No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/12/06 PUBLIC HEARING September 12,2006 Present: Peter Runyon Tom Stone Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Comrnissioners for their consideration: Executive Session It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on pending statutory requirements regarding 2006 special immigration legislation which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b), 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: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of September 11,2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval ofthe payroll for September 14,2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Agreement between the Eagle County Board of Commissioners and Eagle County Board of Social Services to provide family services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Hurnan Services D. Scope of Work between Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment and Eagle County Public Health Nursing Service 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 Cornrhissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-D. Comrnissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared li11animous. CitiZen Input There was none Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County COrnrhissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimouS. 1 9/12/06 't 11'1 IJ_LIIIlr- 1I111i'1! III II nl"IIHII[1 ~ I'll "I ii';: ]1' iqr'll Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda A. Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc. d/b/a Bottle 'N Cork This is a request for a Retail Liquor Store Tasting Permit. The applicant Wishes to conduct in-store tastings at its location. The applicant has filed the necessary forms and documentation and has paid the required fee. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for September 12, 2006, consisting of Itern A. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of COU11ty Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ea!!:le County Board of Social Services - Review and approval of electronic client benefit payrolls fOr April-June 2006 Kathleen Forinash, health & Human Services Ms. Forinash explained the distribution ofTANF funds. She explained that it's a requirement of the state that the funds cannot be sirnply transferred from Social Services to the General Fund without this type of agreement. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board accept and approve the electronic client benefit payrolls for April-JU11e of 2006. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ea!!:leCountvBoard of SOcial Services - Agreement between Eagle County Board of Social Services and the Eagle County Board of Commissioners to provide family services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the agreement between Eagle County Board of Social Services and the Eagle County Board of Commissioners to provide family services. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Social Services and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 9/12/06 Abatement Hearings Petitioner Name Spring Creek Enterprises LLC Redcliff Properties LLC Redcliff Properties LLC A.C.C.M.L., Eagle LLC Karol & Anna Sobczak Schedule No. R054078 R001470 R000390 R056969 R044336 Commissioner Menconi moved that the Petitions for AbatementlRefund of Taxes for the following individuals and Schedule Numbers be approved for the tax yeats, in the amounts, and for the reasons a.s set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Spring Creek Enterprises LLC #R054078, RedcliffProperties LLC #ROOI470, RedcliffProperties LLC #R000390, A.C.C.M.L., Eagle LLC #R056969 and Karol & Anna Solbczak #R044336. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files Appeal of Community Development Dtrector's interpretation of Beaver Creek Planned Unit I>evelopmentas it applies to an alpine slide County Attorney's Office Representative . Commissioner Menconi moved to table the Appeal of Community Development Director's interpretation of Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development as it applies to an alpine slide until October 16,2006. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote Was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to amend the motion and include the time, 1:30 p.m. on October 16,2006. Commissioner Stone seconded the. amendment. The vote was declared unanimous. AFp...00226 Cordillera Filine No. 34. Block 4. Lot 9 Joe Forinash, Cornrnunity Development NOTE: Tabled from 6/27, 7/17 and 8/15/06 ACTION: An amended final plat which would relocate the building envelope for the purpose of maximizing the development opportunity. LOCATION: 0714 Gore Trail (Cordillera) TITLE: FILE NO./PROCE8S: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF CONTACT: Cordillera Filing 34, Block 4, Lot 9 Amended Final Plat AFP-00226/ Amended Final Plat 0714 Gore Trail (Cordillera) Vail Capital Partners III, LLC Vail Capital Partners III, LLC Matt Reid (Vail Capital Partners III, LLC) Joe Forinash STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: An amended final plat which would relocate the building envelope. The Applicant states that this would "maximize the development opportunity" for the lot. Staff understands that the intent is to establish a building envelope with a much better viewtha.n from the existing building envelope. I 3 9/12/06 B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: West: North: South: Existing Zoning: Proposed No. ofDvvellillgUnits: Total Area: Access: Residential 1 PUD Residential! PUD Residential! PUD Rural/Resource PUD (Planned Unit Development) 1 (no change) 7.126 acres Gore Trail STAFF REPORT A. STAFF FINI1INGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has made the following findings: STANDARD: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3.a.] -- Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment adversely affects adjacent property owners. The following adjacent property owners have been notified: Edward A. Ahlstrand; Preserve of Middlefork Farm Ltd; Darnall Investments LLC; Vail Capital Partners III, LLC; and Cordillera Metropolitan District. No letters have been received by the Community Development Department. However, Staff notes that a structure in the proposed building envelope would be visible on the ridgeline as viewed from the building envelope of the adjacent lot to the west (Lot 8), although it would be partially obscured by trees located near the ridgeline. It appears that the skyline as viewed from Lot 8 rnight be adversely impacted by a structure in the proposed building envelope, as might the Il10untains further to the southeast as viewed from the 2nd floor of a dwelling on the adjacent Lot 8. owners. STANDARD: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. The underlying plat for Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 34, includes a Note to the effect that the parcels shown on the plat are subject to the Cordillera PUD Guide. The PUD Guide in turn states that the "building envelopes [are] specifically identified for each lot to minimize impacts". Impacts specifically identified for consideration in conjunction with an amended final plat in Cordillera are ridgelines and view corridors. Given the discussion above regarding ridgeline impacts and view corridors, Staff finds that the proposed building envelope may be visible above the ridgeline and would therefore be inconsistent with the intent of the final plat. It may also be noted that the wildfire hazard rating for the area where the existing building envelope is located is Moderate. The proposed building envelope is located an area mostly rated High, although a portion of the proposed building envelope is rated Extreme. The overall wildfire hazard rating given to the building envelope by the Wildfire Mitigation Specialist is Extreme. This rating is due in large part to [1] density of fuels, [2] having an average slope within 100 foot radius of the proposed structure of2l % to 30 %, and [3] the proposed structure being located within 50 feet of a ridge top. Further, the existing envelope is located in an area that will require minimal vegetation management to achieve defensible space, while the proposed envelope location would necessitate substantial vegetation management to achieve defensible space. I [-J FINDING: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] 4 9/12/06 I The proposed amendment IS NOT consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-290.G.3.c.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. The plat conforms to the applicable requirements. [+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-90.G.3.c.] The proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and idelines. STANDARD: Improvements Agreement [Section 5-290.GJ.d.] -Adequacy of the proposed improvements agreements and/or off-site road improvements agreement when applicable. STANDARD: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] -If the amendment is an alteration of a restrictive plat note at least one of the following criteria must be met: (1) That area for which the amendment is requested 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; or (2) That the proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community need. There are no relevant plat notes. In/a] FINDING: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive lat note. Pursuant to Section 1.05.3.vi., Public Process: Buildin2 Envelope Amendment, of the Cordillera Subdivision Tenth Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document dated September 23, 2003, the Community Development Director has made the following findings: STANDARD: [Section 1.05.3.Vii.1.] - The proposed amendment will not substantially impact in an adverse manner the view corridor of any property owner to whom notice of the proposed building envelope amendment has been sent, or is required by geologic or other hazard considerations. A structure in the proposed building envelope would be visible on the ridgeline as viewed from the building envelope of the adjacent lot to the west (Lot 8), although it would be partially obscured by trees located near the ridgeline. It appears that the skyline as viewed frorn Lot 8 might be adversely impacted by a strUcture in the proposed building envelope, as might the mountains further to the southeast as viewed from the 2nd floor of a dwelling on the adjacent Lot 8. [-] FINDING: [Section 1.05.3.vii.1.] The proposed amendment WILL substantially impact in an adverse manner the view corridor of any property owner to whom notice of the proposed building envelope amendment has been sent, or is required by geologic or other hazard considerations. STANDARD: [Section 1.05.3.vii.2.] - The envelope does not adversely effect wildlife corridors. A wildlife easement is shown on the plat for this portion of Cordillera which crosses the southern portion of this lot. Consequently, the proposed plat was referred to the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Their response was that CDOW has no problem with the proposed building envelope change. 5 9/12/06 1111 I "11' 1II'lln'.'...r-.111 ii'l 1'1 < '11:11 STANDARD: [Section 1.05J.viiJ.] - The envelope change does not adversely impact ridgelines nor create any increase in impacts to ridgelines. The topography of the lot is such that it generally slopes upward from north to south to a ridge line at which it drops off rather precipitously. The proposed building envelope is very close to the ridgeline. The purpose of the building envelope amendment is to maximize the development opportunity of the lot, which is taken to mean building a structure along the ridgeline for the view that location affords. Given the absence of terrain north of the proposed building envelope, the consequence is that a building in the proposed envelope would be visible above the ridgeline from the valley to the south. STANDARD: [Section 1.05.3.viiA.] - The envelope amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. The underlying plat for Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 34, includes a Note to the effect that the parcels shown on the plat are subject to the Cordillera PUD Guide. The PUD Guide in turn states that the "building envelopes [are] specifically identified for each lot to minimize impacts". Impacts specifically identified for consideration in conjunction with an amended final plat are ridgelines and view corridors, Given the discussion above regarding ridgeline impacts and view corridors, Staff finds that the proposed building envelope may be visible above the ridgeline and would therefore be inconsistent with the intent of the final plat. It may also be noted that the wildfire hazard rating for the area where the existing building envelope is located is Moderate. The proposed building envelope is located an area mostly rated High, although a portion of the proposed building envelope is rated Extreme. The overall wildfire hazard rating given to the building envelope by the Wildfire Mitigation Specialist is Extreme. This rating is due in large part to [1] density of fuels, [2] having an average slope within 100 foot radius of the proposed structure of 21 % to 30 %, and [3] the proposed structure being located within 50 feet of a ridge top. Further, the existing envelope is located in an area that will require minimal vegetation management to achieve defensible space, while the proposed envelope location would necessitate substantial vegetation management to achieve defensible space. [-] FINDING: [Section 1.05.3.vii.4.] The envelo e amendment IS NOT consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. STANDARD: [Section 1.05.3.vii.5.] - The envelope amendment is not an alteration of a restrictive plat note. There are no relevant plat notes. [nla] FINDING: [Section 1.05.3.vii.5.] The envelOpe amendment is NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note. DISCUSSION: Mr. Forinash presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the project. The presentation included a vicinity map, revised building envelope and the initial proposed plat. The applicant is requesting to amend the final plat which would relocate the building envelope on Lot 9 of Cordillera Filing 34. The applicant wishes to maximize the development opportunity of the lot. Previously staff had recommended denial of the proposed amended final plat due to adverse impacts on adjacent property owners, increased ridgeline impacts and inconsistency with the approved final plat. He presented the revised staff findings and indicated that staff recommended approval With the condition that the applicant would prepare a revised amended final plat, acceptable\. to the Director of Community Development, which reflects the alternative building envelope approved by the Board. 6 9/12/06 Leslie Kehmeier from the County's GIS department presented a visual simulation that illustrated the existing building envelope, adjacent lots and the proposed building envelope. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was nOne. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board approve File No. AFP-00226, incorporating the Staff fmdings al1d with the condition that the applicant prepare a revised arnended final plat, acceptable to the Director of Community Development, which reflects the alternative building envelope approved by the Board of County Cbmmissioner this day, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plant Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared U11animous. Matt Reid, Vail Capital Partners spoke. He thanked the staff for their work towards resolving the issues and the many site visits. SMA-00027 Belle Terre Minor Subdivision Joe Forinash, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 7/25, 8/1106 and 8/29/06 ACTION: Subdivide 3.1 acre site into 3 lots for subsequent development of 6 single family, duplex and a triplex dwellings On the lots. LOCATION: 34965 Hwy 6 (North ofHwy 6, west of Reserve Road) FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: SMA-00027 1 Type A Minor Subdivision Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. (Jim Gilbert) STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Approval with conditions The proposed developrnent has been significantly re-designed to satisfactorily reduce development within the 50 foot live stream setback and thereby minimizing potentially adverse impacts to the aquatic habitat and the riparian areas associated with the Eagle River. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Subdivision of a 3.1 acre site into 3 residential. I~ is intended that these lots subsequently will be further subdivided into a total of 6 lots for development of single family, duplex and triplex dwellings on the lots, a total of 6 dwellings. Access would be from Reserve Road, north of Highway 6. Water and wastewater treatment services would be provided by the Edwards Metro District and the Eagle River Water and Sal1itation District, respectively. B. CHRONOLOGY: June 2006 - A permit was issued for the demblition of 2 residential structUres and 6 out-buildings on the site. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning: East: Residential (Ranch House PUD) 1 PUD (Planned Unit Development) West: Eagle River; Residential (The Reserve) / RSM (Residential Suburban Medium Density) North: Eagle River; Residential (The Reserve) 1 RSM South: Arrowhead at Vail / PUD Existing Zoning: Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) 7 9/12/06 L"~ rill'.' I' I 1111 ".111 .' ,,~ ii' "II 'll-! Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: 3 residential lots are initially proposed; Applicant intends to submit subsequent Minor Type B subdivision applications to create lots for a total of 6 residential units Total Area: 3.1 acres Water: Edwards Metro District Sewer: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Access: The Reserve Road, north of Highway 6 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department [Memos dated 17 February 2006, 27 March 2006 and 4 May 2006] . Various technical COmments. [Memo dated 24 July 2006] · The Engineering Department reqilests: · Calculations for the proposed detention pond showing the pond is large enough to handle flood events to County standards. · Information stating whether the sewer and water lines on the property will be under a private or pubic maintenance schedule. · Inforrnation regarding who will be the licensed operator for the proposed lift station on the site. . Lift station details. · A permit for working in the right-of-way under Highway 6 will be needed. If a permit has been applied fOr oneceived, provide a copy ofthe permit. [Verbal comments as of5 September 2006] · The Engineering Department reports that, with minor exceptions that can be addressed as the constrtictionplans are finalized, the drawings and other information provided to date are satisfactory. Eagle County Surveyor . Various technical comrnents. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist · After looking at the slope, fuel types, access and surrounding terrain, the Belle Terre site warrants a wildfire hazard rating of LOW. A low rating means that structures on the property wil1most likely not be tlireatened by average wildfire activity. · Proximity to riparian zones, as well as low growing fuels, absence of slope, and access all contribute to this low rating. Even with a low rating, noncombustible roofing materials are suggested. Eagle County Housing Department · Based on the Housing Guidelines, on-site mitigation would result in 2 local resident housing units being provided, 0.28 units for employment linkage related mitigation (low income) and 1.20 units for inc1usionary mitigation (moderate income). The calculated total of 1.48 units would be rounded up to 2 units. · Also based on the Housing Guidelines, mitigation by payment in lieu would result in a payment of $116,484.08, a combination of $36,909.68 for employment linkage related mitigation (low income units) and $79,574.40 for inclusionary mitigation (moderate income units). ECO Trails [Verbal response on 22 June 2006.] · It is recommended that a sidewalk along Highway 6 be constructed as provided in the Highway 6 Access Control Plan. Eagle River Fire Protection District 8 9/12/06 II The proposed new hydrant and existing hydrant appear to be adequate for fire fighting purposes. The line extending to the new hydrant is labeled 6". The minimum allowed by Eagle River Water & Sanitation District may be 8", so this will need to be verified. .. Turning movements submitted for the project confirm adequate emergency access. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District .. The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority has determined that additional water rights will not be required for this development. . The EdWards Metropolitan District portfolio includes water rights for this development through the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. However, a Water/Sewer Plant Investment Fee and a Treated Water Storage Fee will be due when digital floor plans for the project have been e-mailed to the District, reviewed and fees have been calculated. Eagle County School District (RE50J) . This minor subdivision is proposing 1 single-family, 2 duplexes and 3 multi-family units. These units would result in a 0.0276 acre dedication requirement. . As the land dedication acreage is minimal, the District will accept the cash in lieu of land for this minor subdivision. Per the County School Land Dedication Standards, the value of this cash payment will be determined by an appraisal of the land provided by the developer with the application for final plat. Colorado Division of Wildlife . The majority of the upland portion of this site has been heavily impacted from pervious uses and has little overall wildlife values, however, the riparian area is in good condition and still provides excellent wildlife habitat. . The project proposes a fifty foot (50') setback from riparian areas with a driveway and removal of some trees within the fifty foot (50') setback. It is the Division's recommendation that a seventy five foot (75') setback from all riparian habitats along the Eagle River be implemented. This setback should be maintained in natural vegetation and not be manicured within the seventy five foot (75') setback. . Riparian ecosystems constitute one of the most limited yet species rich ecosystems in Colorado. .Protecting and enhancing the riparian habitat along the Eagle River benefits both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species. . Some of the limiting factors the Eagle River faces include low water flows and high water ternperatures. The reduction in riparian habitats impacts the amount of shade on the stream which in turn increases the water temperature and evaporation and consequently negatively impacts the health of the fishery. Colorado Geological Survey . Floodplain · Structures for the new development are set back 50 feet from the "Eagle River High Water Line". It would be useful to have the reference that documents this high water line. · The CGS Geologist visiting the site did not observe signs of bank erosion from the top Of the slope. The morphology of the river suggests erosion would be more likely on the north side of the river. . Slope · The differing scales. of the construction diagrams and the absence of labeling of contours on some of the diagrams made it difficult to evaluate the proposed construction in relation to the existing topography, but development should be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the break in slope to the river to limit erosion and prevent potential slope instability. · Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be engineered. . Drainage · A drainage report was not included in the referral to CGS, but information should be provided that discusses the management and discharge of on-site flows. The discussion should state how the property would be affected by runoff from Highway 6, including any sheet-flows from slopes south of the highway. Outfalls should be designed for erosion control. · The detention pond would probably not contain a significant volume of water for any length of time, otherwise lining of the pond might be considered to limit impact to the slope. 9 9/12/06 1'1" IJ:', ",J 11111111 J Ii II ['I 11111 Hi' IU 1.11 , I I , i I I II 1 fI ~ II · If snow storage is found to be necessary, the designated area should be incorporated into the overall drainage plan of the site and should not pose a problem if rapid snowmelt occurs. . Soil · The soil at the site is probably a combination of slopewash from outcrops south of Highway 6, which is mapped as Eagle Valley Evaporite, and alluvium of the Eagle River. Cobbles greater than 4 inches in diameter should be removed from building footprints and driveways because of the potential for differential compaction. · The foundation excavations should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to determine if problematic soils are present, including soils with collapse potential or soluble constituents that could cause post-construction settlement. · Samples from the building footprint(s) should be tested for geotechnical properties so that foundations and floors could be designed accordingly. . Summary · There are no geological conditions that would preclude the subdivision, but the comments listed above should be considered in development. Colorado Division of Water Resources · The Water supply is to be provided by the Edwards Metropolitan District and sewage disposal is to be provided by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation district. No letters of commitment were provided. Water estimates were not provided. · Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(1l), C.R.S., a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with Eagle County and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included in the submittal materials. Therefore, the Division is unable to comment on the propOSed water supply. · Since insufficient information was provided, the Division is unable to provide comments pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1 )(h)(ll), c.R.S. Colorado State Forest Service · The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has given the Belle Terre 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. · After development of this small parcel, the majority of the remaining fuels will be very discontinuous. River access, lack of slope, and well-maintained road access also help keep fire danger low. · Even with this low rating, CSFS suggests that dual access be considered and noncombustible roofing material be used. AdditionalRefetral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, ECO Transit, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, Eagle County Weed and Pest, Eagle County School District (TransportatiOn), Eagle County Weed and Pest Control, Eagle County Ambulance District, Upper Eagle Water & Sanitation District, Colorado Department of Transportation (Local and Grand Junction Offices), US Natural Resou.rce Conservation Service (USDA), US Army Corps of Engineers, Holy Cross Energy, KN Energy, CenturyTel, The Reserve HOA, Arrowhead at Vail HOA, Millers Creek HOA. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-290.G.1. Standards for the review of a Type A Minot Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-290.G.1.a.] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10 9/12/06 r/) ~r/) >Li r/) ..J iii 0 ~ >Li f-o ::J ~ ffi f-o>Li ffi U Uu 0 z Slffl r/) r/) ..J ~ ::J.... >Li>Li ~ ~ ~~ ~ >Li p.. ~~ ~ :J~ 2:: z>- 0 1;:;>Li ~ Of-o r.cl O::J f-o ~ 5~ Cf) ,;;ir/) >Li 00 ;;:; ~::l ~ ~ ::J f-o ....< ~o ~ ..Jr/) ffi >::J 0 &l~ 0 ~~ ~~ ffio ..J " 0 :I: r/) ~ CONFORMS x x x x x x x X x x DOES NOT CONFORM MIXED CONFORMANCE NA Remarks: See below. Governance. Eagle County's Core Values have been appropriately communicated to the applicant through the planning process. The cornmunity at large is aware of the proposal, and has been provided adequate opportunity to be involved with the decision making process. Development. Development would be clustered, preserving open space areas, except a portion of the riparian area near the Eagle River. The development is located in the immediate vicinity of existing community centers and contributes to a logical development pattern. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed development represents a reasonable balance between economic, social, and environmental needs. Economic Resources. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed developrnent is sensitive to the riparian area and would not adversely affect Eagle County's position as a world class tourist destination. Housing. Staff understands that it is the intent of the Applicant to make an appropriate payment of cash in lieu. Infrastructure and Services. The proposed development, With the recommended conditions of approval, would contribute to the sidewalk/trail system along Highway 6. New infrastructure costs would be fairly and equitably shared. However, the proposal would not foster integration nor enhance socio-economic equity in the County. Water Resources. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed development is sensitive to the aquatic habitat and the riparian area and would adequately protect water quality in the Eagle River. Wildlife Resources. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed development is sensitive to wildlife resources. Sensitive Lands. No areas of significant natural hazard have been identified, nor are landscapes that include visual, historic or archeological likely to be compromised. Environmental. Quality. This Section deals primarily with air quality, ambient noise levels and the quality of the night sky. No significant potentially adverse impacts have been identified. Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan defers to that of the Edwards Area Cornmunity Plan, which provides for net residential density on this site of no more than 4 unit per acre and a gross density of no more than 6 units per acre. The proposed development is within these density parameters. 11 9/12/06 h~ 11111'1 I 'I I' 'lUll ~, I, '~ III I ill: Illil!i EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Confonnance Non-Confonnance Mixed Confonnance Not Applicable Land Use x i . Housing x Transportation x Open Space x Potable Water and Wastewater x Services and Facilities x Environmental Quality x Economic Development x Recreation and Tourism x Historic Preservation x Implementation x Future Land Use Map x Land Use. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the timely, cost-effective provision of public services. With recent reviSiOns to the site plan, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the timely, cost-effective provision of public services, and does balance the environmental needs of the current and future population with physical, social, cultural, and economic needs. Housing. Staff understands that it is the intent of the Applicant to make an appropriate payment of cash in lieu. Transportation. The development would be located adjacent to a transit route and, pursuant to a recommended condition of approval, the developer would contribute to the sidewalk/path along Highway 6. Open Space. No open space is required to be provided in conjunction with this development. Potable Water and Wastewater. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed subdivision, the Eagle River will be protected from environmental degradation. Services and Facilities. It appears that solid wastes will be handled in an environmentally sound manner. Environmental Quality. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed subdivision is sensitive to the environmental quality of the site and adjacent lands. Economic Development. This Section is not applicable. Recreation and Tourism. This Section is not applicable. Historic Preservation. This Section is not applicable. Implementation. This Section is not applicable. Future Land Use Map. The FLUM of the Edwards Area Community Plan provides for net residential density on this site of no more than 4 units per acre and a gross density of no more than 6 units per acre. The proposed development is within these density parameters. 12 9/12/06 Hazards x x Land Use Cooperation. This Section is not applicable. Open Space Provision. Development is restricted from areas along the Eagle River and so these areas will be preserved in a natural condition. The design is sensitive to open space values. Unique Character Preservation. This Section is not applicable. Visual Ouality. The proposed subdivision would not adversely affect visual quality. Development Patterns. The proposed subdivision would be in an existing community. Hazards. This Section is not applicable. Wildlife. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed subdivision is sensitive to aquatic habitat and the riparian areas within the site and on adjacent lands. Water Quantity. The proposed development would not directly affect water quantity of the Eagle River. Water Quality. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed subdivision will not adversely impact the water quality of the Eagle River. Wildlife. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed subdivision is sensitive to aquatic habitat and the riparian areas within the site and on adjacent lands. Recreation. This Section is not applicable. Land Use. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed subdivision is sensitive to aquatic habitat and the riparian areas within the site and on adjacent lands. 13 9/12/06 '111"1'1 'JI II 1,1 illil'lillllll - i-fi 1!llli I'll!!'; EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should b a wide variety ofhousing 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 isa community-wide issue o Hoilsing 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 I. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collabdration With the municipalities. . . x 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 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 of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents Xl 7. Comm.erCial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will 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. . . x 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 11. There is a need to segIilel1t a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to Compete with second horne 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 Xl - Staff understands that it is the intent of the Applicant to make an appropriate payment of cash in lieu. Overall, the proposed development generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. {+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-290.G.l.a.] The pub IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 14 9/12/06 STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.l.b.] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develooment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts The site is currently zoned Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL). As such, the zoning allows one dwelling unit per 15,000 square feet of developable area. With 2.074 acres of developable land, six dwelling units area allowed [(2.074 acres x 43,560 s.f.lacre) 115,000 s.f.lunit = 6.02 units]. The proposed development complies with most of the standards and provisions of the Land Use Regulations, including Article 3, Zone Districts. However, the Land Use Regulations provide that the area within the 50 foot live stream setback from the Eagle River is to be protected in its natural state with certain exceptions, including footpaths, bridges, fences, irrigation structures and erosion protection devices. The reVised site plan now removes virtually all problematic improvernents from the 50 foot live stream setback. The standards of Article 3. Zone Districts are now satisfied. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Three parking spaces are required for each single family and duplex dwelling unit. As rnany as 3 are required for each rnulti-family unit, including triplexes, depending on the number ofbedtooms. Although this subdivision would create only three lots on the site, two of these are intended to subsequently be subdivided into a duplex and a triplex lot, respectively. The proposed site plan would allow for a minimum of three parking lots per unit. The Applicant/developer will be required to demonstrate the adequate parking exists prior to issuance of each building permit. [+] Landscaping and mumination Standards (Division 4-2) The entire parcel would eventually consist of private lots With easements to provide access throughout. There are no common areas to be landscaped and the buildable portion of the lots has previously had most of the vegetation removed. Landscaping of individual lots is not within the intended sCope of this Section. 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) The development will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The revised site plan removed all problematic irnprovements from the 50 foot live stream setback. Aquatic habitat and the riparian area along this stretch of the Eagle River will be adequately protected. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has provided a number of recommendations based on its review of the site, including the following: 15 9/12/06 till !'J'~ 'i! IIFI' I 11,F1illnllir-lil III i~ I !I I 1- II Ii r1; II · Documentation of the high water line which establishes the 50 foot setback from the Eagle River should be provided. · Developrnent should be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the break in slope to the river to limit erosion and prevent erosion and prevent potential slope instability. . Retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be engineered. · Certain specific design considerations should be incorporated with respect to drainage. · Soils should be properly tested and evaluated and large cobbles removed because of the potential for differential compaction. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, prior to approval of the final plat, the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated June 16, 2006, should be fully implemented in the design of the site to the satisfaction ofthe County Engineer. [Condition #1] [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - Both the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) and the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist give the site a wildfire hazard rating of Low, which means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. However, both recommend that noncombustible roofing rnaterials be used. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, noncombustible roofing materials should be required on all structures and a note to that effect should be included on the final plat. [Condition #2] The Eagle River Fire Protection District notes that the line extending to the new fire hydrant is labeled 6" in diameter, and that the minimum allowed by Eagle River Water & Sanitation District may be 8". If this application is approved, 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] [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The development will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [llIa] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) ~ This application was accepted prior to approval of the recent amendment to the Land Use Regulations regarding ridge line protection, and so is subject to the earlier standards. This site is not located on land previously designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [llIa] Environmental Imvact Report (Section 4-460) - An Environmental Impact Report is not required for this proposed development. [llIa] Comrnercial 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) - If this application is approved, 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] 16 9/12/06 In addition, Eagle County Engineering has determined that the proposed development would involve a certain amount of public improvements. Therefore, a Subdivision Improvements Agreement would be required. 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, approval 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 irnprovements agreement cannot be finalized fairly quickly. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, a satisfactory irnprovements 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 #4] [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Highway 6 Access Control Plan calls for a sidewalk along the north side of Highway 6 in the vicinity of this site. The Access Control Plan specifies a 10-foot wide, separated sidewalk/path for the segment of Highway 6 from Bull Run Road (east of the traffic light at Edwards Village Boulevard) to the Arrowhead area. In this particular stretch, separation of the sidewalk from the vehicular travel lanes of Highway 6 may not be possible along the entire frontage ofthis site. ConstrUction of similar sidewalks segments has been required in other areas along Highway 6. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should constrUct a sidewalk near the south property line consistent with the standards for this segment of Highway 6 as shown in the Highway 6 Access Control Plan, on-site if possible or otherwise in the Highway 6 right-of-way, to standards and in an alignment satisfactory to the Eagle County Engineer in consultation With the Colorado Department of Transportation and ECO Trails. [Condition #5] [nla] Irrigation Svstem Standards (Section 4-640) - There are no identified surface water rights appurtenant to this site, nor is irrigation water to be made available in the proposed development. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The revised site plan removed all problematic improvements from the 50 foot live stream setback. The drainage standards of this Section can be satisfied. If this application is approved, 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] In addition, Eagle County Engineering has determined that the proposed development would involve a certain amount of public improvements. Therefore, a Subdivision Improvements Agreement would be required. 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, both at once. 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, approval of the proposed subdivision may affect the plat itself 17 9/12/06 ,"". .., y, ~. F 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. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, a satisfactory improvements agreement and other required documents and payments necessary for final plat approval should be presented fo 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 #4] [+] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - The development will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. If this application is approved, 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) - The revised site plan removed all problematic improvements from the 50 foot live stream setback. The erosion standards of this Section rnay be satisfied. The Director of Environmental Health notes that it would be important erosion control is adequately addressed. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to any site disturbance, a detailed site plan showing constrUction staging area(s) and a Dust Suppression Plan which have been approved by the Director of Environmental Health. Failure to adhere to these plans should, at the discretion of the Director of Environmental Health, result in a Stop Work Order. [Condition # 6] The development will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. If this application is approved, 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] [+] Utility and Lightin~ Standards (Section 4-670) - The development will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat for the developrnent, complete engineering and constrUction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] [+] Water Suvvlv Standards (Section 4-680) - Water for this development would be provided by tapping into a water main located in The Reserve Road easement immediately to the east. The Engineering Department has requested that information be provided regarding whether the water lines on the property will be subject to a public or private maintenance schedule. If this application is approved, 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] As a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to final approval of this subdivision that the covenants include a provision, and a note added to the final plat, to the effect that maintenance of the private portions of the water distribution system will be the responsibility of the property owners. [Condition #7] [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - The closest sewer main is located on the south side of Highway 6. A permit will be required from the Colorado 18 9/12/06 Department of Transportation to bore under the highway. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that all necessary permit(s) have been obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation for construction activities within the Highway 6 right-of-way. [Condition #8] The proposed sewer plan requires the use of a lift station. The Engineering Department has noted that it has not been clearly shown whether the lift station would be publicly or privately maintained and what the proposed maintenance program would consist of. Maintenance of the lift station should be the responsibility of a licensed operator. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should, in a rnanner satisfactory to the County Engineer, demonstrate that on-going maintenance of the lift station will be the responsibility of a licensed operator. [Condition #9] The Applicant has not demonstrated that the lift station will be maintained by an appropriate metro district. It should be clearly demonstrated that the responsibility for maintenance should rest on the homeowners. As a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to final approval of this subdivision that the covenants include a provision, and a note added to the final plat, to the effect that maintenance of the private portions of the wastewater collection system, including maintenance of the lift station, will be the responsibility of the prOperty owners. [Condition #7] In addition, Eagle County Engineering has determined that the proposed development would involve a certain amount of public improvements. Therefore, a Subdivision Improvements.Agreement would be required. It should be noted that the review process for a Type A Minor Subdivision is somewhat unique a.mong 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, approval 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. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, a 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 rneeting after which the documents, plat and payments are available. [Condition #4] The Engineering Department has requested that information be provided regarding whether the sewer lines on the property will be subject to a public or private maintenance schedule. If this application is approved, 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] [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) ~ The Eagle County School District (RE50J) has indicated that it will accept payment of cash-in-lieu of land dedication. 19 9/12/06 ., - ".."", ",." ill this case, the school land dedication for the one single family and five multi-family dwellings (two duplex units and three triplex units) in this subdivision is 0.0276 acres [(0.Ol51 units/acre x 1 units) + (0.0025 units/acre x 5 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 3.2 acre site is established at $2,150,000, a per acre value of$67l,875. The resulting payment of cash in lieu of school land dedication is $18,543.75 [$67l,875 per acre x 0.0276 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 Applicant will be required to conform to the standards of this Section at the time that building permits are issued. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.l.b.] Due. to the lack of a demonstrated potable water source, it HAS NOT been demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies 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. 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. (1) 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 County Road Capital Improvements Plan. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area in order to both avoid future land disruption, and the necessity of upgrading under- sized lines. 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 De'Velopment. [Section 5-290.G.1.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. With the revised site plan, the proposed development is appropriate for the site. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-290.G.l.d.] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for the proposed 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. Surrounding uses are primarily residential, but include the EagleRiver and some open space. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-290.G.1.e.] The ro osed subdivision IS co atible with the character of existin land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversel affect the 20 9/12/06 future development of the surrounding area. STANDARD: Improvemehts Agreement. [Section 5-290.G.IJ.] - The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. Certain public improvernents related to roads and drainage necessitate a Subdivision 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 forrn and executed by the Applicant until after the hearing on the application. In addition, approval 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. If this application is approved, as a condition of approval, a satisfactory improvements agreement and other required docurnents 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 #4] I [+) FINDING: Improvements Agreemellt. [Section 5-290.G.l.f.] - An Improvements Agreement IS required. ~nANDARD: Conformahce with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.l.g.] - Its conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines. 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. If this application is approved, 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 #4] [+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.l.g.] - The Final Plat DOES confonn with the Final Plat reo uirements and other a licable re ulations, olicies, standards and uidelines. C. 9THER CONSIDERATIONS !Iousinl!Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004~048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish aframeworkfor discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The Housing Guidelines were subsequently amended on July 12, 2005, by Board Resolution 2005-90. Both the employee-linkage and the inclusionary housing provisions of the Housing Guidelines are applicable in a residential development of four or more units. However, the Applicant has not offered to provide mitigation for any local resident housing impacts either through housing on-site or off-site or by a payment in lieu of such housing. 21 9/12/06 ,."..- "'1'1' 1"; 'III'"! 'I '::;1111 The Director of Housing has determined that if mitigation were provided based on the Housing Guidelines, on-site mitigation at a rate of 20% would be 2 units (rounded up from 1.48 units calculated), and that mitigation by payment in lieu at 30% would result in a payment of $116,484.08. Nonetheless, if this application is approved, as a condition of approval, if the Applicant and the Board of County Commissioners agree to any payments in lieu of providing local resident housing, such payments in lieu to mitigate local resident housing impacts should be paid prior to the time that building permits are issued for the respective lots and should be based on the income and housing cost data curtent and available at the time, and the final plat should include a hOte which reads as follows: "Payments in lieu to mitigate local resident housing impacts shall be made pursuant to the conditions of approval adopted in File Number SMA-00027". [Condition #10] DISCUSSION: Files SMA-00027 and VIS-0030 were heard concurrently. Mr. Fdrinash presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the file. The presentation included several and photos ofthe property, site map, vicinity map and site plan. The applicant requested approval of a minor subdivision to create 3 residential lots from a 3.l acre parcel. The intent is that the 3 lots would be further subdivided to create lotsfor a total of 6 dwellings, 1 single-family, 2 duplex and 3 multi-family (triplex). Access would be from Reserve Road. Water and wastewater treatment services would be provided by Edwards Metro District and Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. Mr. Forinash indicated that staff recommended approval with conditions. All outstanding issue that he believed to be largely resolved was that there was no on-site local housing being proposed, calculations based on housing guidelines suggested 2 on-site units or payment in lieu, in the amount of$116,484.08. The applicant had agreed to make a payment in lieu, preferably to buy credits at Fox Hollow. . If the Minor Type A Subdivision were approved, a resolution, subdivision improvement agreement and a revised final plat would be prepared, reflecting the conditions of approval and placed on the Board's Consent Agenda. There Will be an opportunity to resolve the payment in lieu at a later date. Kelly Miller, Engineering Department presented VIS-00030. His presentation included a PowerPoint presentation; which included the applicants request, various photos of the site, vicinity map and staff findings. He stated that the three reason that staff believed the proposal was not viable was because the topography to access H\\'y 6 along the south side was not favorable, access was not supported by CDOT and the Eagle River Fire Protection District believed that emergency access and protection would be adequate without the double access. James (Jim) Gilbert, Raining SU11 Enterprises spoke. He stated that the property had been purchased last November. He believes that the proposal makes sense for the zoning and the neighborhood. The proposal would allow for over an acre of open space to the front of the property. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi wondered what the community benefits would be and indicated that he would like there to be river access available to the public. He is familiar with the property and believed that the proposal would clean up the area. Mr. Mortis stated that the landowner would have to grant access to the river through a parcel and noted on the plat map. Commissioner Menconi stated that as properties begin to change hands the public loses access to the river. He would like some assUrance that the river would remain open for public use. Mr. Gilbert stated that he would have no problem with public access at the east side of the bridge and public use of the river in front of the property as long as there were no liability issues. The Department of Wildlife requested that there be no activity in the riparian area. Commissioner Menconi wondered about the trail proposal along Hwy 6. Mr. Miller stated thatthe area wasn't favorable for a trail. Commissioner Menconi wondered if the shoulder could be expanded. Mr. Miller stated that widening the shoulder would impact the riparian area. It would require an extensive arnount of fill. He believes that CDOT would have something to say about it. 22 9/12/06 Commissioner Menconi stated that if a trail were built and not used, it would not be of benefit to the public. Correcting the existing shoulder might be more beneficial. He asked the applicant to explain what the final product would look like. Mr. Gilbert stated that the homes would be stone, European feeling. No berming, entrance gates or blue lights were proposed. The homes would be approximately 5000 square feet. Mr. Forinash stated that the density per acre was three units per acre. Commissioner Stone wondered what could be a use by right on the property. Mr. Forinash stated that a single family, duplex or multi family home up to the density that the site would allow would be a use by right. Commissioner Stone stated that he would like a visual impact study performed. He believes that it is overdeve1oprnent for the site. The triplexes would look like a solid wall of building from Hwy 6. The findings indicated non-conformance on wildlife, housing and open space. Mr. Forinash stated that the issues had been addressed and now confotin to staffs' recommendations. Comrnissioner Stone asked Mr. Forinash to illustrate the area on the river where there would be public access. He would like to preserve the steams but doesn't want the district to become involved in taking someone's private property rights. He would like to send a clear message to an applicants requesting a variance from irnprovement standards, that all applicants must meet all of the findings found in the land use regulations. He requested that the applicant table the file until a visual study could be preformed. Chairman Runyon suggested eliminating lot 1. He would be interested in seeing a rendering of the proposed building and agreed with Cornrnissioner Stone's recommendation that a visual study should be performed. Mr. Gilbert stated that they are trying to create individual corridors. He doesn't believe eliminating lot 1 would be favorable. He would prefer to build 6 units. Cornmissioner Menconi stated that tabling the file would helpful. He doesn't agree with Commissioner Stone's belief that the proposal would be an over development, but would like to see access to the river. Chairman Runyon stated that he would like to see more visuals and suggested that the applicant table the file. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file no. SMA-00027 and VIS-0030 until October 3, 2006, at the request of the applicant. Comrnissioner Stone seconded the motion. Commissioner Stone stated that the he would like the applicant to address all of the standards for the variance from irnprovement standards. The vote was unanirnous1y approved. Conditions: 1. The site should be re-designed in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer to eliminate all retaining walls and driveways from the 50 foot live stream setback and, to the extent feasible, relocate the detention pond and drainage swale from the 50 foot live stream setback from the Eagle River. 2. Prior to approval of the final plat, the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated June l6,2006, shall be fully implemented in the design of the site to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 3. Noncombustible roofing materials shall be required on all structures and a note to that effect shall be included on the final plat. 4. The Applicant shan provide, prior to approval ofthe final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. 5. 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. 23 9/12/06 I I ! ,I ;1111' ,I Illn' I HllI'!I' II' I'll! ' " :'111111.111':" 6. The Applicant shall construct a sidewalk near the south property line consistent with the standards for this segment of Highway 6 as shown in the Highway 6 Access Control Plan, on-site if possible or otherWise in the Highway 6 right-of-way, to standards and in an alignment satisfactory to the Eagle County Engineer in consultation with the Colorado Department of Transportation and ECO Trails. 7. The Applicant shall provide, prior to any site disturbance, a detailed site plan showing construction staging area(s) ahd a Dust Suppression Plan which have been approved by the Director of Environmental Health. Failure to adhere to these plans shall, at the discretion of the Director of Environrnental Health, result in a Stop Work Order. 8. It shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to final approval of this subdivision that the covenants include a provision, and a note added to the final plat, to the effect that maintenance of the private portions of the water distribution and wasteWater collection systems, including maintenance of the lift station, will be the responsibility of the property owners. 9. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval ofthe final plat for the development, evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that all necessary permit(s) have been obtained from the Colorado Departrnent of Transportation for constrUction activities Within the Highway 6 right-of- way. 10. The AppliCant shall, in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer, provide design detail of the proposed lift station and demonstrate that on-going maintenance of the lift station will be the responsibility of a licensed operator. 11. If the Applicant and the Board of County Commissioners agree to any payments in lieu of providing local resident housing, such payments in lieu to mitigate local resident housing impacts shall be paid prior to the time that building permits are issued for the respective lots and shall be based on the incorne and housing cost data current and available at the time, and the fmal plat shall include a note which reads as follows: "Payments in lieu to mitigate local resident housing impacts shall be made pu.rsuant to the conditions of approval adopted in File Number SMA-00027". 12. 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. VIS.;O'030BeIle Terte.Minor.Subdivision Kelly Miller, Engineering Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from August 29, 2006 Approve a Variance from the Improvement Standards for the requirernent of two points of access. LOCATION: 34965 Hwy 6 (North ofHwy 6, west of Reserve Road) TITLE: FILENO.: RELATED FILE NOS.: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Belle Terre VIS-00030, Variance from Improvement Standards SMA-00027 Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. (Jim Gilbert) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 24 9/12/06 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~. SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLUR 4-620.J.l.h). The proposed development consists of one single-family home site, one duplex and one triplex multi family home on a 3.096 acre parcel ()fland. Much of the site consists of an existing home site overlooking the Eagle River. The multi-family horne sites are clustered along the upper bank of the river while the single family home site is positioned in the Southeast Corner of the property. The property is shaped like a right triangle with the Southern portion of the property positioned along US Hwy 6. The Easterly portion of the property is positioned along Reserve Road creating the right triangle. The property length along US Hwy 6 (NRA-in project area) is just under 600 feet which is not favorable to having two accesses within one-half mile of each other per State Highway Access Code. The access to Hwy 6 along the South side does not have favorable topography to access Hwy 6. Dual access is not favorable according to the US 6 and 1-70 G (Edwards Spur Road) corridor feasibility study. B. CHRONOLOGY: June 2006 ~ A permit was issued forthe dernolition of2 residential structures and 6 out-buildings on the site. C. ~;ITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning: "East: Residential 1 PUD '''' est: Residential Suburban Medium Density North: Residential Suburban Medium Density South: Residential 1 PUD Existing Zoning: Residential Suburban Low Density Proposed Zoning: No change in zoning is proposed Proposed No. of Dwelling 6 Units: Total Area: 1$.096 acres Minimum Lot Area: 0.498aCres Maximum Lot Area: '1.566 acres Water: !Eagle River Water and Sanitation Sewer: Eagle River Water and Sanitation Access: Reserve Road 2. STAFF REPORT i I A. REFERRAL RESP~ Colorado State Forest Service · The Colorado Stat~ Forest Service (CSFS) has given the Belle Terre site a Wildfire hazard rating of Low. A low ratinl2i means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. -/ · A~ter development of this small parcel, the majority of the remaining fuels Will be very discontinuous. RIver access, lac~of slope, and well-maintained road access also help keep fire danger low. Even with this low rating, CSlfS suggests that dual access be considered and noncombustible roofing material be used. 25 9/12/06 ~" , '" ""'''i l <\ 111'\""'\:\\11 Eaille River Fire Protection District · The proposed new hydrant and existing hydrant appear to be adequate for fire fighting purposes. · Turning movements subrnitted for the project confirm adequate emergency access. Ea1!le RiVet Water & Sanitation District · The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority has determined that additional water rights will not be required for this development. · The Edwards Metropolitan District portfolio includes water rights for this development through the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. However, a Water/Sewer Plant Investment Fee and a Treated Water Storage Fee will be due when digital floor plans for the project have been e-mailed to the District, reViewed and fees have been calculated. Colorado DiVision. of Wildlife · The rnajority ofthe upland portion of this site has been heavily impacted from previous uses and has little overall wildlife values, however, the riparian area is in good condition and still provides excellent wildlife habitat. · The project proposes a fifty foot (50') setback from riparian areas with a driveway and removal of some trees within the fifty foot (50') setback. It is the Division's recommendation that a seventy five foot (75') setback from all riparian habitats along the Eagle River be implemented. This setback should be maintained in natl.lral vegetation and not be manicured within the seventy five foot (75') setback. · Riparian ecosystems constitute one of the most limited yet species rich ecosystems in Colorado. Protecting and enhancing the riparian habitat along the Eagle River benefits both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species. · Some of the limiting factors the Eagle River faces include low water flows and high water tempetatl.lres. The reduction in riparian habitats impacts the amount of shade on the stream which in turn increases the water temperature and evaporation and consequently negatively impacts the health of the fishery. Colorado Geological Survey . Floodplain · Structl.lres for the new development are set back 50 feet from the "Eagle River High Water Line". It would be useful to have the reference that documents this high water line. · The CGS Geologist visiting the site did not observe signs of bank erosion from the top of the slope. The morphology of the river suggests erosion would be more likely on the north side of the river. . Slope · The differing scales of the construction diagrams and the absence of labeling of contours on some of the diagrams made it difficult to evaluate the proposed construction in relation to the existing topography, but development should be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the break in slope to the river to limiterosion and prevent potential slope instability. · Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be engineered. . Drainage · A drainage report Was not included in the referral to CGS, but information should be provided that discusses the management and discharge of on-site flows. The discussion should state how the property would be affected by runoff from Highway 6, including any sheet-flows from slopes south of the highway. Outfalls should be designed for erosion control. · The detention pond would probably not contain a significant volume of water for any length of time, otherwise lining of the pond might be considered to lirnit impact to the slope. · If snow storage is found to be necessary, the designated area should be incorporated into the overall drainage plan of the site and should not pose a problem if rapid snowmelt occurs. 26 9/12/06 Note: The referrals shoWIl above are the only referrals that ate relevant to this Variance file. Please see the associated SMA-00027 file for a complete listing of all referrals. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: this parcel is located at 34965 Hwy 6, and presently has one existing access to Reserve Road on the If:ast side of the property which then accesses Hwy 6. The proposed East access, (creating "Rue Riviere") ~s located along the cornrnon lot line of Lots 1 and 3, and runs east-west providing access to all three lot~. Variance Request -- Dual Access (ECLUR 4-620.J.1.h) The applicant seeks a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLUR 4-620J.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 recornmendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. (am 12/17/02) Reference 4-620.J.1.h: The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway systern, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. The Colorado State Forest Service has given the development a wildfire hazard rating oflow. They would suggest that dual access be considered and noncornbustible roofing material be used. 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. E. ~TAFF FINDINGS: Criteria for Evaluation bV the County Eneineer 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 ECLUR to represent the rninimum acceptable level of "community values," since the ECLUR were adopted after extensive work and comments by the community. Criteria for Evaluation by the Board of County Commissioners The Board of County Commissioner's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260 G.2. of the ECLUR. It states in part: 27 9/12/06 I J j"'I'l P 'I; 1I'llill 11111,' i I; I i~1f W ii' . Ii! I "ii I "'I' 1II1II 1'11'1" "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 Fihdines The applicantrriust demonstrate that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affededlands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. Variance Request... Two Points of Access The ERFPD has stated that the proposed new hydrant and existing hydrant appear to be adequate for fire fighting purposes. It further states that turning movements submitted for the project confirm adequate emergency access, with this and the unfavorable grades and access point location along Hwy 6 show hardship. The access control diagram for the US Hwy 6 corridor only shows an access point at Reserve Road and Bull Run Road. No other access points are proposed at this time. 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. Board of Count" Commissioners Findinl!s 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 - Two Points of Access The Board of COU11ty 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 irnpact on the lands affected. AFJ?-0023SRi2hland Meadows. Filine:2. Lot 17 Joe Forinash, Community Development ACTION: An amended final plat which would revise the building envelope for the purpose of better accommodating the proposed building design on the lot. LOCATION: 2270 Alpine Drive TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE~ Highland Meadows, Filing 2, Lot 17 AFP-002351 Amended Final Plat Neal L. Kimmel Neal L. Kimmel Andrew Abraham, AIA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 28 9/12/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: An amended final plat which would revise the building envelope for the purpose of better accommodating the proposed building design on the lot. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning: East: Residential 1 RSM (Residential Suburban Medium Density) West: Residential 1 RSM North: Residential / Prirnary Secondary Residential (Town of Vail) South: Public road (Alpine Drive); residential 1 RSM Existing Zoning: RSM (Residential Suburban Medium Density) Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: 1 Total Area: 1.489 acres Access: Alpine Drive STAFF REPORT A. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has rnade the following findings: STANDARD: Adjaceftt Property. [Section 5-290.G.3.a.] -- Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment adversely affects adjacent property owners. The folloWing adjacent property owners have been notified: Joan L. Michel Revocable Trust; Andres F. & Linda D. Pena; LiSa & Gerald Farley; Gerri & Joseph Beasley, David L. Irwin, Carla S. Sjogren; Antonio Roig Ferre; Thomas Thrift; James G. & Kathleen C. Mestl; w.. C. Laidlaw Living Trust; and Dantas Builders, Inc. No letters have been received by the Community Developrnent Department. [+] FINDING: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3a.] The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversel affect ad'acent STANDARD: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. [+] FINDING: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] The ro osed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5;.290.G.3.c.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendmentcotiforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. [+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-90.G.3.c.] The proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and uidelines. STANDARD: Improvem(!nts Agreement [Section 5-290.G.3.d.] ~Adequacy of the proposed improvements agreements and/or off-site road improvements agreement when applicable. STANDARD: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] - If the amendment is an alteration of a restrictive plat note at least one of the follOWing criteria must be met: 29 9/12/06 I r~,] Iii I I' 'i"j,~" ' ',)I I :, ' 'I" ' I; 1]': ~ I.: 1111' I i 'I, , ! I :!II 1j:lllf!lltil (3) That areafot which the amendment is requested 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; or (4) That the proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide landfor a demonstrated community need. [-] FINDING: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive lat note. DISCUSSION: Mr. Forinash presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included a vicinity map, applicants request, sit map, initial plat and revised plat. Outstanding issues included concerns of other property owners. The applicant wished to amend a final plat to modify the building envelope to better accommodate the proposed building design. All adjacent property owners have been notified regarding this second hearing. The applicant proposed a different design to accommodate the concerns ofthe owners oflot 18. Both the neighbor and applicant had reached a tentative agreernent. A letter received from James and Kathleen Mestl was distributed. The letter indicated approval for the proposed amended final plat. Mr. Forinash stated that staff recommended approval of the original proposed amended final plat. Andrew Abraham, project architect spoke. He stated that the more they discussed the first proposal with the Mestls, the MestIs realized it was more sensitive to them and in their best interest so the applicant moved forward with the original proposal. COmmissioner Stone rnoved that the Board approve File No. AFP-00235 Highland Meadows, Filing 2 Lot 17, incorporating the Staff findings, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman 30 9/12/06