes the followingfindings as provided in this Section of the Land Use Regulations: STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - Thesubdivision shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). See previous discussion beginning on page 12. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.!] The proposed zone change designation IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Area Community Plan. 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; [+] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The development proposed for the subdivision MAY BE considered com atible with the character of surroundin land uses. 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; The proposed PUD seeks to create a multi-denominational religious facility in the growing Edwards area. This facility, according to the application is necessary, "... to satisfy the needs of the current and future needs of four congregations." Further, the existing congregations are, "scattered" throughout the valley and desire a permanent facility. As the population of Eagle County grows, so too does the demand for support services, like religious facilities. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA] 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 applicant will be required to install drainage and runoff improvements, and be required to utilize wildlife-proof trash containers. No other concerns have been raised for this application. (See Condition 4 and 6) [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4] The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts to the natural environment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; allow the owners of the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation to create a permanent, religious facility and elated office and meeting spaces for four different congregations. This Eagle Valley Religious Foundation rill be built and funded by members of the community, for the community. 21 5/16/06 This application will also result in potential improvements to the existing ECO trails system; enhanced water quality with the introduction of drainage improvements; and aesthetic enhancements from the redevelopment of a property containing miscellaneous, non-conforming uses. 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; [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] The proposed amendment IS the result of a logical and orderly development pattern and DOES NOT constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development is currently provided with necessary public facilities and services. 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. Aside from one (1) caretaker unit, no new residential density will result due to this application. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply HAS changed and continues to change. With this zone change; however, the public interest will not be com romised as there will be no new density. DISCUSSION: Ms. Skinner-Markowitz presented a PowerPoint slide show with the details of the request along with maps. She reviewed the history of the property, which was formerly known as the Ruder property and includes a lot of re-existing non-conforming grandfathered properties. The majority of the findings are positive and there are some lixed findings which require discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, but staff recommends approval. Tom Boni from Knight Planning Services was present as planner for the applicant. They are pleased to be able to state that access permits have been achieved to Highway 6. The proposal is to consolidate two smaller properties into one larger property. The zone change is the major focus of the application. Total size of the facility is 40,000 square feet including two chapels. There is associated space which could serve a wider community. There is a piece of property of 5 acres in between the proposed development and the Fox Hollow development. The Religious Foundation has attempted to purchase this property, but did not have success. He showed a rendering of the facility taken from the North/Northwest and looking to the South / Southeast. The location of Edwards makes sense due to the growing population in this part of the county. The meeting space could be made available to many non-profit organizations. The interfaith worship facility will be beneficial to the neighborhood. The facility complies with the environmental requirements recently adopted. The property does not have any wildlife impacts. The water system and sewer systems are provided for. The applicant believes the requested use is consistent with the Master Plan and emergent character of the area. The request is also consistent with the Edward's Community Plan. The architecture and landscaping are of quality and will as such benefit the community as well. The public benefits include community need. The applicant believes it is appropriately located with quality design and landscaping and serves a community need. Mr. Boni also spoke about the employee housing. The Eagle County housing guidelines do not address a religious facility. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked about the ability to be served by Eagle River Water and Sanitation. Mr. Boni stated that the property is in the district and they have supplied the district with a water demand worksheet. They have not paid the fee, but it needs to be paid after the water board has their director's meeting. The fees have been approved by the Religious Foundation however. They are asking for approval with the condition that the fees be paid prior to final plat. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked about the 12 conditions and whether the applicant was in agreement. Mr. Boni indicated that they were acceptable. Lisa Dillon, President of the Religious Foundation spoke to the Board and asked for approval. There were several clergy in the audience as well. She stated that Eagle County is a model for the interfaith concept, in which each congregation practices their own traditions, but shares the bricks and mortar of the facilities where they worship. The following congregations will participate in this new facility; B'Nai Vail, Mount of the Holy Cross 22 5/16/06 Lutheran, Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration and the Presbyterian Church. The mid-valley is becoming the communal center of the Eagle Valley. The need for civic meeting space is also urgent in the mid valley. The building will likely be built in phases as funds are raised. The foundation appreciates the Board's consideration. Chairman Pro-tem Stone opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi stated that this is a long awaited opportunity for the community and he is aware of the difficulty there was in finding the proper location. He asked for clarification from Ms. Skinner-Markowitz. He wondered what might happen with future development to the west. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz described some history. There are currently more than adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes. Further to the west the topography climbs. Commissioner Menconi asked if the property to the west were to be redeveloped whether there could be a combination of the access points. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the applicant had provided an internal road connection. She also indicated that the future access to the property in between the proposed facility and the Fox Hollow facility would be through the Religious facility. Commissioner Menconi asked about the Open Space referenced on page 17. He wondered if Ms. Markowitz agrees that the facility complies. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that there were not specific numbers. Parking lots do take up a lot of room, and there will be many gardens and adequate landscaping. Commissioner Menconi wondered how much would be green space. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated it would be approximately 35%. Mr. Boni stated that the open space would include 2 acres of natural open space and Yz acre of formal landscape and a children's play area of 6000 square feet. Commissioner Menconi asked about the site layout and design. He wondered if there was analysis about putting the church close to the road with the parking behind it. Mr. Boni stated that it had been discussed in great detail. Because the site slopes there were constraints as to the alternative layout on the site. Given the constraints of the property and the objectives of the foundation, aving the building in the back some of the building walls could be used for retention. Locating the property further to the south is more esthetically pleasing and there was also the desire for gardens in the rear of the facility that could be used for weddings and private celebrations - for which the building backed up to the hillside was preferable. The building will be a combination of one and two story areas. Commissioner Menconi asked whether the re would be a child care facility. Ms. Dillon indicated that there would probably be a full time day care facility at some point. She added that during the week there would be a variety of meetings, youth gatherings, youth activities and activities for other civic organizations. Commissioner Menconi wondered how the collaboration of congregations had occurred. Ms. Dillon stated that all four of the current congregations are members of the other two existing chapels. Other congregations are also welcome to join. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked to go through the findings. He is in general support of the file. The first condition is related to dimensional limitations. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that there are multiple uses for the facility, and two of them are not necessarily found within the guidelines. Mr. Boni reiterated that this is part and parcel of a PUD and the finding will always be made in this way prior to approval. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked about standards for off street parking and loading. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that in order to cluster the parking they are requesting a minor deviation from lOx 18 to a 9 x 18 space allowance. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked about adequate facilities. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz indicated that she had received a letter today from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation that their review would be finished shortly. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked about improvement standards, specifically condition number 4. Greg Schroeder, County Engineering Department representative stated that the finding could be made positive with the exception of the entry road. The applicant has since revised the access road to the outside perimeter of the property which addressed the concerns of the engineering staff. Commissioner Menconi asked about phasing for parking. 23 5/16/06 Mr. Boni stated that the applicant would work with the County on this issue. Commissioner Menconi wondered whether the application intended to build the parking first. Mr. Boni stated that the site grading would have to be worked out in the initial phase. Over the course of the next three months of the fund raising period they would be able to plan much better. Chairman Pro-tem Stone recommended changing condition number 2 to state "prior to the final plat or the issuance of any building permits." Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. ZC-00077 incorporating all Staff findings. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Menconi moves that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PDSP-00021 incorporating all Staff findings and the following conditions with the minor change for condition number 2. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. I. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Ability to serve letter must be submitted to Community Development staff prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing. 3. New structures, buildings and/or improvements should utilize non-reflective finish materials and colors designed to "blend" in with the surrounding landscape (earth-tones). 4. The applicant must satisfy the remaining, outstanding items as found in the Engineering memo dated October 31 st, 2005, attached to this staff report prior to the submittal of the Final Plat application. 5. Pursuant to the memo dated October 26th, 2005 by ECO Transit, the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation shall construct a new portion of pathway along the north property boundary, paralleling Hwy 6. This path shall utilize the same path design as was previously approved with the Fox Hollow PUD. 6. All comments from the Environmental Health Department dated October 27th, 2005 shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 7. No grading or building permit will be issued until after the approval of the Final Plat. 8. Pursuant to the CGS memo dated October I 8th, 2005, a rockfall hazard study shall be executed and submitted with the Final Plat application. 9. Pursuant to the CGS memo dated October 18th, 2005, the property shall be evaluated for hazardous materials prior to the issuance of a grading permit to ensure soils are free of contamination. 10. No amplified music shall be permitted outside after 8 pm. The PUD guide must be amended to incorporate this restriction. II. All of the necessary infrastructure, including but not limited to access and utilities, shall be completed in one phase. Any amendment to the current phasing plan must be received and approved by the Eagle County Engineering Department prior to Final Plat application. 12. All internal road maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation. If a future through-road is completed connecting the EVRF property through the neighboring 24 5/16/06 property to the east to connect with the public right-of-way at the Fox Hollow PUD, other maintenance arrangements may be reconsidered. Other arrangements may include shared road maintenance responsibilities between one or more property owners or other interested parties. Commissioner Menconi asked how much money the foundation would need to raise. Ms. Dillon stated that they had hired a professional fund-raising firm and that full fledged fundraising would begin mid summer. She hoped to be able to raise between 5 and 10 million in the first phase. 5MB-00386 Katz Property Subdivision Adam Palmer, Planning Department ACTION: 24B. A request to subdivide Lot 24 of the Highland Subdivision zoned RSM into two lots - Lot 24A and LOCATION: 2107 Vermont Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Highland Meadows Filing 1 Lot 24, 2107 Vermont Road Steven Katz/David Irwin David Irwin STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A final plat which would subdivide Lot 24 and create two single-family lots. Lot 24 is currently 1.06 acres in area and is zoned RSM which requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet per unit. RSM zoning allows the construction of single-family, duplex and multi-family residences. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential / RSM (Residential Suburban Medium Density) West: Residential / RSM North: Marriott Streamside Hotel / RSM Special Use South: Residential / RSM Existing Zoning: Total Area: RSM 1.06 acres STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations the Community Development Director has determined the following in the review of this Type B Minor Subdivision: a. Access, Water and Sewage. The access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided IS adequate; b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The subdivision IS in conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. Improvements Agreements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement is NOT applicable to this application. DISCUSSION: Adam Palmer, Planner for the county presented a PowerPoint slide show to highlight the request. He stated that the property is currently vacant and surrounding land uses are residential medium density. He showed a 25 5/16/06 vicinity map of the subject property, which is just south of the West Vail roundabout. There is a shared point of access for the two proposed properties. All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. David Irwin, applicant spoke to the board. He is trying to divide a large lot. The existing duplexes on Vermont Road are very large. Each of the proposed houses will be about 4000 square feet which will allow for ower impact. Chairman Pro-tem Stone opened and closed public comment as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve File No. 5MB-00386 and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. SMA-00028 Palmerosa Ranch Joe Forinash, Planning Department ACTION: Subdivision of 43.689 acre parcel into 3 residential lots with building envelopes clustered along Lake Creek, with public water, individual septic systems, two points of access and open space easement LOCATION: Primarily west of Lake Creek Road, approximately 1 mile south ofHwy 6 (887 Lake Creek Road) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TITLE: LOCATION: OWNERS: lPPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Palmero sa Ranch Type A Minor Subdivision 887 Lake Creek Road Palmerosa Ranch, LLC Palmerosa Development Company, LLC / Jim Comerford Mauriello Planning Group / Dominic Mauriello STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Its recommendation notwithstanding, Staff recognizes that the Board recently denied a subdivision preliminary plan application with five residential lots on this same property. The Staff recommendation is based in part on the indication by the Colorado Division of Wildlife that the development, with the proposed mitigation, will have addressed its wildlife concerns. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The proposed development consists of three single-family home sites 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 ofthe property on lots averaging 14.563 acres in area. While the two proposed access drives 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 1984 November 1985 An 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. 26 5/16/06 July 2005 February 2006 Subdivision Sketch Plan for Palmero sa Ranch with 5 residential lots was approved. An application for a Subdivision Preliminary Plan which included 5 residential lots was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. A companion Limited Review for four accessory dwelling units had previously been withdrawn. 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: Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Water: Sewer: Access: Agricultural Limited No change in zoning is proposed 3 43.689 acres 13.425 acres 14.858 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 . Water service is not shown to Lot I. Clarification is requested that it has an existing dwelling that is served with a well system. . It appears that the proposed berm shown adjacent to Lot #2 may be filling in the delineated jurisdictional wetlands. The berm should be adjusted to be outside the wetlands. . Certain technical corrections. (See Memo dated 24 April 2006.) Eagle County Environmental Health Environmental Health has indicated that the following response regarding the Palmerosa Ranch subdivision preliminary plan proposal is applicable to this Minor A Subdivision. . 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: [I] 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 Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . The wildfire hazard rating on Lot 2 and Lot 3 is Low. No mitigation is required. . According to the Wildfire Hazard Map, the proposed building envelope on Lot I is in an area wildfire hazard rating of High. Mitigation may lower the rating to moderate, but building constraints per Eagle County Wildfire Regulations will apply. 27 5/16/06 Eagle County Housing Department . The Housing Department has indicated that payments in lieu at the time the building permits are issued for the two newly created lots, based on the economics then applicable, are acceptable to mitigate employee-linkage impacts. Inclusionary housing provisions are not applicable due to the size of the proposed development. Eagle River Fire Protection District . The proposed water supply extended from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District at the north driveway and hydrant locations are acceptable for fire fighting water supply. . The District understands that the applicant is also researching an alternative water system consisting of wells and a private distribution system. A private system will need to provide fire flows based on NFPA 1142 as adopted by Eagle County. . Access, road grades and widths are acceptable. . The project has been scaled down with I driveway serving I home and the other serving 2 homes. The District doesn't believe the requirement for dual access was intended for a project of this size. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District . No response has been received from the District regarding this Minor A Subdivision. However, the District did provide the following comments regarding the previously denied Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan. . 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. Eagle County School District (RE50J) . No response has been received from the School District regarding this Minor A Subdivision. . However, the School District indicated in its response regarding the previously denied Palmero sa Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan that it would accept cash in lieu of land for the subdivision. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments . The information submitted addresses earlier comments from NWCCOG regarding protection of wetlands and control of erosion and stormwater drainage. The project should have no measurable water quality impacts. The approach to addressing on-site wastewater by denitrifying and pumping effluent to drainage fields incorporated into berms makes sense. . It was noted that over \;4 mile of silt fence is anticipated for this site. The applicant may want to consider something a little less unsightly such as erosion logs. These are available with biodegradable mesh structure so that removing all the silt fencing after the site is stable is not an issue. Colorado Division of Wildlife . CDOW met with the developer several times since 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 these meetings the developer has made numerous changes to the plan to reduce and minimize the impacts of wildlife: . The project has created two migration corridors, one on the north and one on the south side of the property to maintain the east/west elk migration corridor. . The density of the project has been reduced with the location of the 3 homes appropriately sited to minimize wildlife impacts. . The project has a grazing plan to ensure that there is available forage for wildlife in the pastures and open space areas. 28 5/16/06 . The project has a mitigation plan to address impacts that could not be reduced or minimized. . If the above items are successfully implemented, wildlife concerns for this project will have been addressed. :olorado Geological Survey . No response has been received from CGS regarding this Minor A Subdivision. However, CGS did provide the following comments regarding the previous Iv denied Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan. . 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 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 FlowlFlooding - 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 I. 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 - Ifthe 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 Palmerosa Ranch site 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. . 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 and sewage disposal through individual systems. A letter of commitment was not provided. Household use for th subdivision is estimated at 1.76 acre-feet per year. . 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 29 5/16/06 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. . The applicant states that existing water rights are to be used for the irrigation of approximately 20 acres on the property, including the irrigation of 10 acres of pasture land and other areas around the residences, and that water features planned for the property will be integrated with the existing ditch laterals and storage. Although a list of water rights was provided, an analysis of the historical use and applicability of these water rights to the proposed uses was not provided. The use of the water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a change of water rights application may be necessary to allow for the proposed uses. . Prior to receiving an opinion from the Division that the proposed waster supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights, it appears that the development must be included in the District, a water court-approved plan for augmentation sufficient for the proposed uses must be obtained, and the District must provide the above-mentioned report for the Division's review, which must demonstrate that sufficient water can be supplied legally and physically to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. . Since insufficient information was provided, the Division is unable to provide comments pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1 )(h)(II), C.R.S. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, Eagle County Weed and Pest, Eagle County School District (RE50J) Administration, Eagle County School District (RES OJ) 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: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-290.G.l.a.] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ u ~ ~ ~ > o c:> E-< ~B ~ ffi ufg u...... en en ffi :::E ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ p.. ......u c:> ~~ u ~~ > 0 :::E~ ~ ~en ~~ ...... 0...... .....:l O~ ~~ ~~ ::l~ E-<en ~.....:l ~ ~?75 en E-<O 00 U)~ ......~ ~ > ~ ~< <en .....:len ffi< ~O' ~ ~gz 0 ~~ ~gz ~gz .....:l 0 :I: en.....:l ~.....:l ~ X x x x x x x CONFORMS x DOES NOT CONFORM MIXED CONFORMANCE x x NA Remarks: See below. 30 5/16/06 Xl _ Governance. Eagle County's Core Values have been appropriately communicated to the applicant through the planning process. The community at large is aware of the proposal, and has been provided adequate opportunity to be involved with the decision making process. 2 _ Development. The proposal would generally be sustainable in nature, and enhance the balance between local economic, social and environmental needs. The capacity of physical, environmental or social resources would not be exceeded. Development would be clustered, preserving open space areas. x3 - Economic Resources. The proposal would tend to enhance Eagle County's position as a world class tourist destination. Provisions have been included which would mitigate certain environmental impacts and to meet related workforce housing. Agriculturally productive lands would be largely preserved. x4 _ Housing. Mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be by a payment in lieu to be made at the time the building permits are issued for the two new dwellings in the development. However, the proposed development would not involve measures that will reduce land costs, construction costs or carrying costs to better implement the creation of additional workforce housing units, nor would it provide incentive for private sector involvement in the creation of workforce housing units. x5 - Infrastructure and Services. With the recommended conditions of approval, the development would include a trail segment for a spur trail generally along Lake Creek Road. x6 - Water Resources. The proposed development would generally protect ground and surface water and not negatively impact natural waterways or aquatic habitats or riparian areas. x7 - Wildlife Resources. While the proposed development would be wildlife-friendly in many respects, a question remains regarding whether the elk movement corridors across the Lake Creek Valley will have been adequately preserved and protected. The issue is related to the quality and interconnected nature of wildlife habitat, avoiding critical wildlife habitat or adequately mitigating adverse impacts, considering the cumulative impacts on wildlife rom a number of developments, and adequately buffering wildlife habitat from development. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has indicated that the development, with the proposed mitigation, will have addressed its wildlife concerns. It may be noted that the north-south cross-section of the building envelopes is approximately 740 feet. Staff estimates that the similar cross-section for the recently denied subdivision preliminary plan to have been 820 feet, a reduction of approximately 80 feet. The proposed residential structures themselves are proposed to represent a north-south cross-section of approximately 655 feet, compared an estimated 790 foot cross-section on the earlier subdivision preliminary plan, a reduction of 135 feet. However, the actual location of structures may vary within the building envelope. x8 - Sensitive Lands. The integrity of the natural environment and the area's visual quality would largely be protected. Existing vegetation would be largely retained. Preservation of open space is consistent with the goal of preserving lands of high conservation value. x9 - Environmental Quality. The proposed development neither would adversely affect local air quality and diurnal (down-valley) air flows, nor would noise necessarily be generated that would diminish the enjoyment of adjacent properties. However, the location of the proposed development would not encourage walking or biking as an alternative to use of automobiles. xlO _ Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The FLUM defers to that of the Edwards Area Community Plan, which further provides for net residential density on this site of no more than one unit per 10 acres and a gross density of no more than one unit per 20 acres. Proposed lots are all at least 13 acres in size. Developmen Hazards t Wildlife n Provision Preservation Patterns Conformanc Xl XL xj x4 x' XO e Non Conformanc e Mixed Conformanc e 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 development does, however, endeavor to create and maintain the effect of open space by arranging the building sites along the perimeter of the subject property in areas which are clear of any natural or built 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. x2 - Unique Character Preservation. There are no unique landforms identified on the subject property. x3 - Visual Ouality. Based upon the Visual Quality map, the subject property is located in an area designated as 'highly' to 'moderately' constrained. The proposal will establish no-build areas on a significant portion of the site adjacent to Lake Creek Road to reduce visual impacts. 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 of the subject property which are clear of any known natural or man made hazards and which have already been disturbed through the historic ranching use of the property. x6 - While the site is located in or near elk and mule deer migration corridors, the design may adequately preserve the corridors and minimize or mitigate adverse impacts. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non- Mixed Not Applicable Conformance Conformance Land Use Xl Housing x2 Transportation x3 Open Space x4 Potable Water and Wastewater x5 Services and Facilities x6 II Environmental Quality x7 II 32 5/16/06 Economic Development x" Recreation and Tourism x9 Historic Preservation xlO Implementation Xli Future Land Use Map Xl2 X I - Land Use. The stated goal is, "The location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and built 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 Comprehensive Plan, mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be by a payment in lieu to be made at the time the building permits are issued for the two new dwellings in the development. However, the proposed development would not involve measures that will reduce land costs, construction costs or carrying costs to better implement the creation of additional workforce housing units, nor would it provide incentive for private sector involvement in the creation of workforce housing units. 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. x4 - 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 )reserve 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 Qualitv. 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 ofthe 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 Area's parks and open space system". This proposal will provide private passive and active open space opportunities for the residents of the development and visual open space for surrounding land owners and the ublic. xlO - Historic Preservation - The Colorado State Historical Society has responded that no identified historical sites exist on the subject property. 33 5/16/06 X II _ Implementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. :12 _ 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 Water Quantity Water Quality Wi1dlife ...:. . Conformanc Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 e Non Conformanc e Conformanc e Applicable Xl - Water Quantitv. The development is consistent with the spirit of the water quantity objectives of the 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 ofthe 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 here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: · Housing is a community-wide issue 34 5/16/06 . 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 1. 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 X to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local x residents and workers in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be x brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It x is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for Xl local residents 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first x preference will be for units on-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 x stock 11. 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 x assistance or subsidies are 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 Comprehensive Plan, mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be by a payment in lieu to be made at the time the building permits are issued for the two new dwellings in the development. However, the proposed development would not involve measures that will reduce land costs, construction costs or carrying costs to better implement the creation of additional workforce housing units, nor would it provide incentive for private sector involvement in the creation of workforce housing units. 35 5/16/06 [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-290.G.l.a.] This proposal IS consistent with the Master Plan recommendations. .TANDARD: 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 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 is proposed for 3 residential lots. The proposed development is consistent with the standards for the AL zone district. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Three parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling. While it has not been demonstrated that adequate parking will be provided, given the size of the lots and the building envelopes, adequate space for the required parking should be available. The Applicant/developer will be required to demonstrate the adequate parking exists prior to issuance of each building permit. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Landscaping plans for a subdivision are not intended to address landscaping for individual residential lots. Rather, the focus is primarily on how common areas will be treated and how areas graded or otherwise disturbed during development will be re-vegetated. At the same time, landscaping is required to be provided in a residential subdivision in a manner which is most consistent with the character planned for the development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. Where units are developed in clusters, landscaping "should also be provided around clusters of units, to create a buffer between denser clusters and lower density and open spaces". The application includes a conceptual landscape plan but it is noted that all landscaping will the responsibility of the individual lot owners. Landscaping is grouped in areas apparently intended to provide visual buffering of the residential structures as viewed from Lake Creek Road and adjacent properties to the north and south. However, there are no guarantees that the proposed landscaping will be installed as shown, if at all. Further complicating the situation in this regard, a significant amount of the landscaping which would provide visual buffering of Lot 3, as viewed from Lake Creek Road, is located on Lot 2, making it appear to be even less likely that it will be installed. Similarly, there are no guarantees provided regarding the installation of the irrigation system. However, it should be noted that landscaping is a significant component in the mitigation of impacts to wildlife, specifically, to buffer elk movement corridors from the residential uses on the site. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to final approval of the plat for this subdivision, a Detailed Landscape Plan per Section 4-220.C., Detailed Landscape Plan, of the Land Use Regulations which is consistent with the conceptual landscape and irrigation plans provided as part ofthe application, and the Applicant should provide a guarantee for the installation of the proposed landscaping and irrigation systems pursuant to Section 4-240., Installation and Maintenance Requirements. [Condition #1] 36 5/16/06 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, of the 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 [I] the reduction in the number of home sites to 3 (from the subdivision preliminary plan) and clustering them near the west side of the site, [2] potential enhancement of the wetlands, [3] upgrading of fencing 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: . Creation two migration corridors, one on the north and one on the south side of the property to maintain the east/west elk migration corridor; . Reduction of the density of the project with the location of the 3 homes appropriately sited to minimize wildlife impacts; . Incorporation of a grazing plan to ensure that there is available forage for wildlife in the pastures and open spaces; and . Inclusion of a mitigation plan to address impacts that could not be reduced or minimized. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has further indicated that the development, with the proposed mitigation, will have addressed its wildlife concerns. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should fully implement all wildlife-related mitigation measures set forth in the Wildlife Section of the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Jerry Powell, Wildlife Specialties, LLC. [Condition #2] Nonetheless, it may be noted that the north-south cross-section of the building envelopes is approximately 740 feet. Staff estimates that the similar cross-section for the recently denied subdivision preliminary plan to have been 820 feet, a reduction of approximately 80 feet. The proposed residential structures themselves are proposed to represent a north-south cross-section of approximately 655 feet, compared an estimated 790 foot cross-section on the earlier subdivision preliminary plan, a reduction of 135 feet. However, the actual location of structures may vary within the building envelope. 37 5/16/06 The Engineering Department notes that the proposed berm shown adjacent to Lot 2 may be filling in the delineated jurisdictional wetlands and has requested that the location of the berm be modified. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has not updated the referral it provided for the subdivision preliminary plan which was recently denied. However, CGS had previously noted 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 the lots east of Lake Creek. 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. Another concern is related to potential subsidence due to the presence of Eagle Valley Evaporite on the site. Due to a known sinkhole within 50 feet of the building envelope on Lot I, CGS recommends that site-specific soil investigations 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 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. Lot 1 may be affected by the potential for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding from the slopes above the property 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 recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated November 7, 2005: a. 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. 38 5/16/06 b. 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. c. 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. d. 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 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 #4] [+] 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. [Condition #5] [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The Director of Environmental Health has not updated his response to the previous subdivision preliminary plan, but has indicated that the earlier response is still valid. At that time, he indicated that air pollution impacts 39 5/16/06 from this development would be enhanced by prohibiting wood burning devices. As a condition of approval, 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 #6] [nla] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not located on land designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Revort (Section 4-460) - An adequate Environmental Impact Report has been provided. [nla] 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) - Roadway standards will not be applicable in the proposed subdivision. Access from Lake Creek Road to the building sites in this development will be by driveways, with the north drive serving Lot I and the south drive serving Lots 2 and 3. Nonetheless, the Engineering Department has not indicated that all construction plans are in a form acceptable for final approval. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - A gravel path had been proposed by the Applicant as part of the earlier 5-lot subdivision preliminary plan, but such a trail has not been included in this 3-lot subdivision. Rather, the Applicant has proposed to merely provide an easement which would extend near the west side of Lake Creek Road for future construction of a trail. 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. It was previously noted that, given the rural nature of the area, an asphalt trail may not be necessary and that the nature of the trail should be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. As a condition of approval, concurrent with construction of other public improvements, the developer should construct an 8 foot wide gravel or base course trail along Lake Creek Road in the proposed trail easement 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. [Condition #7] [+] Irrif[ation 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 ofthe delivery system, and how the ditches and attendant structures on the site will be maintained. Among other requirements, the irrigation delivery 40 5/16/06 system must be reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Director of Environmental Health. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of any final plat for this subdivision, the developer should demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe Director of Environmental Health that all of the requirements of Section 4-640., Irrigation System Standards, have or will be satisfied. [Condition #8] [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated 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, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] The Department of Environmental Health has indicated that its response to the earlier subdivision preliminary plan application is still valid. The Department had 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 oflivestock 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 of livestock 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, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] [+] 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, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] . The Department of Environmental Health has indicated that its response to the earlier subdivision preliminary plan application is still valid. The Department had noted 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 41 5/16/06 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 grazing. [Condition #9] [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The application indicates that potable water will be provided by connecting with the water system of the Upper Eagle Water Authority. However, the Engineering Department has noted that the construction plans show that water service will not be extended to Lot 1. It appears that Lot 1 is served by a well system. Eagle River Fire Protection District has indicated an understanding that the Applicant may be researching an alternative water system consisting of wells and a private water system. A private system would have to provide adequate water flows for fire fighting purposes. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] Street lighting is not required in the Agricultural Limited zone district. [+] Water Suvplv 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 1.01 acre-feet, or a cash-in- lieu payment of $12,510. Since a petition for inclusion into the Edwards Metro District cannot be made until the property is conveyed from the current owner to the Applicant, it cannot been clearly demonstrated in this application that the site will be included in the Edwards Metro District for water service. The Engineering Department had previously noted that the earlier subdivision preliminary plan application lacked detail regarding the private water system, including detail regarding the organizational and financial structure for its operation and maintenance. It does not appear that this information has been provided with this application. 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 and shall demonstrate that the covenant restrictions in this regard will remain in effect and will be adequately enforceable. [Condition #9] [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal 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 and 3 requires special provisions be designed into the type and placement ofthe 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 42 5/16/06 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 #4] 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. 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; [c] the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems; and [d] adequate provisions in the covenants documenting these obligations and requirements and restricting the ability to amend the covenants in this regard. 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 #10] [ +] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The Eagle County School District (RES OJ) has indicated that it will accept payment of cash-in-lieu of land dedication. In this case, the school land dedication for the two new single family dwellings in this subdivision is 0.0302 acres [(0.0151 units/acre) x 2 units]. The Applicant has provided a Summary Appraisal Report which satisfies the requirements of Section 4-700.C., Cash-in- Lieu of Land Dedication. The total value of the 43.689 acre site is established at $8,400,000, a per acre value of$I92,268.07. The resulting payment of cash in lieu of school land dedication is $5,816.50 [$192,268.07 per acre x 0.0302 acres], payment of which is due prior to the time the final plat is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. [+] Road Impact Fees (Section 4-710) - The builders of dwellings on the individual lots will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.I.b.] It HAS been demonstrated that, with the recommended conditions, the proposed subdivision DOES 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 Develooment Standards. 43 5/16/06 STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-290.G.l.c.] - 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 Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 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 5-290.G.l.c.] 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 5-290.G.l.d.] - 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 5-290.G.l.d.] 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 5-290.G.1.e.] - 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 reduction of the number of lots to 3 from the 5 lots proposed in an earlier subdivision preliminary plan application and 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 5-290.G.l.e.] 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. STANDARD: Improvements Agreement. [Section 5-290.G.l.f.] - The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement. It should be noted that the review process for a Type A Minor Subdivision is somewhat unique among subdivision processes in that it results in the approval of what is essentially a subdivision preliminary plan and a subdivision final plat. Certain documents, such as an improvements agreement, are required prior to approval of the final plat, but may not be in final form and executed by the Applicant until after the hearing on the application. In addition, pproval of the proposed subdivision may affect the plat itself and the extent of the public improvements addressed in the improvements agreement. While that is the case with respect to this application, there is no reason to believe that an adequate improvements agreement cannot be finalized fairly quickly. As a condition of approval, a 44 5/16/06 satisfactory improvements agreement and other required documents and payments necessary for final plat approval should be presented for final approval to the Board of County Commissioners on the Consent Agenda at the first available regular Board meeting after which the documents, plat and payments are available. [Condition #11] [+] FINDING: Improvements Agreement. [Section 5-290.G.1.f.] An adequate improvements agreement HAS been provided. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.l.g.] - Conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines. As noted above, the review process for a Type A Minor Subdivision is somewhat unique among subdivision processes in that results in the approval of what is essentially a subdivision preliminary plan and a subdivision final plat. A final plat is nearly ready for Board consideration, but may need to be revised based on conditions approved by the Board. At the time a final plat is in final form and presented to the Board for approval, it is necessary to also present to the Board an improvements agreement and payment in lieu of school land dedication, and demonstrate that all conditions of approval required to be incorporated in the final plat or in conjunction with its approval have been satisfied. As a condition of approval, a satisfactory final plat, improvements agreement and other required documents and payments necessary for final plat approval should be presented for final approval to the Board of County Commissioners on the Consent Agenda at the first available regular Board meeting after which the documents, plat and payments are available. [Condition #ll] [+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.1.g.] The application DOES conform with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Housine 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. The inclusionary housing provisions of the Housing Guidelines are only applicable in a residential development of four or more units. Since this proposed development would be for only three residential lots, these provisions are not applicable. However, the employee-linkage provisions are applicable, but only for the two new dwellings. The Applicant has indicated a willingness to make a payment in lieu to mitigate the employee-linkage related housing impacts. However, the extent of these employee-linkage related housing impacts are dependent on the size of the dwellings, information which is not available at the time of the consideration of this proposed development. A recent calculation by the Housing Department indicates that, based on income and cost data currently available, a payment in lieu for two 7,000 square feet dwellings would be $19,607.73, and for two 12,000 square foot homes would be $75,979.97. As a condition of approval, based on the income and housing cost data current and available at the time, payments in lieu to mitigate employee-linkage housing impacts should be paid prior to the time that building permits are issued for Lot 2 and Lot 3, respectively, and the final plat should include a note which reads as follows: "Workforce Housing Guideline payments shall be subject to the conditions of approval adopted in File Number SMA-00028". [Condition #12] DISCUSSION: Joe Forinash, Eagle County Planner presented the file. He showed a PowerPoint presentation with maps and photos of the property. There was a recent denial of 5 lots for the same property. The current request is for 3 45 5/16/06 lots as opposed to 5 lots. Minor subdivisions are not approved by the planning commission and as such there are no recommendations from that board. The applicant is requesting 3 lots out of a total of 43 acres. The site will be served by a private water system and individual sewage disposal systems. Housing mitigation will be provided by .ayment in lieu. Access to the sites will be by the existing access roads. There are three building envelopes and ne accessory dwelling unit on lot 1. Colorado Division of Wildlife provided an update on this proposal. They noted that there is a mitigation plan proposed, but the impacts have not been reduced or minimized. Landscaping is proposed to provide buffering from the other dwellings and the movement of the elk through the sites. Staff recommends collateralizing the landscaping improvements. The area is currently zoned agricultural limited. There is no zone change required in order to approve this development. Staff findings are positive and staff recommends approval with conditions. Mr. Forinash spoke about condition #6, which requires an 8 foot trail or base course trail parallel to Lake Creek Road and contribution of $12 per linear foot for paving in the future. The applicant objects to the payment portion of this condition. There is a Spur Trail planned for Lake Creek Road. The Eco Trails Coordinator has determined that the West side of Lake Creek Road is more suitable for this future trail. Staff had received an email from one of the neighbors, Susan Miller. Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department representative spoke to the Board. He showed some slides with detail related to the variance requests, File Number VIS-00029 Palmero sa Ranch. The Engineering Department looked at the hardships which included wetlands and covenant lines. He indicated that staff findings were positive and staff recommended approval for both requests. Dominic Mauriello, planner for the applicant spoke to the Board. He stated that the applicant had worked hard to address concerns of the neighbors and the Colorado Department of Wildlife. They are discussing conservation easements with some of the neighbors. They have support from many of the adjacent neighbors. The only condition they would like to negotiate is related to the fees for the recreation path. Chairman Pro-tem Stone opened public comment. Bill Andree, Division of Wildlife spoke to the Board. He believes the applicant has answered the concerns of the Division. Garrett Carlson spoke to the Board. He stated that they would like to live on one of these lots. Kim West spoke. She is happy with the new proposal and thanked the developer. She wondered about the dual access and asked that lot two and three could access the barn directly from the lots. Regarding wildlife she asked that everything be framed in for the winters so that the wildlife would continue to use and migrate through the property. She also asked that there be no accessory dwelling units. She wondered if the existing barn would be remodeled and turned into a caretaker unit. Wendell Porterfield spoke on behalf of Judy Pyle. She is in support of the revised plan. Spencer Denison spoke to the Board. He is in support of the revised plan and appreciates the agreement the developer has worked out with the neighbors to pursue a conservation easement. He is a bit concerned that the area that is now proposed as open space doesn't but up against the Miller / Chipman property. There is also a homeowner's group which will have an obligation to maintain the meadows. Bill Rey spoke. He is an adjacent owner. He is a bit concerned about the possibility of accessory dwelling units. He wondered about the Lake Creek Road entrance. Commissioner Menconi stated that the Board has sat through many of the files presented by the applicant. He believes that the applicant has gone above and beyond the call of duty. The fact that there will be three homes, the wildlife corridor will be maintained, wildlife fencing will be replaced and the developer has made a commitment to expand the open space portion of the property. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked about the engineering variance from improvement files. He requested a motion for the VIS file first. He stated that he agrees that an easement should be granted larger than 8 feet. Mr. Mauriello indicated that there would be a 20 foot wide easement. Commissioner Menconi asked to see a previous slide. He would eliminate that construction of the public improvement be required. Walter Matthews stated that Mr. Mauriello had stated there would be a 20 foot easement. Mr. Mauriello stated that this easement is already on the plat that has been submitted. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the variance requests ne and two, File No. VIS-00029 Palmero sa Ranch including the conditions in the staff report. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. 46 5/16/06 Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve File No. SMA-00028, incorporating the staff findings and with the following conditions: I. The Applicant shall provide, prior to final approval of the plat for this subdivision, a Detailed Landscape Plan per Section 4-220.C., Detailed Landscape Plan, of the Land Use Regulations which is consistent with the conceptual landscape and irrigation plans provided as part of the application, and the Applicant shall provide a guarantee for the installation of the proposed landscaping and irrigation systems pursuant to Section 4-240., Installation and Maintenance Requirements. 2. The Applicant shall fully implement all wildlife-related mitigation measures set forth in the Wildlife Section of the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Jerry Powell, Wildlife Specialties, LLC. 3. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. 4. The developer shall 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 IS, 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 recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated November 7, 2005: a. 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. b. 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 shall not be used for structural fill and shall be removed prior to foundation placement. c. 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. f. 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 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. 47 5/16/06 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. 5. Notes shall 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. 6. 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 and will be adequately enforceable. 7. A satisfactory final plat, improvements agreement and other required documents and payments necessary for final plat approval shall be presented for final approval to the Board of County Commissioners on the Consent Agenda at the first available regular Board meeting after which the documents, plat and payments are available. 8. Based on the income and housing cost data current and available at the time, payments in lieu to mitigate employee-linkage housing impacts shall be paid prior to the time that building permits are issued for Lot 2 and Lot 3, respectively, and the final plat shall include a note which reads as follows: "Workforce Housing Guideline payments shall be subject to the conditions of approval adopted in File Number SMA-00028". 9. 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. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. VIS-00029 Palmero sa Ranch Greg Schroeder, Engineering ACTION: Variance from Improvement Standards request for Dual Access and cul-de-sac turnaround length requirements. Proposed development consists of three single-family home sites on a 43.689 acre parcel LOCATION: Primarily west of Lake Creek Road, approximately 1 mile south ofHwy 6 (887 Lake Creek Road) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval FILE NO.: RELATED FILE NOS.: OWNER: APPLICANT: tEPRESENTATIVE: VIS-00029, Variance from Improvement Standards SMA-00028 Palmero sa Ranch, LLC Palmero sa Development Company, LLC / Jim Cornerford Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 48 5/16/06 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLVR 4-620J.l.h), and also from the Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds Length requirement (ECLVR 4-620.D.9.a). The proposed development consists of three single-family home sites, 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. While the two access roads into the site are not connected, proposed 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. B. CHRONOLOGY: September 1984 An 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. Subdivision Sketch Plan for Palmerosa Ranch with 5 residential lots was approved. An application for a Subdivision Preliminary Plan which included 5 residential lots was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. A companion Limited Review for four accessory dwelling units had previously been withdrawn. November 1985 July 2005 February 2006 c. SITE DATA: Surroundin2 Land Uses / Zonine: East: Residential / PUD West: Agricultural / AL North: Agricultural; residential / AL South: Residential / RR, PUD Existin2 Zonin2: Agricultural Limited Proposed Zonine: No change in zoning is proposed Proposed No. of Dwelling 3 Units: Total Area: 43.689 acres Minimum Lot Area: 13.425 acres Maximum Lot Area: 14.858 acres Water: Central water system connected to Upper Eagle Water Authority system Sewer: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Access: Lake Creek Road 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES 49 5/16/06 Colorado State Forest Service Per a letter dated April 25, 2006, 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. Eaele River Fire Protection District Per a memorandum dated April 17, 2006, from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief: I. The proposed water supply extended from ERW &S District at the north driveway and hydrant locations are acceptable for fire fighting water supply. I understand the applicant is also researching an alternative water system consisting of wells and a private distribution system. A private system will need to provide fire flows based on NFPA 1142 as adopted by Eagle County. 2. Access, road grades and widths are acceptable. 3. The project has been scaled down with 1 driveway serving 1 home and the other serving 2 homes. I don't believe the requirement for dual access was intended for a project this size. Note: The referrals shown above are the only referrals that are relevant to this Variance file. Please see the associated SMA-00028 file for a complete listing of all referrals. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: This parcel is located at 887 Lake Creek Road, and presently has two existing accesses to Lake Creek Road. The north access, ("North Drive") is located near the northwest corner of the parcel, and runs east- west providing access to Lot #l. The south access ("South Drive") is located approximately 750' to the south, and also runs east-west providing access to Lots #2 and #3. 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) 50 5/16/06 Reference 4-620.J1.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. The 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 Palmero sa 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. 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 Lot #1. 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. Variance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds (ECLUR 4-620.D.9.a) The South Drive road is approximately 1,200' 10ng to the cul-de-sac, which exceeds the 1,000' requirement. A variance from the cul-de-sac and turnarounds requirement (ECLUR 4-620..D.9.a) is requested. 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 roads which exceed 1,000 feet in length. In such instances, emergency vehicle turnaround areas shall be provided at the initial 1 000 foot mark and at 1000 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 of the wetlands boundary. An additional turnaround located on the proposed road would have an adverse impact to the wetlands. ERFPD has stated that the "access, road grades and widths are 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) E. STAFF FINDINGS: Criteria for Evaluation by the County Eneineer 51 5/16/06 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..." For this evaluation, Staff interpreted the standards in the ECLVR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values," since the ECLVR 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 ifthe ECLUR is strictly followed. Staff Findines 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 The applicant has minimized the number of new roads to be constructed on the site by utilitizing established road corridors. 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 access, grades, and widths are acceptable. The applicant has demonstrated that the Fire Department's engine is 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 the neighborhood. Staff finds that granting the Variance from Improvement Standards for the two points of access will 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 is utilizing the South Drive Road existing road corridor. The proposed cul-de-sac is located at the western boundary of the wetlands. Ifthe 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 access, grades, and widths are 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 52 5/16/06 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 Findines The Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings in order to approve this file: (ECLUR 5-260.G.2) Findings for Variance Request #1 - Two Points of Access The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. Findings for Variance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. *This file was presented concurrently with File No. SMA-00028. Attest: 53 5/16/06