The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 07/17/06 PUBLIC HEARING July 17, 2006 sent: Peter Runyon Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Pat Magdziuk Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Deputy Clerk & Recorder Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Tom Stone Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advise and discuss matters that may be subject to negotiations regarding personnel issues with the IT department and potential property acquisition which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to c.R.S. 24-6-402 (4)(b) and (e), Colorado Revised Statutes. At the close of the discussion, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: Approval of bill paying for the week of July 17,2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of the payroll for July 20,2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Grant of easement between Eagle County and Town of Gypsum County Attorney's Office Representative D. First amendment between Eagle County, Colorado and Morter Architects County Attorney's Office Representative E. Agreement between Eagle County and Venturoni Surveys and Research Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-E Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. izen Input There was none. 1 7/17/06 Request for support for Natural Resource Damage Funds Eagle River Watershed Council Representative Caroline Bradford, Executive Director of Eagle River Watershed Council spoke. She requested that the Board support a project to restore the Eagle River in the Edwards area. Maria Pastore, Project manager for the Lake Creek Watershed Council reported on the three areas that had been selected for the restoration project. She discussed the procedure to restore the width of the channel, replace missing streamside vegetation, restore natural pool sequences, stabilize the eroded banks, and increase the sinuosity of the stream during low flow conditions, etc. The project site is approximately 1.5 miles long. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation plant is in the project site area and supports the project. Ms. Bradford stated the Watershed Council had applied for a portion of the Natural Resource Damage fund. $2.4 million is available for projects that have to happen in the watershed district. She explained the process for applying for the funds and listed the members of this work group for this project. She explained how the matching grant worked starting with the county level. She stated that the approximate amount of the award is between $750,000 and one million dollars. She asked for the Board's support for additional matching funds. Chairman Runyon wondered who the owners of the property were. Ms. Bradford stated that there were thirteen owners. The project would require the support and cooperation of all the property owners. She explained that most of the property is wetland and within the 100-year floodplain. Commissioner Menconi asked how much money she was asking for. Ms. Bradford stated that she is looking for donations from all property owners and an undetermined amount from the county. She needs the counties help in getting the million dollars from the EP A. She estimates the project to be around $4,000,000. She pointed out various zones that require extreme help in restoration. She stated that the project is a natural resource project. Chairman Runyon stated that he believes agricultural usage had contributed to the decay of the Eagle River. He stated that the Board would do whatever they could do to support this at the state level. It would be an enormous benefit for the entire county. Kathleen Forinash stated her interest in how the improvements would benefit families with young children. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Watershed Council intends to ask for funds for the Black Gore Creek proj ect. Ms. Bradford stated that a meeting was planned and she intends to ask for their support, but is not sure of the dollar amount. Commissioner Menconi stated he is certainly willing to sign a letter in support. Ms. Bradford explained her intentions to raise funds from homeowners and various governmental entities. Commissioner Menconi asked about Eagle River on the western end of the county. He wondered what was happening on the river near the gravel pit. Ms. Bradford stated the natural resource component of the river is in very good shape but not necessarily from a recreational component. She explained how the Watershed Council does research along the Eagle River and how they plan to look at larger overall problems that will have a positive effect on smaller issues. Commissioner Menconi stated his desire to be more proactive in the preservation of the Eagle River. Ms. Bradford provided the Board with a sample letter for the Board's consideration. Employee Recognition Nora Fryklund, Human Resources Chairman Runyon read a letter received from Vail Resorts Development Company and Red Sky Golf Club that expressed their appreciation for Ray Merry's help in bringing the Red Sky Golf Club Clubhouse back into operation after the roof collapsed on June 5th. Ray Merry, Director of Environmental Health, explained the circumstances ofthe collapse. Mr. Merry introduced the staff members responsible for the completion. Chairman Runyon presented Mr. Merry with a gift certificate to share with his staff. 2 7/17/06 Other Commissioner Menconi brought up the river and wildlife corridor regulations. He wondered how they would 't affect the citizens in areas east of 131 and south of the 1-70 corridor. He believes that these areas are ones where cans and wildlife are close together. He would like to find a way to protect the integrity of ranch owners and their concerns and the concentrated urban areas of the valley. He would like to see Mr. Merry come before the Board with proposed overlays. He has concerns about property in this area with high wildlife corridors that are not ranchlands, but citizens are concerned about. Chairman Runyon stated that when looking at 1041 and wildlife regulations, an overlay was proposed to protect the historic integrity of the Burns area Commissioner Menconi asked if a tool were in place for the Town of Eagle, then they would be able talk in terms of community protection for wildlife corridor. He would like to establish zones selectively. Chairman Runyon stated that the idea came from Cliff Simonton. He suggested a zoning overlay over the National Forest Lands so it would make it more challenging for the purchaser to develop. Planning Files AFP-00226 Cordillera Filio2 No. 34. Block 4. Lot 9 Joe Forinash, Community Development NOTE: Tabled from 6/27/06 ACTION: An amended final plat which would relocate the building envelope for the purpose of maximizing the development opportunity. T ~CATION: 0714 Gore Trail (Cordillera) '-- 'AFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board table File No. AFP-00226 Cordillera Filing No. 34, Block 4, Lot 9 until August 15,2006, at the applicant's request. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00061 Arrowhead at Vail PUD Joe Forinash, Planning Department ACTION: PUD Amendment which would restrict timeshare, interval ownership and fractional fee estate ownership in single-family lots in Lower Bachelor Gulch Village. LOCATION: Arrowhead at Vail PUD (either side ofHwy 6, between Avon and Edwards) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PDA-00061 / PUD Amendment South of U.S. Highway 6, East of Homestead, West of Beaver Creek Vail/Arrowhead, Inc. Pylman & Associates (Rick Pylman) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with condition ANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with condition (5-0) 3 7/17/06 PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Planning Commission asked for clarification of several points regarding the proposed change including [1] the history of time share uses throughout the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, [2] the reasons for the proposed amendment, [3] whether there are any existing time share uses on single family lots that would be affected, and [4] whether ownershi] by several family members or renting of a single family home might be precluded by this amendment. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: An amendment to the PUD Guide which would place restrictions on the permitted location of timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses on single family lots within the Lower Bachelor Gulch Village portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. All other properties within Lower Bachelor Gulch would not be affected by the proposed amendment and would therefore be only subject to existing limitations in the Arrowhead PUD Guide or their respective project association document, if any. Primary enforcement of these provisions would be through the Bachelor Gulch Village Association, as provided in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Bachelor Gulch Village. A map that highlights the properties listed in the proposed amendment where timeshare, interval ownership and fraction sharing uses will be restricted is attached to this staff report. As background for this PUD amendment, prior to 2002 the PUD Guide explicitly permitted interval ownership uses in certain areas of the Bachelor Gulch Village portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, but was silent with respect to interval ownership as a permitted use in the balance of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, including that area commonly referred to as "Arrowhead". At the time, it had been understood by some that interval ownership was not a permitted use except where it was explicitly listed in the PUD Guide as a permitted use. However, in response to a specific inquiry, the County Attorney's Office determined that, at least in part because "interval ownership" has elements of being both a land use and an ownership arrangement, the silence in the PUD Guide regarding the preclusion of interval ownership meant that interval ownership was permitted throughout the PUD. In 2002, an amendment to the Arrowhead at Vail PUD Guide was approved which [1] restricted timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in most areas of the Arrowhead portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, but [2] did not restrict such uses in the Bachelor Gulch Village portion ofthe Arrowhead at Vail PUD. B. CHRONOLOGY: 1983 - Initial PUD Preliminary Plan for Arrowhead at Vail approved. 1993 - Certain amendments to the Arrowhead at Vail PUD Preliminary Plan approved, which now authorizes a total of 2,025 dwelling units and 197,000 square feet of commercial space. 2003 - PUD Preliminary Plan was amended to restrict timeshare, interval ownership and fractional share uses on certain single-family lots in the Arrowhead at Vail PUD other than those in Lower Bachelor Gulch Village. c. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Resort-Residential (Beaver Creek) / PUD West: Residential (Homestead) / PUD North: Residential! PUD, RSL, Town of Avon South: USFS, State Land Board, Resort-Residential (Beaver Creek) / R, PUD Existing Zoning: PUD Total Area: 2,353 acres Water: Arrowhead Metro District Sewer: Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District Access: U.S. Highway 6 4 7/17!06 2. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineer . No comment. Other Referrals: Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Housing Department and the Arrowhead Metropolitan District. B. FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - 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 standards of the PUD. Due to the fact that the Arrowhead at Vail Planned Unit Development, as platted, is largely built-out, all of the land that is the subject of this PUD Amendment is not owned or controlled by one person. However, the application has been filed by Bachelor Gulch Village Association on behalf of the PUD as a whole. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (I)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. HOWEVER, the Applicant is Bachelor Gulch Village Association on behalf of the PUD as a whole. 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 proposed amendment would restrict certain permitted uses, specifically, timeshare, interval ownership and fraction sharing uses, in certain areas within the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Timeshare and fractional fee estate uses are not permitted in the Resource Zone District, the zoning that was in effect prior to the earlier change to PUD zoning. This amendment would make the uses more consistent with the zoning in effect at the time of the earlier application to change the zoning from Resource to PUD. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] All of the proposed additional uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. 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. 5 7/17/06 No changes in dimensional limitations are proposed as part of this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual 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 proposed amendment will not adversely affect the adequacy of off-street parking and loading. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the adequacy of the existing off-street parking and loading. 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 from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the landscaping within the PUD. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved PUD Preliminary Plan HAS been determined to have complied with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. With the recommended condition, the proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT impact existing landscaping nor require additional landscaping. 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 Ref!ulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 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. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on signs other than those already provided in the Amended and Restated Guide to the Planned Unit Development Plan, currently in effect for Arrowhead at Vail. I [+] FINDING: Signs. rSection 5-240.F.3.e(6)1 6 7/17/06 The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in the Amended and Restated Guide to the Planned Unit Development Plan, currently in effect for Arrowhead at Vail. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, nor will it affect the location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency 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 off-site. (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 off-street parking areas. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely affect the adequacy of these improvements nor warrant additional improvements. 7 7/17/06 [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: (a) safe, efficient access, (b) internal pathways, (c) emergency vehicles, (d) principal access points, and (e) snow storage. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed amended PUD will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD HAS been determined to be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect this compatibility. 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 following analysis with respect to the Master Plan and the FLUM applies only to the changes proposed in the PUD Amendment, as submitted by the Applicant. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN w CIl ....l ~CIl Cl < W E-< Z E-< Z E-<w < a'i u w u~ Uu CIl CIl ....l ~ ~ ::J...... w ww w ~ ~ ......u C ~> u ~u > 51: ~ 0 8~ E-<~ ~~ Z CIlW ......~ ...... ....l V3 ~CIl w::J ....l::J E-< ~...... w W Zo E-<O ClO V3 ..........l :::E > > OCll ::J ~Cl <CIl ....lCll a'i >< ::J 0 w uw 0 25~ ~gj ~gj z::J ....l C Cl w~ ::c: CIl wC/ ~ CONFORMS x x x x x x x x x x DOES NOT CONFORM MIXED CONFORMANCE NA Remarks: See below. It has previously been found that the PUD is in conformance with the Eagle County Master Plan. The proposed PUD Amendment is not sufficiently different in character or magnitude to alter conformance with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map, and makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 8 7/17/06 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. Phasing is not required for this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. 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 of25% 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. i. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Soace. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Ooen 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. b. 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 establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. c. 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. d. 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate common recreation and open space were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of these amenities. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been determined that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD with respect to (a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing use and maintenance; or (d) organization. 9 7/17/06 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate protection of natural resources were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on natural resources. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS previously been determined that applicable analysis documents were adequately considered prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. With the recommended condition of approval, adequate protection of natural resources HAS been provided for. 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 Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. See discussion above, under Consistency with Comprehensive Plan [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is also consistent with the provisions of Article 3, Zone Districts, of the current Land Use Regulations. Prior to 2002 the PUD Guide explicitly permitted interval ownership uses in certain areas of the Bachelor Gulch Village portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, but was silent with respect to interval ownership as a permitted use in the balance of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, including that area commonly referred to as "Arrowhead". At the time, it had been understood by some that interval ownership was not a permitted use except where it was explicitly listed in the PUD Guide as a permitted use. However, in response to a specific inquiry, the County Attorney's Office determined that, at least in part because "interval ownership" has elements of being both a land use and an ownership arrangement, the silence in the PUD Guide regarding the preclusion of interval ownership meant that interval ownership was permitted throughout the PUD. In 2002, an amendment to the Arrowhead at Vail PUD Guide was approved which [1] restricted timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in most areas of the Arrowhead portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, but [2] did not restrict such uses in the Bachelor Gulch Village portion ofth Arrowhead at Vail PUD. 10 7/17/06 Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan was approved, it had been demonstrated that applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the earlier finding. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect compliance with these standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle Countv Road Cavital Improvements Plan. (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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have an efficient spatial pattern. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely affect the spatial patterns in the area. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the area was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been determined that the site was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT alter the suitability of the property. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely affect the compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. 11 7/17/06 [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the compatibility of the resulting development with surrounding uses. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." A revised text which is proposed to be inserted into the existing PUD Guide has been provided. A completely revised PUD Guide will be required prior to recording the resolution memorializing approval of the PUD amendment. It should be noted that enforcement by Eagle County of these provisions regarding fractional fee ownership could potentially be problematic. The Applicant has indicated that primary enforcement would be through the Bachelor Gulch Village Association. The Applicant also notes that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR) for Bachelor Gulch Village subjects all properties to the restrictions contained in the zoning documents for Bachelor Gulch Village, and all such provisions are enforceable pursuant to applicable sections of the CCR. The Applicant further acknowledges that enforcement of these provisions regarding fractional fee ownership may not be a high priority for Eagle County. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide which incorporates the necessary revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment The requirements of this Section are fully met. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] -No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The proposed PUD Amendment satisfies the requirements of this Standard. [+] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F. 3.m. ] The proposed PUD Amendment (I) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. DISCUSSION: Mr. Forinash presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included a site and vicinity map of the area. Mr. Forinash stated that in 2003, the PUD preliminary plan was amended to restrict timeshare, interval ownership and fractional share uses on certain single-family lots in the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Excluded were multi-family units in the Arrowhead. The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD amendment, which would place restrictions on the permitted location of timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share, uses on single- family lots within the Bachelor Gulch portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. All other properties in Lower Bachelor Gulch Village would not be affected and would be subject to existing limitations in the Arrowhead PUD 12 7/17/06 Guide and respective project association documents, if any. Mr. Forinash indicated that all findings were positive and staff recommended approval. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve File No. PDA-00061, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following condition: 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. SUP-00009 and ZC-00083 Emma Farms Subdivision Joe Forinash, Planning Department ACTION: Zone change from Resource (R) to Agricultural Residential (AR) and preliminary plan approval for a subdivision for 5 residential lots in Eagle County portion of parcel of from 6014 acres each around a 65 acre agricultural open space parcel in both Eagle and Pitkin Counties. Agricultural uses would be preserved. Water would be from wells; wastewater treatment would be by individual systems. LOCATION: 3004 Emma Road, West of Hooks Lane (south ofEl Jebel, west of Basalt) at the Eagle-Pitkin County Line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Commissioner Menconi moved to table File Number SUP-00009 and ZC-00083 Emma Farms Subdivision until August 29,2006, at the applicant's request. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. LUR-0055 - Ea2le County Land Use Re2ulation Amendment for Stream Setback Allison Ochs, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 3/28/06 and 5/16/06 Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation Stream Setback Standards. LOCATION: NIA TITLE: Amendment to Chapter II, Article 3, SECTION 3-340. ZONE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS Eagle County Department of Community Development Eagle County Department of Community Development APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 13 7/17/06 To amend Section 3-340, Zone District Dimensional Limitations, specifically Section 3-340.C.6, Stream Setbacks, to modify the minimum stream setback in all zone districts from 50 ft. to 75 ft., and to delineate certain exceptions to the 75 ft. setback (see attached). 2. STAFF REPORT B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Vail Resorts, email dated February 21,2006 (see attached): Gerry Amold, with Vail Resorts, provided proposed modifications to the draft language, including: . Modifying the text to allow for a reduction in the horizontal measurement to accommodate the influence of a bank on water containment. . Modifying the definition of "stream" to not apply to water flow resulting from rainwater or snowmelt runoff, water courses emitting from settling ponds, and water contained in drainage pipes. . Modifying the text so that it does not apply to any lots platted by subdivision or exemption plats prior to the adoption of these proposed regulations. . Modifying the text to allow ski trails, other ski terrain improvements, chairlifts and golf course terrain improvements. Eagle County Engineering, memo dated February 21,2006 (see attached): Eagle County Engineering had no comments on the application. ECO Trails, phone call of January 25,2006: Ellie Caryl expressed concerns about bike paths being permitted in the stream setback. She requested language to permit public multi-use paths in the stream setback. This language has been added. Colorado Geological Survey, memo dated February 16, 2006 (see attached): . 75 ft. setback from a stream is commendable, particularly given what I've seen of development in othe counties. . The exceptions, whereby a 50 ft. setback could be used, seem to provide developers no incentives to consider the 75-ft limit. . Unless the county uses a point system to rate different aspects of an application, I do not see why the increased setback would not be more challenged than not. Eagle River Fire Protection District, phone call from Carol Gill-Mulson of January 18, 2006 Reviewed the proposal, and offered no specific recommendations. HP Geotech, phone call of January 19,2006 Dan Hardin reviewed the proposal, and offered no specific recommendations Public Comment: Scott Skelton, email dated February 10,2006 (see attached): Stated that existing owners of land adjacent to streams need to be protected and should not have to go through an extra review step to maintain the 50 ft. setback. Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney's Office, Eagle County Engineering Department, Eagle County Department of Environmental Health, Eagle County Assessor's Office, Colorado Department of Local Affairs (Division of Planning), all private planning firms in Eagle County, all private engineering and surveying firms in Eagle County, all listed private architectural and construction firms in Eagle County and surrounding region, Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Basalt, Town of Gypsum. C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS: 14 7/17/06 Eagle County Planning Commission: On April 5, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment in a worksession. The following summarizes the Planning Commission comments, and outlines the language that was added in response. Include the ability to refer projects to outside and internal agencies. It is acceptable to bring in outside agencies or consultants. The burden should be on the applicant. Language has been added, stating the following: At the discretion of the Community Development Director, the report may be referred to outside agencies for comment, including but not limited to the Eagle County Department of Environmental Heath, Colorado Geological Survey, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, or any other applicable agency. Add language about riparian areas and wetlands. Use language that more describes the purpose of the amendment rather than just "stream setback". The regulation is about the protection of a natural resource. Language has been added, stating the following: Stream Setbacks and Water Resource Protection. For the purpose of protecting water resources, including wetlands and riparian areas, the following shall be observed in all zone districts... If necessary to protect the stream, wetlands, or riparian areas, additional width may be required. Focus on the finding being a finding of no significant impact. It may require some change to the current process. Language has been added based on the 1041 "FONSI" process. The language is identical to the language currently proposed for the review of landscape berms (see attached). This will add time to the review process for structures or uses proposed to be located within the 50 ft. to 75 ft. setback area. Clarify and clean up the language regarding footpaths. Focus on unimproved or natural materials. Language has been added as follows: .. footpaths not exceeding 3 feet in width following a route which minimizes disturbance and formed of generally natural, pervious materials; The Eagle County Planning Commission reviewed the modifications on May 3, 2006, and had no additional comments. At this meeting Ken Neubecker, former member of the Eagle County Planning Commission, spoke in support of the amendment, but stated that he would like to see the language made more clear that new development needs to comply with the 75 ft. setback and would not use (6) to receive an exception. Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission: On March 2,2006, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission recommended approval with a few minor amendments including the following: . Change "the removal of noxious weeds or Tamarisk" to "the removal of state-listed noxious weeds" . Change "and that all construction scars are revegetated" to "and that all construction scars are revegetated with appropriate vegetation and sufficient temporary irrigation, if necessary" . Add language stating the following: "In order to be considered for an exception, the applicant must clearly demonstrate compliance with all the following criteria" E. STAFF DISCUSSION: 15 7/17/06 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals. the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs; 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Publil notice HAS been given; 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of Chapter II, Article 3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided (please see attached). 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable: STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the Comprehensive Plan. EaQle Countv Comnrehenslve Plan <U U ~ E <U ;> o Cj 15 <U E 0- o Q) ;> <U Q u '" 's 8 g 5 o '" ~~ 00 .5 '" ~ o ::r: e '" ~ <U ~ U U .~ E c: gjJ:l <l::"O ..s ~ '" <U U .... .... ~ <U 0 1;j '" ~~ '" <U ~ ~ "0 5 ~~ <U .:: ~ '" '00 "'0 5 ~ CIl",", ea ~ E !':: ;>. o~ .... .~ os: c; !':: ~ ~CI ::E :::J ....:i ~ Conformance x x x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x x x General Governance - Conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan; specifically, with the core values of this document. Development - The rivers and streams are integral to the scenic quality of Eagle County. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the proposed amendment simultaneously seek to preserve scenic resources for both visitors and the citizens of Eagle County; for the present and the future. The proposed amendment conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Economic Resources - The proposed amendment supports and preserves the regional economic structure by protecting one of the major resources of this area. Attraction of new residents; tourist dollars resulting from the participation in water-related activities; and the quality of life of existing residents depends on natural resources such as scenic and/or the natural beauty of our environment. The proposed amendment conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing - This amendment does not correlate to this section. Infrastructure and Services - This amendment does not correlate to this section. Water Resources - The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the proposed amendment seek to protect water resources in Eagle County by providing a natural, undisturbed buffer between steams and 16 7/17/06 development activities. Simultaneously, the amendment allows for site-specific analysis in cases where the proposed 75 ft. amendment would be onerous on applicants. The flexibility allows for the protection of water resources while protecting the needs of residents. Nildlife Resources - Increasing the stream setback and clarifying uses allowed to be located in the stream setback will allow for a buffer between streams and development activities. This is invaluable wildlife habitat, used by a variety of wildlife species. Sensitive Lands - This amendment supports the policies of this section in its intent to preserve and protect sensitive riparian areas in Eagle County. Environmental Quality - The proposed amendment conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) - This amendment does not correlate to this section Ea2le River Watershed Plan 6.3.2 Objective: Maintain and Increase Riparian Habitat 3. Implement Stream Buffer Standards For development, require a river or creek "buffer zone" where vegetation and soil must remain undisturbed and intact to protect the riparian habitat. Enhancement of the native vegetation should occur if historic use has degraded the riparian habitat. Work with private developers to create developments that have the least impacts on the riparian habitat (such as clustering housing) and set aside riparian areas as open space. As proposed, the amendments to the stream setback requirements limit grading or removal of vegetation within the stream setback. This is intended to protect the riparian habitat. Certain improvements are permitted, as long as site disturbance is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 8.3.1 Objective: Coordinate and Improve Watershed Planning and Planning Tools 4. Revise River/Creek Setbacks for Consistency and Sensitive Land Protection SEE ATTACHED This section of the Eagle River Watershed Plan recommends a 75 ft. setback and much of the language of this recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed stream setback regulation. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l.] The proposed regulation amendment is in conformance with the Master/Comprehensive 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. The issue of compatibility does not pertain to this proposal. 17 7/17/06 [+] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] - The issue of compatibility IS NOT applicable to this proposed amendment. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modifY the use or density/intensity. Conditions have changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] There ARE changed conditions that require this amendment. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. This amendment will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. On the contrary, these amendments are expected to have a positive effect on the environment by protecting water quality, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands, and scenic community character. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA.] - The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need. It is imperative to ensure that wildlife habitat and water quality are protected. The protection of wildlife habitat and water quality is necessary for the viability of Eagle County. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] - It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment addresses a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] - Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern, and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. Specific development patterns and services do not apply to this proposal. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] - Specific development patterns and services DO NOT apply to this proposed amendment. 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. These amendments do not intend to encourage new land uses or densities; however, they will provide a more effective tool for analyzing new proposals. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] - 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 amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 18 7/17/06 DISCUSSION: Ms. Ochs presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation explained the purpose, goals, background, existing regulations, exceptions, and referral responses etc. The purpose of the amendment is the rotection of water quality, protections of habitat for wildlife, protection of valuable resource, implementation of comprehensive plan and implementation of watershed plan. The goals of the regulation would clarify the existing language, allow some degree of flexibility, provide a method to deal with existing non-conformities and create a regulation that is simple to administer and enforce. It was proposed to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to modify the minimum stream setback in all zone districts from SOft. to 7Sft., and the delineated certain exceptions to the 7Sft. setback. Ms. Ochs summarized the proposed changes and stated that the approval process would include a "FONSI". The Community Development Director may approve a reduction of the stream setback to minimum of SOft. in certain circumstances. Commissioner Menconi wondered what the "other" circumstances might be on the exceptions list. Ms. Ochs stated that the intent was to catch those that may have already had their lots platted previously with the SOft. setback. The applicant would still be required to meet all other criteria. Commissioner Menconi asked if all the exceptions were at staff level. Ms. Ochs stated that the exceptions were at stafflevel but would require the Board's approval on the consent agenda. Ms. Ochs read the modifications based on Planning Commission input. Clarification of footpaths, ability to refer exceptions to outside agencies, and procedure for "FONSI" to correspond with the procedure for review were explained. The proposal was referred to 280 private and public agencies. The response was minimal. There was one property owner, Scott Skelton, who objected. He purchased property 7 years ago under the assumption that he could build under current setback requirements. Commissioner Menconi wondered about Vail Resort's response to modify text to allow for a reduction in the horizontal measurement to accommodate the influence of a bank on water containment. Ms. Ochs stated that it is similar to the deep slope theory. Commissioner Menconi also wondered about Vail Resort's request to modify text so that it does not apply to any lots platted by subdivision or exemption plats prior to the adoption of the proposed regulations. Ms. Ochs stated that the regulation would apply to platted subdivisions but would not apply to subdivisions vith platted building envelopes. Chairman Runyon asked about the lots in West Vail that were platted with a 2Sft. setback. He wonders how they would be able to move forward. Ms. Ochs stated that those people would be required to go through the variance process. Commissioner Menconi asked what had been gained. Ms. Ochs stated that especially with new development a strong position to do more protection of the stream corridors and on existing development; there is an ability to review each lot individually. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Ochs if she believed there was enough attention paid to maintaining the original steam embankments. Ms. Ochs stated that a statement had been added in the stream setback regulation that says no grading or removal of vegetation may occur within the steam setback. Commissioner Menconi stated that he believes that if something is approved along the river, it should require a trail or an easement dedicated to the county to allow for public access to natural recourses. Mr. Morris stated that it is impossible to force a developer to give something that serves the community purpose unless you can show that it is related to impacts of what they are doing on the community. He believes it is would be a tough standard. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Ms. Ochs requested a minimum of 90 days to implement the regulation. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File Number LUR-OOSS to amend Chapter II: Article 3, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, to take affect in 90 days from today's late. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. 19 7/17/06 LUR-0064 Rid2eline Protection Amendment Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department ACTION: Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations Article 4: Ridgeline Protection (section 4 450) to further clarify, expand and strengthen the submittal requirements and criteria/standards for development in certain areas of Eagle County as identified in this section. LOCATION: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TITLE: Amendment to Chapter II: Articles 2 and 4 FILE NO./PROCESS: LUR-0064/ Amendment to Ridgeline Protection Regulations APPLICANT: Eagle County Department of Community Development REPRESENTATIVE: Eagle County Department of Community Development 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. Modify the current definition (both in written and illustrative forms) for 'ridgeline' as found in Article 2: Definitions. In addition, introduce definitions to further clarify aspects of the proposed ridgeline regulations. The current definition of ridge line as found in Article 2: Definitions does not clearly define all aspects of a ridgeline. The current illustration supporting the definition is confusing, and does not communicate the intent of the text. The proposed amendments to the text focus on key terminology and create clear, distinct definitions. With the new illustrations, less interpretation and greater understanding of the ridge line protection intent is achieved. 2. Expand and strengthen Article 4, Section 4-450 Ridgeline Protection Standards, in order to preserve Eagle County's scenic qualities. Currently, Section 4-450 pertains to areas as seen from 1-70. The proposed amendment to Article 4 intends to expand the areas of ridge line protection throughout Eagle County along certain key transportation routes other than just the 1-70 corridor. Pursuant to this proposed amendment, ridgeline protection will be expanded to include: Highway 131, Squaw Creek Road, Brush Creek Road, Lake Creek Road, West Lake Creek Road, El Jebel Road, Frying Pan Road, Highway 82, and Highway 24; however, the intent of the existing regulations shall remain the same. The current regulations state, "The purpose of the Ridgeline Protection Section is to preserve and maintain the County's scenic resources as viewed from the Interstate 70 roadway corridor that are important to the character and economy of Eagle County. This is accomplished by the establishment of ridgeline areas within which the location and design of development is reviewed to maintain the natural appearance of the mountain skyline and to avoid penetration or interruption of the natural skyline by development." As developments, including 35 acre developments, grow further away from 1- 70 and along other major transportation corridors utilized by tourist and recreation enthusiasts, it becomes necessary to expand ridgeline protection to safeguard Eagle County's valuable scenic resources. In addition to expanding the areas of the county subject to ridgeline protection, this amendment also proposes to include building permit applications in addition to Special Use Permits and subdivision Sketch and Preliminary Plan applications; to expand on the mitigation criteria. 20 7/17/06 The Community Development Staff has been working closely with the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Department to ensure that the proposed amendment is reasonable and has a sound methodology for analysis. Staff currently plans to create "indicator" ridgeline maps to replace the current Ridgeline Protection Map as referenced in the current Regulations. These maps utilize the Eagle County GIS database and mapping information including street/road information, parcel outlines, and a "digital elevation model" (DEM)- (which is a computer simulated, 3-D landscape of the county); and combines this data with certain parameters to create maps of the county that may have potential ridgeline impacts. The new maps utilize the same objective ofthe Ridgeline Protection Map; however, it is based in real data as opposed to the previous subjective method of map creation which relied on a person driving down 1-70 and arbitrarily selecting areas of ridgeline protection. The following is the current methodology for creating the indicator maps and analysis: Vantage Points: . The transportation routes as identified in Section 4-450.B. Areas Subject to Analysis were applied to a base map . These roads were then broken up into smaller sections; vantage points were then applied to each of the segments, at every half-mile . F or each half-mile vantage point parameters of a six (6) foot tall observer, looking up towards a 35 foot high 'target' were applied. The 'target' is intended to represent a structure constructed at the maximum allowed height per Eagle County Land Use Regulations Road Viewshed: . Using a 10 meter digital elevation model (DEM) - essentially a 3-Dimensional map of the county, the vantage points were used to create a 'viewshed' for each of the road segments Ridgeline Analysis: . Using the road viewsheds, applicable ridgelines were identified for some or all aspects (N,E,S,W,NE,NW,SE,SW) of the analysis area (transportation route) . At least three vantage points were utilized for each applicable ridgeline, from each road segment Results: Ridgeline Indicator Maps: . The results of the road viewsheds combined with the ridgelines indicate where a 35+ ft structure could have potential impacts 2. STAFF REPORT B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Town of Basalt, memo dated April 14th, 2006: . Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your referral on the Eagle County Land Use Regulation Amendments. . The Town of Basalt is supportive of these changes to the Eagle County Land Use Code. Technical comments and issues associated with the application are noted below. . The Town of Basalt is supportive of more restrictive development standards on ridgelines in Eagle County. Comments to this section are as follows: . In the definition of ridgeline, it specifically mentions that it is referencing undeveloped land. . It may be appropriate for the County to incorporate developed land into the definition of ridge lines. . This addition to the definition may make the other sections of the Code more clear when additions and/or expansions are proposed for ridgeline areas and the change to the existing building increases the impacts to the ridgeline view. . The Town would also like to see clarification on ridgeline development and the definition of a ridgeline. . The Town is concerned about ridgelines that are not accessed by public roads and would like 21 7/17/06 the County to consider all ridge lines in their restrictions. . This may help prevent ridge line development in more remote areas where access is granted by long driveways or private roads. . The Town also recommends applying more specifics to the definition to clarify what constitutes a ridgeline. . The Town supports applying ridgeline development restrictions to all ridgelines, not just those see from the larger roads in the County. . The Town recommends applying ridgeline development restrictions to more developments including those with expired development approvals, antiquated approvals, approvals seeking additional development rights and existing structures seeking improvements. . Otherwise, the effectiveness of these development restrictions are extremely compromised. . In Section F(1)( d)(1 (b), the paragraph seems to have a misspelling or missing words. Clarification is needed as to what is really trying to be said Gerry Arnold, Vail Resorts, email dated April 10, 2006: . Article 2 Definitions: The word "skyline" with a small s and with a capital S is used in the amendment after the word is defined. Should it be consistently with a capital S after it is defined? . In the definition of "Ridgelines", "usually back dropped by higher terrain", please clarify the use of "usually" . . The term "distant vantage points" is used frequently. Please clarify how a distant vantage point is determined or specify that the distant vantage point is determined by the applicant at the applicant's discretion. . Section 4-450 C. How will you educate the public that the provisions ofRPA are required to be incorporated into their building permit plans? . D. 7. Is there an appeal process to the Director of Community Development decision? . Please clarify or define "in identified areas". . F.(2) and (2) (a) Please clarify "key public vantage points located incrementally". How are the key public vantage points determined? Arrowhead Metro District, memo dated March 31,2006: . The Arrowhead Metropolitan District, representing a community of approximately 700 homes, would like to go on record as being in support of the proposed Ridgeline Protection Amendment of the Land Use Regulations. . Arrowhead agrees with the concept of prohibiting development that interrupts a natural ridgeline by projecting structures or other improvements into the skyline as viewed from the perspective of all major roadways in the County. . The District believes implementation of these new requirements will protect the aesthetic values that make Eagle County the unique place it is and believe this is in fact long over due. . Arrowhead supports the addition of the transportation corridors listed in the proposed amendment and believes that the list should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that as new major roadways in the County are developed, they are added to the list. . Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments and please place Arrowhead in the "strongly supports" category for this proposed amendment. Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney's Office, Eagle County Engineering Department, Eagle County Department of Environmental Health, Eagle County Assessor's Office, Colorado Department of Local Affairs (Division of Planning), all private planning firms in Eagle County, all private engineering and surveying firms in Eagle County, all listed private architectural and construction firms in Eagle County and surrounding region, Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Basalt, Town of Gypsum. C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS: Neither the Eagle County Planning Commission nor the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission had any issues regarding this file, and were in support of the amendment; however, a couple of suggestions were offered by the RFVRPC. 22 7/17/06 The following were RFVRPC comments and/or suggestions for the proposed Ridgeline Amendment: . 'Vantage Points' should be defined . Intermediate ridgelines should have specific landscaping requirements or should coincide with landscaping regulations in order to protect ridgelines from viewing areas on the valley floor (or on lower elevations); by landscaping lower, it prevents seeing homes built on higher elevations, closer to the ridgelines . These regulations should be revisited and analyzed in 3-5 years to ensure they are working effectively D. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Motion: [4:0] The Eagle County Planning Commission Recommended unanimous approval of file LUR-0064, incorporating all Staff findings Motion: [6:0] The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission Recommended unanimous approval of file LUR- 0064, incorporating all Staff findings E. STAFF DISCUSSION: 4. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals, the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs; 5. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice HAS been given; 6. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of Chapter II, Article 4, Section 4-450 Ridgeline Protection and Chapter II, Article 2: Definitions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and DO NOT amend the Official Zone District Map. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided (please see attached). 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text ofthe Land Use Regulations, as applicable: STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the Comprehensive Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ll) (,) !a 5 ;> o t:l 15 ll) 8- o ., ;> ll) Cl (,) '" 's ~ g g o '" (,) ll) ~Po:: I>l) .5 '" ~ o ::r: ~ '" B 13 (,) .~ g b ~tZl <t::"O .E !a '" ll) (,) .... .... ~ ll) 0 1;j '" ~~ '" ll) ~ ~ "0 0 :-= ~ ~Po:: ll) .~ .~~ ~ !a tZl.....:l <; E a ~ >. o ..... .... .~ os: ca ~ ~ ~CI ~ .....:l "'" Conformance x x x x x x x x x Non Conformance II Mixed Conformance 23 7/17/06 ~ Not Applicable ~ General Governance - Conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan; specifically, with the core values of this document. Development - When contemplating our scenic environment, uninterrupted mountain ridgelines and hillsides are predominant elements. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the proposed amendment simultaneously seek to preserve scenic resources for both visitors and the citizens of Eagle County; for the present and the future. The proposed amendment conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Economic Resources - The proposed amendment supports and preserves the regional economic structure by protecting one of the major qualities of mountain life: our skyline from development. Attraction of new residents; tourist dollars resulting from the participation in skiing, hunting, fishing, kayaking and hiking; and the quality of life of existing residents depends on natural resources such as scenic and/or the natural beauty of our environment. The proposed amendment conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing - This amendment does not correlate to this section. Infrastructure and Services - This amendment does not correlate to this section. Water Resources - This amendment does not correlate to this section Wildlife Resources - The development would not directly impact the quality of wildlife habitat or species of lesser economic importance. Sensitive Lands - This amendment echoes the policies of this section in its intent to preserve the visual value(s) of the county. Environmental Quality - The proposed amendment conforms with the policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) - This amendment does not correlate to this section The policies listed above support the intention of these amendments. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l.] The proposed regulation amendment is in conformance with the Comprehensive 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. The issue of compatibility does not pertain to this proposal; however, it could be interpreted that by harmonizing building construction with the natural environment, a sense of compatibility can be better realized. [+) FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] - The issue of compatibility in its intended context I IS NOT applicable to this proposed amendment. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modifY the use or density/intensity. 24 7/17/06 Conditions have changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated. As development pressures in Eagle County increase and available land nearer the valley floor decreases, homes being constructed on hillsides which approach ridgelines will also increase. This amendment is proposed at a time where it is still early enough in this trend to ensure that the scenic integrity of the county is preserved in perpetuity. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] There ARE changed conditions that require this amendment. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.Do4.] 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, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. This amendment will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. On the contrary, these amendments are expected to have a positive effect on the environment by protecting scenic resources. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA.] - The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need. It is imperative to ensure that growth occurs in a manner that will not eliminate or alter the county's scenic economic resources by altering the natural ridgeline with development. Once a ridge line has been compromised, aside from removing the structure, little can be done to restore the ridgeline to a natural state. These regulations have been expanded to not only protect or mitigate development from those traveling along 1-70, but to preserve other key areas of the County for the citizens and visitors of Eagle County. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] - It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment addresses a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] - Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern, and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. Specific development patterns and services do not apply to this proposal. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] - Specific development patterns and services DO NOT apply to this proposed amendment. 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. These amendments do not intend to encourage new land uses or densities; however, they will provide a more effective tool for analyzing new development proposals and maintain economic factors such as tourism; property values; and the intrinsic value of the mountains. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] - 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 amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 25 7/17/06 DISCUSSION: Ms. Skinner-Markowitz presented a PowerPoint presentation. The application is proposed to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. There were two parts: The first is to modify the current definition and the second to expand and strengthen the standards in order to preserve Eagle County's scenic corridor. Currently, Section 4-450 pertains to areas as seen from 1-70. The proposed amendment to Article 4 intends to expand the areas of ridge line protection throughout Eagle County along certain key transportation routes other than just the 1- 70 corridor. Pursuant to this proposed amendment, ridgeline protection will be expanded to include: Hwy 131, Squaw Creek Road, Brush Creek Road, Lake Creek Road, West Lake Creek Road, EI Jebel Road, Frying Pan Road, Hwy 82 and Hwy 24. An existing ridgeline map was shown and methodology was explained. The Community Development Staff worked closely with the GIS Department to ensure that the proposed amendment is reasonable and had a sound methodology for analysis. Staff currently plans to create "indicator" ridgeline maps to replace the current maps. The maps utilize the Eagle County GIS database and mapping information. Commissioner Menconi wondered how teardown and renovations would be handled. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that they would need to comply with the current regulations. Ms. Skinner- Markowitz summarized the referral responses received from the Town of Basalt, Vail Resorts, and Arrowhead Metro District. Neither the Eagle County Planning Commission nor the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission had any issues regarding the file. Leslie Kehmeier, GIS ProgrammerlAnalyst, demonstrated a new interactive GIS utility that would be available for public use that would allow them to view any ridgeline on their property. Chairman Runyon stated that he would like the towns included in the query. Commissioner Menconi wondered if the regulation would affect any of the lower ridgelines. He wondered at what point one would stop analyzing what may be reasonable. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the ridgelines being considered are those that meet the sky. Commissioner Menconi suggested adding Belly Ache Ridge Road, and Colorado River Road. He would like to see future Board members consider future growth in remote areas. Chairman Runyon wondered about highway 6. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that non-intermittent areas could be considered. Mr. Morris stated that because we are a mountainous community and health and welfare of the community should be considered, at some point, one might go over the line. Commissioner Menconi wondered if including the non-intermittent areas would be pushing the true intent of the purpose. Mr. Morris stated that he would prefer not to give legal advice on the record. Cliff Simonton stated that most of the regulations are geared toward the overall development patterns. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the slope-side regulation amendment would allow for a visual analysis and through those provisions, many of those issues would be captured. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File Number LUR-0064 to amend the Chapter II, Article 4 Section 4-450 Ridgeline Protection and Chapter II, Article 2: Definitions and to also include the Colorado River Road. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Menconi wondered if it would be possible to incorporate bike trails into the GIS travel management plans. He stated that it would be appropriate to get a work session together to go over travel management plans. He also expressed interest in a cost and level of service study. Atte Board, the meeting was adjourned until July 25,2006. c, ~4~ Chairman 26 7/17/06