No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/24/06 PUBLIC HEARING October 24, 2006 resent: Peter Runyon Tom Stone Am Menconi Bruce BaumgartIier Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Sirnonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive. Session It Was rnoved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussrnatters subject to negotiations regarding the airline lease negotiations which is an appropriate topic for diSCUSSion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e), Colorado ReVised Statutes. CfJDSent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: Approval of bill paying for the week of October 23,2006 (subject to reView by thePinance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance :8. Approval of the p'aytoll f6fOctober 26,2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance C. Addendurn to First Amendment between Eagle County, Colorado and Riverrestdration.org, LLC Community Developrnent Representative D. Agreement between Eagle County and Benjamin Swig for Community Health Assessment and Emergency Preparedness Services Jill Hunsaker, Health & Human Services E. Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Colorado Department of Human SerVices and Eagle County for implementation of the Colorado Works Program and the Child Care Assistance Program Kathy Lyons, Health & Human Services F. Agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood PartIiers for parenting education services Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services G. Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Community Capital Corporation for comprehensive analysis and plan to address the changing needs of senior citizens Tom Joooson, Facilities Management 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 to the consent agenda. 1 10/24/06 Commissioner Stone wondered about Item F, the agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood PartiIers for parenting education services. He suggested that the wording be changed from the number of parents to the number of families served. He also wondered about Item G, the agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Cortun\.l1lity Capital Corporation for comprehensive analysis and plan to address the changing needs of senior _ citizens. He's wasn't clear as to why the county would contract someone to do a site plan in Eagle Ranch when they knew that the site wouldn't be large enough. Mr. Baumgartner agreed that that Eagle Ranch site wasn't large enough and stated that there wouldn't be any site work done until there was another site available. Commissioner Stone suggested coming up with a program analysis instead of a site plan. Mr. Treu suggested reVising exhibit A. Commissioner Stone stated that he would like the county to have the ability to give a notice to proceed on the next phase and proVide the Board with more flexibility. Mr. Tteu suggested either pulling the item until revised or signing the agreement and having the attorney's office draft a notice to proceed with the document when needed. Commissioner MenConi rnoved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-G, incorporating the amended recomh1endations of the Board. Cotntnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none Third Quarter Interest Report Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer Ms. Sheaffer stated that the county general would collect 2.1 million dollars by the end of the year. Cotntnissioner Stone moved to accept the Third Quarter Interest Report 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 Liquor Licensing Authority. Cotntnissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. The Gashouse, Inc. d/b/a Gashouse Restaurant This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. B. Ski Resort Concepts, LLC d/b/a Grouse Mountain Grill 2 10/24/06 This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License with Optional Premise in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. Marcum S. Terrance d/b/a Shop & Hop #3 This is a renewal for a 3.2 lJeer Retail Liquor License (Off Premise) in Avon (Eagle-Vail). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. D. X..lJar Fly, Inc. d/b/a Sato Sushi This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Edwards. There have heen no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. E. Ray's X...Bar Fly, Inc. d/b/a Ray's This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. F. Rio Ra.ncho, LLC d/b/a Rancho DelRio Liquor Store This is a renewal for a Retail Liquor Store License in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. Other Consent G. Sleepy Hollow Restaurant LLC d/b/a FOxnut This is a Manager's Registration for the Foxnut restaurant in Beaver Creek. Sleepy Hollow ReStaurant, LLC wishes to register Phillips Armstrong as its new Manager. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Mr. Armstrong is of good moral character, based upon Sheriff and CBI reports. Mr. Tfeu requested that Item B be pulled from the Liquor Consent Agenda. The renewal required additional signatures. Comrnissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for October 24, 2006, consisting ofItems A-G, omitting Item B. CommisSioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Otber Liquor APPLICANT: Fiesta Jalisco Numero Quince, LLC DlJA: Fiesta J alisco REPRESENTATIVE: Jose & Gloria Rodriguez, Owners LOCATION: 175 Main St, CI0l in Edwards, CO STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: This is an application for transfer of ownership of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License. This license is currently held by K.K. Simon Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Flying Burrito and is located in the Riverwalk in Edwards. The applicant currently possesses a Temporary Permit issued on August 8, 2006. 3 10/24/06 STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS ESTABLISmNG THE NEIGHBORHOOD This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. NEEDS ANI) DESIRES OF TIlE NEIGHBORllOOD This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. OTHER FINDINGs > This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been submitted, and all fees have been paid. > The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold have been previously licensed by the state and local licensing authorities and were valid as of the date of receiving the application. > Applicant is currently operating under a temporary license issued by the Board. > Ail Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been submitted. > The applicant is over 21, fingerprints are on file, and his Personal History Record is on file. > Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises October 12, 2006, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Publication of the notice is not required for a transfer of ownership. > The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the carripus of any college, university, or seminary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. Carlos Diaz, Manager for Avon Fiesta Jalisco was present. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board approve the Transfer of Ownership of the Hotel and Restaurant license from K.K. Simon Enterprises, inc. d/b/a The Flying Burrito to Fiesta Jalisco Numero Quince, LLC d/b/a Fiesta Jalisco conditioned upon the satisfactory results of the background check subrnitted to CD!. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. EstABLISHMENT: Pier 13 Liquor, Inc DBA: Pier 13 Liquor REPRESENTATIVE: Tomas and Patty Domenico, owners LOCATION: 41131 Hwy 6 & 24 Avon (Eagle-Vail) CO YEAR LICENSE ISSUED: 2004 StAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: Show Cause Hearing stemming from the following events: On August 03, 2006 this establishment sold an alcoholic beverage to a 19 year old cooperating individual (CI), working with the Eagle County Sheriff's Office, without asking for proper identification. Pier 13 Liquor has stipulated to a violation of the Colorado Liquor Code. Accordingly, this matter is before the Board for the sentencing portion of the Show Cause Hearing. Stipulation attached. This is the 151 violation of this establishment under the current ownership. 4 10/24/06 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For first time Violations, this Board has previously issued a 10-day suspension holding all but 2 days in abeyance for one year. Staff believes such sentence is appropriate and recommends that the Pier 13 liquor license be suspended for 10 days with 8 days held in abeyance for one year. If Pier 13 violates the Colorado Liquor Code rithin this year, all days will be served in addition to any other sentencing by the Board. The 2 days should be served within the next 3 months with at least one (1) ofthose days being a Saturday. DISCUSSION: Chainnan Runyon asked the owners Tom and Patty Domenico to explain the series of events. Mr. Domenico stated that he harps on his employees and all of his employees are Tips trained. He offers his employees $25.00 for an fake ill's that are confiscated. He tries his best to make sure that everyone is carded but one slipped through the cracks. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Staff s recommendation for the first time violation; 10 day suspension, with 8 days held in abeyance for one year. If Pier 13 violates the Colorado Liquor Code within the year, all days will be served in addition to ay other sentencing by the Board. The 2 days must be served within the next 3 months with at last one (1) of those days being a Saturday. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Domenico requested that they discuss his right to be fined in lieu of the suspension. Mr. Treu stated that the fine would be 20% of what would be sold that day. He would have to petition the Board for a fine in lieu of the suspension. Commissioner Stone stated that he would like to treat everyone equally and doesn't believe the Board should allow for a payment in lieu. He believes the Board does take it's role in issuing liquor licenses seriously and that state laws are followed. Commissioner Menconi stated that he would prefer to go with the staffs recommendation. Chairman Runyon agreed with the other two Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Air Tenninal Corporation. CommiSsioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Meeting Mr. Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and reconvene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Baumgartner seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Open Space funding decisions for 2006 Cliff Simonton, Community Development The McNultv Ranch Title: McNulty Ranch Conservation Easement Request for Funding Owner: Freeman Cattle Company, LLLP Location: Upper Cattle Creek Road in Missouri Heights, straddling the Eagle County/Garfield County Line Representative: Aspen Valley Land Trust SAC Recommendation: 5 10/24/06 At its regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, September 11, 2006, the Eagle County Open Space Advisory Board recommended by unanimous decision that the Board of County Commissioners allocate opert space funds in the amount of $1,926,540 for the acquisition of a conservation easement on the McNulty Ranch. Summary of Criteria Ranking by OSAC: Scenic Quality Regional Heritage and Agriculture Wildlife Sensitive Lands Physical/Visual Buffer Access MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH Not Applicable I. Project Overview the McNulty Ranch is a 908-acre working ranch located on Upper Cattle Creek Road north of the Community Center of El Jebel in southwestern Eagle County. The ranch straddles the Eagle County / Garfield County line. The owner of the ranch is requesting funds for the purchase of a conservation easement on the 466 acres of the ranch that exist in Eagle County. The easement would be held by the Aspen Valley Land Trust. The ovvners also intend to preserve the balance ofthe Ranch in Garfield County in similar fashion, as time and funding allows. Two (2) homesites Would be reserved on the Eagle County side, and three (3) would be reserved in Garfield County. The ranch supports cattle operations and hay production, and includes historic water rights, which would be retained as a condition of the easement. No public access to the ranch property is proposed. An appraisal conducted by Peterson Appraisal Company on August 10, 2006 indicated a pre-conservation value for the 1160 acres owned by the McNulty Family of $14,400,000 or $12,414 per acre. The proposed conservation easement would reduce the value of the properties to $9,535,000 ($8,220 per acre), a 33% reduction in Value. In comparison, the Bair Ranch appraisal indicated a 30% reduction in value as a result of lost development rights. The fair market value of the conservation easement on the 466 acres in Eagle County is $3,016,300. The Applican is requesting funding in the amount of $1,926,540 from the Eagle County Open Space program to preserve the lands in Eagle County. The Applicant has also requested a Division of Wildlife contribution of $184,160, which wbuld result in a $905,600 donation by the owner. II. Land Description The subject property was homesteaded in 1884, and is currently used as a cattle operation, supporting about 90 cow calf pair, and an agricultural operation producing approximately 200 tons of hay per year. The property is accessed from Upper Cattle Creek Road, and Cattle Creek flows through the meadows on the property's northern edge. The property consists of rolling hills, with irrigated hay fields in some areas, undisturbed native vegetation in others, and the riparian corridor of the creek. There is one historic home on the ranch, and several barns and sheds that support agricultural uses. In 2003, the Panorama Fire burned through the ranch, affecting approximately 90% of the area proposed for conservation easement. The area burned has since recovered very well The visibility of the property from public lands and rights-of-way is limited. From Upper Cattle Creek Road travelers are provided a scene typical to agricultural operations in this part of Eagle County, with barns, fences and pastures in immediate proximity, backed by shallow slopes and ridges. Much of the ranch is not Visible from the road, however, and the ranch cannot be seen from any major travel routes or community centers. III. Site and Transaction Information Total land area: 466 acres in Eagle County Homesites Reserved: 2 Current Land Use: Agricultural Existing Zoning: Resource Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: 6 10/24/06 East: WeSt: North: South: Agricultl1ral/Resource Agricultural/Resource Agricultural/Resource Agricultural/Resource Access: Easements: Water Rights: From Upper Cattle Creek Road Various irrigation ditch easements Richard J. Robert Ditch (1893) for .5 CFS Eureka No.1 Ditch (1908) for 2.8 CFS Ownership would remain with McNulty Family, with Aspen Valley Land Trust holding the conservation easement. Proposed Ownership: Value of Conservation Easement: Requested funding amount: Proposed Owner Donation DOW requested contribution $3,016,300 on Eagle County lands $1,926,540 ($4134 per acre) $ 905,600 $ 184,160 IV. Pr~jectAnalysis On November 5, 2002, the voters of Eagle County approved Referendum iN, which provided for an inCrease i'n taJces to fund an open space acquisition and maintenance program for the County. The ballot provided that open space funds could be used for preserving wildlife habitat, protecting working farms and ranches, conserving scenic landscapes and vistas, protecting wetlands and floodplains, providing public access points to rivers and streams and servicing future voter approved debt related to this purpose. Pursuant to this end, six criteria Were developed to be used by OSAC to evaluate properties that might be acquired or set aside as open space within the County. For each criterion, qualitative ratings of High, Medium, Low and Not Plicable Can be assigned based on the property's known physical characteristics. A. Open Space Criteria I. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. Preserve and protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. The property consists of irrigated hay fields, natural meadows and mixed scrub oak stands on rolling terrain. Much of the ranch cannot be seen from public spaces and local access roads. The property is not visible from major thorough fares such as Highway 82, nor from any of the surrounding towns and community centers. OSAC Recommendation - Scenic Quality Ranking: MEDIUM II. Reeional Heritaee, Aericulture and Ranchine. Retain Eagle County's history, culture and agricultural land uses. The McNulty ranch was homesteaded in 1884, and the family has indicated their strong desire to continue to keep the ranch as a functional agricultural operation. The ranch is used to raise cattle, typically supporting 90 cow/calf pairs, and to grow hay, with an annual production of approximately 200 tons. Some private hunting is allowed. There are approximately 20 irrigated acres within the proposed conservation easement area. OSAC Recommendation - Regional Heritage Ranking: HIGH 7 10/24/06 III. Wildlife. Wildlife Habitat and Mieration Routes. Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife. One hundred fifty-two species of birds, mammals, and plants are known or suSpected to occur the property. Mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk can be found on the ranch throughout the ye Bobcats, coyotes, long-tailed weasels, mountain lions, red fox, striped skunks are known to occur on the property. Two active red-tailed hawks nests and a great~homed owl nest are located on the property. According to the most recent wildlife maps provided by the Colorado DiVision of Wildlife, the property has been identified to include the following: Turkey ~ overall range Mule Deer - overall range, summer range, winter range Elk - overall range, severe winter range, summer range, winter range Bald Eagle - winter forage, winter range MoUIitain Lion - overall range Black Bear ~ fall concentration, overall range A letter of support of this project has been submitted by Pat Tucker, Area Wildlife Manager for the DiVision of Wildlife. He states that this parcel supports big game, small game and non-ga.me wildlife, such as elk, deer, black bear, waterfowl, passerine birds, migratory birds and raptors. OSAC Recommendation - Wildlife Ranking: HIGH IV. SensitiVe . Lands & Environments. Protect riparian areas, flood plains, and other sensitive, unique or endangered ecosystems or environments. The proposed easement area includes riparian areas and wetlands along Cattle Creek, a tributary 0 the Roaring Fork River. No plant species listed as endangered or threatened are known to occur on the property. Numerous species of wildlife have been observed to OCcur on the property. OSAC Recommendation - Sensitive Lands Ranking: HIGH V. PhvsicaLand Visua.l B....ffers. Promote community separation and distinction, and provide separation between developed a.reas and sensitive lands. The development pressures for mid to large size lot subdivision in this area are intensifying, on both sides of the County line. The ranch is not positioned between communities, but its preservation may provide for separation between developed areas and sensitive lands. OSAC Recommendation -Physical Buffer Ranking: HIGH VI. Access to Streams. Rivers. Public Lands and DisDersed Recreation. OUDortunities. Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation. The proposed conservation easement will not proVide public access or Improve recreational opportunities. OSA C Recommendation - Access Ranking: NA B. Reeional Weiehtine 8 10/24/06 As there is no competing project at this time, regional weighting has not been applied to this project. C. Additional Project Considerations the following represents those items listed as "Additional Criteria and Considerations" in Eagle County's Open Space Criteria. For the purpose of discussion, the two sections, "Factors Favoring Land Protection" and "Factors Weighing Against Land Protection" have been consolidated into single positive stcitements that can be evaluated for conformance. I. Economv. Discounts, other funding, partnerships, land donation, and/or endowment contribution favorably reduce the County's portion of the purchase cost. The owner is proposing to donate approximately 30% of the appraised value of the conservation easement. No other funding partners exist at this time, although funding has been requested from the DiVision of Wildlife. II. Master Plan. Land or development rights acquisition is supported by the intent and purposes of applicable Eagle County Master Plan documents. The preservation of this property meets the intent of the Eagle County Open Space Plan, which defines the following Open Space functions/benefits: Enhance community identity and maintain rural atmosphere Protect natural and social resources Maintain visual quality Control development in unsuitable areas Provide areas for recreation There are numerous Policies within the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan that also support the preservation of this property: 3.2.6 Growth should be managed toward future sustain ability - a healthy balance between economic success, quality oflife, and the preservation ofthe environment. 3.7.6 The quality, integrity and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved. Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process. 3.8.5 Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value. The continued evolution of Eagle County's present day culture should be considered integral to the high quality of life desired by resiQents and visitors. A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space. Open space should be able to serve different needs in different applications. III. Ure:encv. Development of the property, to a degree that open space values would he significantly compromised, is imminent. Development pressures in this area exist, and many ranches in the Vicinity have been subdivided into 35 acres subdivisions. The McNulty family desires to keep the ranch in the family and continue its use as a working ranch, but they are finding it difficult to provide upkeep and/or make improvements. A family member has Lou Gehrig's Disease, and related medical expenses are very high. The family's option is to begin selling 9 10/24/06 portions of the property for development. There is a sense of urgency with regards to the preservation of this property. IV. Uniqueness. The subject property is the only remammg, or one of a very fe remaining, opportunities to protect open space of its kind. This property is not the only remaining ranch of its kind in the area, although it is unique in Eagle County to find a family so intent on preserving their property and the attendant agricultural use through the selling of a conservation easement. V. Precedent. The project sets positive precedent for open space preservation values and objectives, and Ifiay motivate other landowners to consider preservation alternatives. This project sets a positive precedent for open space, as it may encourage other ranch owners in this area of Eagle County to pursue conservation easements as a viable means of retaining their property. VI. Education. Preservation would provide unique educational opportunities. No unique educational opportunities would result from the funding of this project. VII. SuPPort. There is wide-spread community support for the project. No letters of community support have been provided. A letter of support has been received from the Division of Wildlife. VIII. Bit! Picture. The project has potentially significant benefit on a regional or state-wide basis. Benefits of this project will be local in nature. IX. EncuIfibfance. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights of way or eaSements. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights of way, or easements. X. Environmental Hazards The property is not significantly burdened by environmental hazards (chemicals) or other waste or refuse. The property is not significantly burdened by enVironmental hazards, waste or refuse. XI. Maintenance. The long term cost to the County of maintaining and/or monitoring the land is expected to be reasonably low. The property will remain in private ownership, and all maintenance costs will be the responsibility of the property owner. Monitoring costs associated with the conservation easement will be the responsibility of the Aspen Valley Land Trust. DISCUSSION: Cliff Simonton, Senior Planner presented a request for open space funding for the McNulty Ranch. Commissioner Runyon stated that a site visit would occur on the 14th and a decision for approval of funding would be delayed until after that visit. 10 10/24/06 Commissioner Menconi wondered if this site visit would be necessary. He wondered if all the Commissioners felt it would be needed. He believes that after the presentation he may not feel this Visit is necessary. Cornmissioner Stone agreed that he would like to make the decision about a site Visit after the eSentations. Chairman Runyon stated that he had in fact seen the ranch and is familiar with the property. Mr. Sirnonton stated that the allocation of open space funds is a budget decision, but because it involves the preservatlonof open space it is also a land use decision. Criteria for evaluation had been determined. The Board is required to consider the recommendations of the advisory committee prior to considering expenditure of funds. This presentation and recommendation will be presented today. All Board input is appreciated. The fund has a balance of approximately 3.2 million dollars which if not expended would roll forward to next year. The McNulty ranch requested immediate funding. The Grange project is a request for next year due to a deadline for funding negotiations, which is November 30th of this year. Shannon Myer of the Aspen Valley Land trust was present at the hearing. Kate McNulty Was also present. The project had been in the works for some time. Mr. Simonton presented a PowerPoint slide show. The property is a 908 acre ranch of which 466 acres are within Eagle COUilty. Proposed land use is to continue as a working ranch with no public access. Ownership would remain with the McNulty family. Fair market value is just over 3,000,000. The family is requesting funding in the amount of 1,926,540.00. There is a possibility of a donation from the J)ivision of Wildlife, however these funds would.go to the Garfield County side of the equation. He showed some slides of the map and topography. He showed the COUIity line and indicated where the 466 acres were situated. He reViewed the Open Space AdVisory Corhmittee ranking. The purchase of the property was consistent with the Master Plan. There was a sense of urgency as the owner needs money. The property is not particularly unique; however, the opportunity is unique. The preservation of the subject property would set a positive precedent. There are no specific educational opportunities nor Were there any letters of community support. The benefits are local, not regional in nature except for the fact that it supports a wildlife population that migrates. Mineral rights, rights of ways, or easements, do not encumber the property. The OSAC unanimously recommended approval of this request. Chairman Runyon asked for more information on the platted parcels on one of the maps. He wondered if e surrounding development would make this ranch an island. Mr. Simonton stated that it is already an island. Ms. Myer spoke to the Board and indicated that the ranch is an 8-900 acre island that connects to Basalt MouIitain, Which is thousands of acres of public land. Chaiftnan Runyon wondered what the residual value would be. Mr'. Simonton stated that the properties was appraised at 14 million, and after the easement, it would be appraised at 9.9 million. Ms. Myer showed some pictures of the property. The request calculates to $4134.00 per acre cost to the CouIity. Ms. McNulty is donating a large amount of the fair market value. The benefits include keeping the ranch in agriculture, protecting wildlife habitat and preventing further sprawl. The property is elk, deer, bobcat, and owl habitat. Wendy McNulty spoke to the Board. She informed the Board that she is also known as Sara. She introduced her daughter Katie and indicated that she and her two daughters run the ranch. She showed some photos of the property. Ms. Myer added that there were great Views of the property from Basalt Mountain, which is a public lands area. Ms. McNulty showed her hayfields. Ms. Myer indicated that 70 acres had been left out of the proposal to proVide additional funding possibilities. Ms. McNulty stated that the north east corner of the property should also be included in the map. She indicated that her husband's family homesteaded the ranch in 1884. They are one of the oldest families still on the same land and there is a strong sense of continuity to keep the ranch going. Her husband was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease and this has been a huge financial burden to keep the ranch together. The ranch is their only asset and she had sold off bits and pieces to keep the bills paid, but then she heard of the conservation program. Both of her daughters are very involved in keeping the ranch going. They don't run a fancy operation, but they run . head of cattle. They support the habitat for the wildlife and allow very limited hunting. She spoke about a er from her friends and neighbors supporting this request. 11 10/24/06 Chairman Runyon asked if either commissioner had any questions. He thanked the owners. He opened public comment. Steven Ellsperman spoke in strong support of the project. He reiterated the unanimous support of the ope' space cornmittee. Adele Hubbel spoke. She also spoke in support of the project. She purchased a small piece of this property for one of her sons. She spoke about the need for a place for the deer and elk to go. She is 100% in favor of keeping this open space. Chairman Runyon closed public comment and stated that the vote would be delayed pending the subsequent presentation. The .Gra.nee RallchPtoiect Title: OWller: Location: Grange Conservation Easement Consideration for Future Funding Grange Family Ranches, LLC Borders the western Town of Basalt town boundary, south of the Roaring Fork River and oisected by Highway 82 (see attached map) bale Will, Director Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Combined Fee Simple and Conservation Easement Not to Exceed $1,750,000 Representative: Type of Purcha.se: Requested Amoullt: OSAC Re'commendatioll: At its regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, October 9, 2006, the Eagle County Open Space AdVisory Board (OSAC) recofnIhended by unanimous decision that the Board of County CommisSioners commit to expend 2007 Opell space funds in an amount not to exceed $1,750,000 for the preservation of that portion of the Grange Ranch property that exists in Eagle County. Funds would be used to acquire in fee simple approximately 1,800 feet of Roaring Fork River corridor, and would place a conservation easement on the entirety of the Grange Ranch property located in Eagle County. OSAC recommended that this agreement be subject to appropriate legal provisions regarding the commitment of future tax dollars, and that the following conditions should be met prior to the allocation of funds: I. Final resolution of all funding partners and the amounts to be contributed by each. 2. Receipt of a tit1ecommitment and a satisfactory appraisal approved by the County Attorney. 3. Verification that the property is not burdened by environmental hazards. 4. Separation of the river corridor parcel from the parent parcel through subdivision exemption. 5. Satisfactory agreernent regarding long term maintenance of the river corridor parcel by the Town of Basalt Reference condition # 1 above, this recommendation was made with the expectation that if its open space sales tax initiative passes, the Town of Basalt's contribution would lessen Eagle County's contribution by $500,000 or more, and that if GOCO funds are approved for this project, said funds would reduce the respective contributions of Eagle and Pitkin Counties on a pro-rata basis. Summary of Criteria Ranking by OSAC: Scenic Quality Regional Heritage and Agriculture Wildlife Sensitive Lands Physical/Visual Buffer Access HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH . 12 10/24/06 I. Project Overview The Grange family is proposing a conservation easement be placed on their ranch, which lies in the southwestern comer of Eagle County just west of the Town of Basalt. The property encompasses 245 acres, 32 of which lie in agle COU11ty (approximatelyI3% of the total). The balance of the land is located in Pitkin County. The property ncludes irrigated pastures and 1800 lineal feet of the Roaring Fork River corridor. The Open Space Advisory Committee reviewed this project in executive sessions on August 14th and September 11th, and rendered a recommendation on October 9,2006 The easement would allow continuing agricultural uses on the property, which has been worked as a ranch by the Grange family since 1918. Two historic single family homes currently exist on the property, both in Pitkin County. The proposed easement would allow the construction of one additional home in Pitkin County, and three accessory Wlits, one for each residential site. Each residence will retain a 4 acre building envelope. No residential development is proposed for lands in Eagle County. Trail easements would be established across the property for horses and hikers on Lite Hill to the south, and a fishing access easement would also connect Emma Trail to the Roaring Fork River on the eastern edge of the property. The Granges are requesting $5 million dollars for the deal, which now (as a result of reCent negotiations) includes the. fee sirn:pleacquisition of the river corridor portion of the property (!). Pitkin County has committed $3 million in open space funds to the deal. The Town of Basalt strongly supports the project, and has agreed to allocate $250,000 out of their general fWld. This amount may increase if the Town's request for an open Space tax is approved by voters this coming November. Pitkin County will also chase GOCO funds this coming spring, and believes that the project is a good candidate for GOCO support. Given the above, the amount of money that will ultimately be requested from Eagle County is not known. The nsaction is not scheduled to close until sometirne in 2007, but the property owner has requested a firm financial ;eement by November 30, 2006. Thus, the need for Eagle County to cortun:it some amount of 2007 funds at this .lme. Thirteen percent (that pOrtion of the land that is in Eagle County) of $5 million is $650,000, but the. fee simple purchase of the river corridor and associated riparian habitats, all of which lie in Eagle Cou.nty, considerably elevates the value of Eagle County's portion of the deal. At most, $1.75 million will be needed from Eagle CoUIity's 2007 open space fund account to reach the $5 million dollar project total. The Fund currently holdS a $ 3.2 million balance. The Eagle County Attorney has indicated that the Board may commit 2007 tax funds through resolution, so long as language in the resolution appropriately addresses Tabor restrictions. The resolution could also identify other conditions which must be met prior to the allocation of funds. D. Land Description The 245 acre Grange property is bounded on the north by Two Rivers Road (old Highway 82) and on the south by Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (see attached map). The newly constructed Highway 82 separates the northern one third from the southern two thirds of the property, and essentially parallels the COWlty line west to east The Roaring Fork River runs east to west on the property's northern boundary. The Basalt Sanitation District OVVhs a 7.3 acre parcel, acquired through condemnation, which exists as an "island" within the Eagle County portion of the Ranch. This parcel contains a sewage treatment facility. First homesteaded in 1899, the property currently operates as a ranch. The Grange's own senior water rights, which they use to irrigate hay meadows and pastures on the property. The majority of the property is relatively flat pastureland that drains south towards the Roaring Fork River, which . across the northern portion of the ranch in a shallow, steep-sided canyon. The two southwestern corners ude portions of Lite Hill, which is steeper terrain of native sage and shrubs. Current uses are residential (two 13 10/24/06 horne sites) and agricultural with 200 irrigated acres supporting approximately 80 head of cattle~ Access to the property north of Highway. 82 is from Old Emma Road, and to the area south from Jim Grange Land and Cody Lane. The old Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way (now the Emma Trail) parallels Highway 82. On the westerr boundary of the ranch is the Emma Open Space, purchased in 2000 (Eagle County contributed monies to t project). North of the ranch and across Two Rivers Road is the CDOW Lake Christine State Wildlife Area. In. Sitea.nd Transaction Information Total land area: 245 acres Land Area in Eagle County: 32 acres (13%) Current Land Use/Zoning: Residential, Agricultural/Resource Surrouhding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential/Town of Basalt West: Open Space, Open Range/ Resource North: Two Rivers Road / Town of Basalt South: Pitkin County Proposed Ownership: Ownership of the majority of the ranch would remain with the Grange family, with a conservation easement to be held by Pitkin County Open Space and Trails and the Aspen Valley Land Trust. The river corridor would be purchased fee simple. Title of the corridor would likely be held by Eagle County, and a separate conservation easement would govern allowed uses. $ 5,000,000 $3,000,000 from Pitkin $250,000 from the Town of Basalt (may be more) $Unknown amount from future GOCO grant 2007 funds, not to exceed $1,750,000 (35% of the total askinl price) Owner's asking price: Other Funding Sources: Funding Request: IV. Project Analysis The folloWing analysis is offered pursuant to Eagle County Resolution 2004-021, Approving and Adopting Open Space Criteria to Prioritize the Selection of Eligible Lands for Open Space: A. Background On November 5, 2002, the voters of Eagle County approved Referendum IH, which provided for an increase in taxes to fund an open space acquisition and maintenance program for the County. The bal/ot provided that open space funds could be used for preserving wildlife habitat, protecting working farms and ranches, conserving scenic landscapes and vistas, protecting wetlands and floodplains, providing public access points to rivers and streams and servicing future voter approved debt related to this purpose. Pursuant to this end, six criteria were developed to be used by OSA C to evaluate properties that might be acquired or set aside as open space within the County. For each criterion, qualitative ratings of High, Medium, Low and Not Applicable can be assigned based on the property's known physical characteristics. B. Open Space Criteria A discussion regarding the attributes of the Grange Ranch follows each of the open space evaluation criteria listed below. I. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. Preserve and protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty.and visual quality. 14 10/24/06 The pastures, Structures and vegetation on the property are very scenic and highly visible to travelers on Highway 82 as they pass the Town of Basalt. The Roaring Fork River is in pristine condition as it runs through the property near its northern border, and is bordered by and very visible from Two Rivers Road. The ranch is also visible to anyone using the Emma Trail, or floating down the River. Preserving current uses on this property would serve to protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. OSA C Recommendation - Scenic Quality Ranking: High II. Ree:ional Beritaee. Aericulture and Ranchine. Retain Eagle County's history, culture and agricultural land uses. According to the applicant, the Grange Family has worked this property as a working ranch since they purchased it in 1918. The property is currently used for hay production and cattle gtazing, and approximately 200 acres of the site are irrigated. Preserving CUlTent uses through a conservation easement would serve to retain regional heritage, agriculture and ranching. OSAC Recommendation - Regional Heritage Ranking: HIGH III. WIldlife. Wildlife Habitat and Mieration Routes. Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife. Division of Wildlife Maps would indicate the possible presence of Bald Eagles, Black Bear, Mountain Lions, Mule Deer, Osprey and Turkey on this property. The Roaring Fork River is a Gold Medal fishery, and the corridor through this property includes high quality riparian habitat. The portion of the ranch that is located in Pitkin County is adjacent to existing open space areas and federal lands, thereby creating a large area of uninterrupted wildlife habitat. OSAC .Recommendation - Wildlife Ranking: HIGH IV. Sensitive Lands. & Environments. Protect riparian areas, flood plains, and other sensitive, u.nique or endangered ecosystems or environments. The Roaring Fork River runs through the Eagle County portion for approximately 1800 ft. of the property. This reach is immediately downstream from a longer section of the river which is owned by the Town of Basalt. The fee simple purchase of this portion of the river corridor would expand public access and provide opportunities for the application of management strategies designed to protect the river's sensitive riparian environment. OSAC Recommendation - Sensitive Lands Ranking: HIGH V. Physical. and Visual Buffers. Promote community separation and distinction, alId provide separation between developed areas and sensitive lands. This property is directly adjacent to the boundary of the Town of Basalt, federal lands and existing open space. Preserving this property would serve to create a physical and visual buffer along the increasingly developed Highway 82 corridor, which bisects the property. OSAC Recommendation - PhYSical and Visual Buffer Ranking: HIGH 15 10/24/06 VI. Access to Streams. Rivers. Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation. While the majority of the ranch will remain privately held and not available to the publi the conservation easement will create public trail easements on Lite Hill and a public access easement from Emma Trail to the Roaring Fork River. In addition the fee simple acquisition of the River corridor will allow full public access to the corridor. OSA C Recommendation - Access Ranking: HIGH B. Additional Project Considerations The following represents those items listed as "Additional Criteria and Considerations" in Eagle County's Open Space. Criteria. For the purpose of discussion, the two sections, "Factors Favoring Land Protection" and "Factors Weighing Against Land Protection" have been consolidated into single positive statements that can be evaluated for conformance. I. Economv. Discounts, other funding, partnerships, land donation, and/or endowment contribution favorably reduce the County's portion of the purchase cost. This is a funding partnership with Pitkin County and the Town of Basalt. GOCO monies may also Come available. At this time, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners is being asked to commit to funding this project in an amount not to exceed $1.75 million, or 35% of the total project cost. Only 13% of the subject property is in Eagle County, but the Eagle County portion includes the Roaring Fork River, which has significant public benefit and conservation value. It is assumed that additional monies from the Town 0 Basalt and some portion of monies received frorn any GOCO grant will reduce the amount needed from Eagle County. A final determination of funding from other sources will be required prior to the allocation of Eagle County funds. In addition, the portion of the land subject to fee simple acquisition will need to be surveyed and subdivided from the parent parcel through Eagle County's exemption process prior to the allocation of Eagle County funds II. Master Plan. Land or development rights acquisition is supported by the intent and purposes of applicable Eagle County Master Plan documents. The preservation of this property meets the intent of the Eagle County Open Space Plan, which states that the functions of Open Space include the following: Enhance community identity and maintain rural atmosphere Protect natural and social resources Maintain visual quality Control development in unsuitable areas Provide areas for recreation There are numerous Policies within the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan that also apply to this project: 3.7.6 - The quality, integrity and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved. 16 10/24/06 - Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process. 3.8.5 - Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value. - A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space. - Open space should be able to serve different needs in different applications. III. Ur2:encv. Development of the property, to a degree that open space values would be significantly compromised, is imminent. While there is no current development proposed, development pressure should be considered high given the pace of rapid growth in the area, and the property's proximity to the Town of Basalt and the Highway 82 corridor. IV. Uniqueness. The subject property is the only remaining, or one ofa very few remaining, opportunities to protect open space of its kind. This property is unique in that it is a working ranch, owned by a family that wishes to stay and work the ranch. The property is in excellent condition. It is highly Visible from Highway 82 and is located immediately adjacent to an incorporated town. It also contains a highly desirable section of the Roaring Fork River. V. Precedent. The project sets positive precedent for open space preservation -vallies and objectives, and may motivate other landowners to consider preservation alternatives. This project sets a positive precedent for open space acquisition, as it involves the preservation of a working ranch and a sensitive river corridor, with appropriate public access. The project is well leveraged, with funding from a variety of SO\.lrces. VI. Education. :Preservation would provide unique educational opportunities No unique educational opportunities have been proposed or identified. VII. Support. There is wide-spread community support for the project. No third party letters have been submitted, but the strong support by elected and appointed officials of both Pitkin County and the Town of Basalt insinuates support by certain constituencies. Letters from the Town, from public land managers and from individuals who support the project would be helpful. VIII. Bit!: Picture. The project has potentially significant benefit on a regional or state-wide basis. Projects that involve multi-jurisdictional funding foster cooperative planning efforts to the benefit of local comrnunities and regional outcomes. IX. Encumbrance. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights- of-way or easements. There would not appear to be any negative encumbrance. A title commitment and full appraisal for the property will be required prior to the allocation of Eagle County funds. 17 10/24/06 X. Environmental Hazards The property is not significantly burdened by environmental hazards (chemicals) or other waste or refuse. There would not appear to be any negative enVironmental hazards on the proper Verification that the site is not encumbered by environmental hazards will be required pri to. allocation of Eagle County funds. XI. Maintenance. The long term cost to th~ County of maintaining and/or monitoring the land is expected to be reasonably low. The majority of the property will remain in private ownership. Maintenance costs to the County associated with managing the river corridor have not been addressed, but are expected to be low or non-existent. The Town of Basalt has acquired the Two Rivers Road ROW, and plans to provide maintenance for associated parking areas and fishing access points. The execution of an intergovernmental agreement (TGA) regarding maintenance of the river corridor property may be required. prior to the allocation of Eagle County funds. :Pastures on the Eagle County portion of the Grange Ranch. In the background can be seen one of the two historic ranch houses on the property (built sometime between 1899 and 1919). The slopes in the background, comprised of BLM land and the southern portion of the Grange Ranch, contain elk and deer winter habitat. 18 10/24/06 A braided section of the Roaring Fork River courses through the northern end of the Grange Ranch in Eagle County. This ranch includes approx..1/3 mile of riparian habitat along the Roaring Fork. ~ttle and farm equipment on the Pitkin County portion of the Grange Ranch. In the background is the Southside ~D, at the edge of the Town of Basalt. 19 10/24/06 This photo was taken from the Rio Grande Trail (Emma Trail), which parallels Highway 82 on the Pitkin County portion of the property. Ranch structures can be seen acrossthe irrigated hay fields. A healthy, high quality wetland on the Eagle County portion of the Grange Ranch. 20 10/24/06 DISCUSSION: Mr. Simonton presented this request. This request was for a commitment to fund in 2007 for an amount not exceed 1.75 million dollars. He stated that it would need to go back to the committee with a specific amount ached. Commissioner Stone asked for an idea for the funding request related to the amount of acres. He wanted some justification from an appraisal standpoint. Mr. Simonton stated that only 13 acres were located in Eagle County, but included 1800 oflinear feet of river frontage on the Roaring Fork River which frontage is entirely in Eagle County. The river property could be purchased in fee simple to allow public access to the river. The ownership would remain with the Grange family and Eagle County would end up owning the river frontage. Pitkin County has pledged $3,000,000 and the Town of Basalt would contribute at least $250,000. He showed a map of the property. He showed the county line. He also showed the river corridor - which would need to be subdiVided to allow a separate purchase for full access to the nver. Commissioner Stone asked for clarification on the Eagle County slide. Mr. Simonton showed some photographs of the property. The ranking was high in all criteria categories. There are funding partners from two different jurisdictions and a GOCO grant may be acquired as well. Any additional contributions from the Town of Basalt would fully offset Eagle County's portion of the purchase price. There is urgency involved due to the location near a rapidly growing Town of Basalt. There are no specific educational opportunities. The benefits are regional. Additional information regarding the potential for environmental hazards is required. OSAC recommended that the agreement be subject to appropriate legal provisions regarding the commitment of future tax dollars, and that the five conditions included in the staff report be met prior to the allocation of funds. Bill Efting, Basalt Town manager, Ken Ransford, Leroy Duroux, Mayor of Basalt were present. Dale Will, Director of Pitkin County's open space and trails program spoke. He mentioned that having two original ranching families present on the same day won't happen very often. He has learned that the open space acquisition is driven by landowner desire. The Grange family has been ranching here for a long time. They nurchased the land in approximately 1916 and currently generation number 4 is running a ranch on the land. The jects are dissimilar due to the location. Mr. Grange has been offered large sums of money for the ranch. He has used these offers as he and his family wants to remain there and raise cattle. He believes the title would be held 21 10/24/06 jointly between Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. As far as appraising the property one is not currently in hand, however kIiowing the pressures of development on the valley floor, the market value would certainly be in eXceSs ofthe contract price. Commissioner Stone wondered about the size of the Eagle County portion and he believes that serving th public trUst would indicate the need for an individual appraisal on the County property side - approximately 32 acres. Mr. Will stated that a fair appraisal would show that the value is upheld. This appraisal would be produced prior to going forward. Comrnissioner Stone wondered about the development potential for this piece of land. Mr. Will believes that approximately 2/3 would be out of the flood plain. This project is seen as very important to Pitkin County. The Pitkin County Open Space Board unanimously supports the project. It satisfies multiple conservation objectives. Bill Bfting spoke. He stated that the Basalt Town council is unanimously in favor of this project. If the sales tax on the ballot this November is successful it will generate over 1,000,000 a year. He believes the Town contribution could approach $750,000.00. Leroy Duroux stated that this property joins up with another open space property acquired several years ago. Looking at the big picture the area becomes very open and natural as it was 100 years ago. Public lands would be on both sides of this proposed open space acquisition. J{en Ransford, attorney for the Grange family spoke to the Board. He believes this is the last property between :Basalt and GlenwoodSprings that could avoid development. He showed some pictures of the ranching family. He lives in Missouri Heights and looks down on the property. The property is very visible and a real gem. The part of the property that adjoins the river is very visible. There are often people fishing in this part ofthe river. The plan that the family has is to put a conservation easement on the property in two or three different phases to qualifY for more than one Colorado tax easement. This has drawn out the entire process. His suspicion is that the property is worth several times what they are asking for. He thanked the Board fortheir involvement in the project. Mr. Will added that there is a contract that has been signed and he expects Pitkin County will also sign soon. lIe understands that the Board is interested in seeing the property and he would like to show it to the Board. He needed to make sure there was enough time procedurally. Conunissioner Runyon opened public comment. Steven Ellsperman spoke to the Board. He indicated that this is a one time opportunity to come together and preserve a property which reflects the heritage of the mid Roaring Fork Valley. He encouraged positive votes. Shannon Myer also spoke. She also believes this is an important property. Commissioner Runyon closedpublic comment. Commissioner Menconi stated that he is wholeheartedly in support of funding the purchase with the Open Space funds. He believes this is a true collaborative project and with the rising cost of land, valley corridors are becoming more expensive. He is in favor of approving the request with a proper appraisal prior to final approval. He thanked Leroy Duroux for coming and speaking in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Stone agreed with Commissioner Menconi and recommended funding for the Grange Ranch project, but wanted to approve the funds out of this year's funding balance. He stated that he does not support the McNulty Ranch funding, as he is more concerned with the funding of valley floor properties, which have public access. He would rather continue to save money for larger or more expensive purchases along the river corridors. He asked whether there might be more requests prior to year end. Mr. Simonton indicated that there would be no additional requests prior to year end. Chairman Runyon wondered why Eagle County would be getting 13% of the acreage, but are being expected to put in 35% of the total. Mr. Will stated that the river corridor would be acquired outright in fee simple, which is more expensive. The river frontage is also the most valuable in terms of development. Chairman Runyon stated that all of the property looks like flood plain. 22 10/24/06 Mr. Will recommended looking at the purchase of the property as a whole, and if the property were sold, the river frontage would become private property. The property in itself is part of a package that keeps the river front public. Chairman Runyon wondered if there had been any effort at looking at the valuation of the Eagle County 'de in a separate valuation. Mr. Will stated that they will be getting an appraisal and anticipates the project will be competitive. He would be willing to appraise the Eagle County part of it separately. Chairman Runyon wondered if the Basalt tax passed it would go towards the Eagle County's obligation. The final bill was yet to be determined. He wondered about the situation with Tabor in terms of committing to fundsthllt are not yet available. Mr. Morris stated that he believes that the county can commit now to allocate the funds in the appropriate fiscal year. Mr. Will stated that they would follow up with a more formal set of agreements. Commissioner Menconi wondered what action the Board should take at this time. Mr. Morris recommended acquisition of a property among terms to be specifically negotiated between the four parties identified by Mr. Will and a resolution to commit the funds necessary in a way that is compatible with Tabor when the time comes that the funds must be spent. Comrnis'si6ner Menconi moved to recommend acquisition of the property among terms to be specifically negotiated between the four patties and a resolution to cornrnit the funds necessary in a way that is compatible with Tabor when the time comes that the funds must be spent. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi stated that he would be interested in a site visit to the McNulty property and leaming more about the details. He has some concerns with regards to public benefit. Chairman Runyon stated that it's not the most scenic site and is slightly problematic because it's urrounded by other properties. He highly values our ranching heritage and feels the need to support the people :0 are committed to it. As far as public benefit, he believes it is clearly good for animals. Commissioner Menconi stated that it was his understanding that the parcels located in Garfield County would not be put into the easement. He wondered if there would be any additional property added to the conservation eaSement at a later date. Ms. Myer stated that there is currently an application to the DOW that would affect all of the acreage on the Garfield County side. If the agreement and Eagle County funding were approved that would put the entire ranch on the south side. Commissioner Menconi stated that although the Open Space Committee voted in favor, there was slightly less excitement towards this property. Ms. Myer stated that rather than asking for all of the money they decided on a 170-acre proposal. OSAC requested a pla.n for the whole ranch. They went back, looked at their options, and came up with a plan that mapped out the future of the whole ranch under the conservation easement. She believes that it's important remember that even though Garfield County doesn't have an open space tax or funding mechanism, they have a potential plan where Eagle County would get benefits from both sides ofthe county line. Katie McNulty stated that although the property is located at the bottom of Cottonwood Pass and seems rernote now, as the development increases on the Gypsum side, it would become more visible to Eagle County in the future. o Planning Files SMA-00027 Belle Terre Minor Subdivision Bob Narracci, Planning Department TE: Tabled from 7/25, 8/1, 8/29, 9/12 & 10/3/06 23 10/24/06 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) OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. (Jim Gilbert) Joe Forinash STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions The proposed development 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. It 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 Sanitation District, respectively. B. CHRONOLOGY: June 2006 ~ A permit was issued for the demolition of 2 residential structures and 6 out-buildings on the site. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential (Ranch House PUD) / PUD (Planned Unit Development) West: Eagle River; Residential (The Reserve) / RSM (Residential Suburban Medium Density) North: Eagle River; Residential (The Reserve) / RSM South: Arrowhead at Vail/Pun Existing Zoning: Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) 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 requests: 24 10/24/06 · 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. · Information 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 or received, provide a copy of the permit. [Verbal comments as of 5 September 2006] · The Engineering Department reports that, with minor exceptions that can be addressed as the construction plans are finalized, the drawings and other information proVided to date are satisfactory. Eagle County Surveyor · Various technical cotntnents. 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 will most likely hot be threatened 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 inclusionary mitigation (moderate income). The calculated total of 1.48 Uhits 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 · 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. 25 10/24/06 · 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 ofthis 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 temperatures. 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 \Vater line. · The CGS Geologist visiting the site did not observe signs of bank erosion from the top ofthe 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 of20 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. · 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 ifrapid 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 26 10/24/06 · 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)OI), 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. Additional Referral 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 Resource Conservation Service (USDA), US Army Corps of Engineers, Holy Cross Ertergy, KN Energy, CenturyTel, The Reserve HOA, Arrowhead at Vail HOA, Millers Creek gOA. 'it STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-290.G.1. Standards for the review Of a Type A Minor 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 COMPREIlENSIVE PLAN ~V) V) ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ..... .....~ Z u ur2 Uu V) V) .....:I ~ ~ :::E ~- ~ ~~ ~ :::E t:l.. -u CJ ~~ U ~u > 5~ ~ 0 ~!5 25 V)~ ~!5 ::l!5 - .....:I ..... ~ ~ 5~ V) ~V) ~o - ~- ~ 00 V) _.....:I > ::J ~~ <e:V) .....:IV) ffi >23 0 ~ ~~ 0 ~~ ~~ .....:I CJ 0 ::r: 25<e: V) ffiO' ~ CONFORMS x x x x x x x x x x OES NOT CONFORM XED CONFORMANCE I 27 10/24/06 Remarks: See below. NA Governance. Eagle County's Core Values have been appropriately cotntnunicated to the applicant through the planning process. The community at large is aware of the proposal, and has been provided adequate opportunity to be involved with the decision making process. Development. Development would be clustered, preserving open space areas, except a portion ofthe riparian area near the Eagle River. The developIl1ent is located in the itntnediate 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 Resoutces. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed development 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. 1n.frastructuteandSetvices. The proposed development, with the recommended conditions of approval, would c'ontribute 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 tecent 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. EnVitonmental Ouality. 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 Community 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. EDW AltOS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Not Applicable Conformance Land Use x Housing x Transportation x Open Space x Potable Water and Wastewater x Services and Facilities x Environmental Quality x 28 10/24/06 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. OpenSpace. 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. Dnvironmental Quality. With recent revisions to the site plan, the proposed subdivision is sensitive to the Vironmental quality of the site and adjacent lands. Economic Development. This Section is not applicable. R.ecreation and Tourism. This Section is not applicable. Historic Presetvation. This Section is not applicable. Irnplementation. 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. 29 10/24/06 w. . d~p~ncabl~;.1 ~ LandUse 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. DevelopmentPatterns. 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 Ouantity. The proposed developrnent 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. EAGLE COUNTY COMPRElIENSlVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: · Housing is a community-wide issue 30 10/24/06 · Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan . . . · Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes · Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success · It is important to preserve existing local residents housing · Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county · Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evalUated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle County will cOllaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the 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 peIinanent local residents shollld be brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part ofthe problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents Xl 7. Com:m: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 ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing cOlIlIilimity 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 segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies ate 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.I.a.] The PUD IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 31 10/24/06 STANDARJ): Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.l.b.] - The proposed subdivisiOn shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts The site is currently zoned Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL). As such, the zoning allows one dwelling Uhit 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) / 15,000 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 improvements 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 many as 3 are required for each multi-family unit, including triplexes, depending on the number of bedrooms. 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 arid Illumination 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 improvements 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: 32 10/24106 · Documentation of the high water line which establishes the 50 foot setback from the Eagle River should be provided. · Development 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 of the County Engineer. [Condition #IJ [+] 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 materials 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 #2J 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 #3J [+ J Wood Burninf! Controls (Section 4-440) - The development will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) ~ This application was accepted prior to approval of the recent amendment to the Land Use Regulations regarding ridgeline protection, and so is subject to the earlier standards. This site is not located on land preViously designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [n/a] Environmental Impact Reoort (Section 4-460) - An EnVironmental Impact Report is not required for this proposed development. [n/aJ Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) No commercial or industrial uses are proposed. This section is not applicable. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - 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] 33 10/24/06 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 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 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 lO-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 of this 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] [ilia] Irriflation 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 34 10/24/06 plat, but may not be in final form and executed by the Applicant until after the hearing on the application. In addition, approval ofthe 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 satisfactoty 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] [+] 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 developrnent, 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 may 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 Lighting 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 development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #3] [+] Water Supply 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 35 10/24/06 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 Department of Transportation to bore under the highway. Ifthis 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 rnaintained 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 manner 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 fihal 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 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 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 meeting 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] 36 10/24/06 [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The Eagle County School District (RE50l) has indicated that it will accept payment of cash-in-lieu of land dedication. In 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 [(0.0151 units/acre x I 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 ofthe 3.2 acre site is established at $2,150,000, a per acre value of $671,875. The resulting payment of cash in lieu of school land dedication is $18,543.'75 [$671,875 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. I .b.] Due to the lackbfa 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 Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern ShalllJe 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 Cavital 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. I.e.] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5 -290. G .l.d.] -The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may cifJect 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. 37 10/24/06 existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-290.G.l.e] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the futute development of the surrounding area. Surrounding uses are primarily residential, but include the Eagle River and some open space. (+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-290.G.l.e.] The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area. STANDARD: Improvements Agreement. [Section 5-290.G.l.f.] - The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. Certain public improvements related to roads and drainage necessitate a SubdiVision Improvements Agreernent. 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 improvements agreement cannot be finalized fairly quickly. If this application is approved, as a condition of apProval, a satisfactory improvements agreement anI 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] STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.l.g.) - Its conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines. 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 conform with the Final Plat re uirements and other a licable re ulations, olicies, standards and uidelines. C. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 38 10/24/06 Housin2 Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The Housing Guidelines were subsequently amended on July 12, 2005, by Board Resolution 2005-90. 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. 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 ihlieu to mitigate local resident housing impacts should be paid prior to the time that building pefmits are iSsued for the respective lots and should be based on the income and housing cost data current and available at the time, and the final plat should include a note 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] DlsCtISS10N: Mr. NaiTacci presented a PowetPoint presentation. The presentation included the prior site plan, vicinity map, revised site plan and discussion points. The applicant offered to make a payment in lieu, preferably to buy credits at Fox Hollow. It was proposed that condition 6 be deleted due to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The >licaht had reVised the site layout eliminating the single-family structure on the comer of U.S. Highway 6 and serve Road. The duplex structure on the western portion of the property remains as originally proposed. The triplex structure was replaced with a single-family residence situated approximately 66 feet from the high water mark of the Eagle River. He indicated that staff recommended approval with conditions. Commissioner Stone stated that he supports the reVised sketch plah. He thanked the applicant for their effort to rnove the homes away from the river. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Cotntnissioner Stone moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. SMA-00027, Belle Terre Subdivision, incorporating the Staff findings and with the following conditions, with the removal of condition No.6: 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 16, 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. 39 10/24/06 4. The Applicant shall proVide, prior to approval of the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. 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. 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 IDghway 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) and 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 Environmental 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 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. 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 income and housing cost data current and available at the time, and the final plat shall include a note 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". 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. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. VIS-0030 Belle Terre Minor Subdivision Kelly Miller, Engineering Department 40 10/24/06 NOTE: ACtION: Tabled from 7/25, 8/1, 8/29, 9/12 and 10/3/2006 Approve a Variance from the Improvement Standards for the requirement of two points of access. JOCATION: 34965 Hwy 6 (North ofHwy 6, west of Reserve Road) FILE NO.: RELA'fltn FILE NOS.: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: VIS-00030, Variance from Improvement Stand~rds SMA-00027 Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. Raining Sun Enterprises, Inc. (Jim Gilbert) STAFFRECOMMENDA TION: Approval with conditions 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking a variance from the Dual Access reqUirement (ECLUR 4-620J.l.h). The proposed development cOhsists of one single-family home site, one duplex and one triplex multi family home on a 3.096 acre parcel ofland. Much ofthe site consists of an existing home site overlooking the Eagle River. The ffiulti-farnily home sites are clustered along the upper bank of the river while the single family home site is positioned in the Southeast Comer of the property. The subdivision road is not over 1000 feet in length. 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 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 alohg the South side does not have favorable topography to access Hwy 6. Dual access is n:otfavbrableaccording to the US 6 and 1-70 G (Edwards Spur Road) corridor feasibility study. (SEE ATT ACIIMENT) B. CHRONOLOGY: June 2006 ~ A permit was issued for the demolition of 2 residential structures and 6 out-buildings on the site. C. SITE DATA: Surroundin LandUses / Zonin East: Residential/PUn West: Residential Suburban Medium Densi North: Residential Suburban Medium Densi South: Residential / PUD E:ristin Zonin Residential Suburban Low Density Pro osed Zonin : No chan e in zonin is ro osed Proposed No. of Dwelling 6 Units: Total Are~: Minimnm Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: ter: er: 3.096 acres 0.498acres 1.566 acres Eagle River Water and Sanitation Ea Ie River Water and Sanitation 41 10/24/06 I. Access: I Reserve Road 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES 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 developm.ent 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. Eaele River Fire Protection District · The proposed neW hydrant and existing hydrant appear to be adequate for fire fighting purpOSes. · Turning movements submitted for the project confirm adequate emergency access. EaeleRiver 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 majority of the 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 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 temperatures. 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. 42 10/24/06 · 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: . DtainaJte · 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. Note: The referrals shown above are the only referrals that are 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 East side of the property which then accesses Hwy 6. The proposed East access, (creating "Rue Riviere") is located along the Corntnon lot line of Lots 1 and 3, and runs east-west proViding access to all three lots. Variance Request ~ DuaJAccess (ECLUR 4-620.J.1.h) The applicant seeks a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLuR 4-620.J.l.h). Specifically, the section reads as follbws: Dual Access. The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a usable and unobstructed (with the exception of breakaway barriers) secondary emergency point of ingress/egress for all new development or redevelopment capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles. Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography'and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. (am 12/17/02) Reference 4~620.J.1.h: The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. The Colorado State Forest Service has given the development a wildfire hazard rating oflow. They would suggest that dual access be considered and noncombustible 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. 43 10/24/06 E. STAFF FINDINGS: Crit~ria for Evaluation by the County Enl!:ineer 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 COUlity Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether thealtemative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that the norma.lly 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 minimum acceptable level of "community values," since the ECLUR were adopted after extensive work and comments by the community. " Criteria for Evaluation by the Board of County Commissioners The Board of County Commissioner's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5~260 G.2. of the ECLUR. It states in part: "The Board of Courtty Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the petitioner of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected." The .Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the petitioner will be deprived of some or all of his right to use the land if the ECLUR is strictly followed. StaftFindinl!:s Tht.applicant must demonstrate that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these' standards is granted. Vatiance 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 esta.blished by these standards. Boa.rd of County 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 44 10/24/06 The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. . Cornrnissioner Stone moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. VIS-0030, ariance request for the requirement of two points of access with the following conditions: 1. Except as othefVVise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00049 The West End pun Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION": Tabled from 8/15, 9/5 & 10/10/06 Proposal for mixed use development planned unit development which includes multi-family residential dwelling units; employee housing units; and commercial uses including office, restal.ltant and retail-oriented business units. FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: PDS-00049 / POO Sketch Plan 34019 Hwy 6, Edwards (Formally known as the Havener Parcel); west of the Edwards Spur Rd/Highway 6 intersection. Urban Legends, LLC Owner Sid Fox, Fox and Company OWNER: ipLICANT: ~;pRESEN:rATIVE: STAEF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant wishes to create a mixed use PUD which is comprised of between 55-65 free-market residences with an additional 8-12, onsite local residents/employees housing units. As part ofthe PUD Guide, the residential dwelling units/uses may include: apartments and/or condominiums/townhomes; condominium hotel/tirne-share/fractional fee condo units; bed and breakfast; and boutique hotel. All new residential units (as proposed per current site plan) are proposed above commercial space, with private parking areas provided beneath the structures. In addition to the residential component of this PUD, the applicant is currently proposing an approximate, 40,000 sq ft of commercial retail/office space, with a potential 9,000 sq ft more of either commercial or residential square footage by use of 'flex' space. Some of the proposed commercial uses include: restaurants; drive-thru business; common retail establishments; office and professional services; health- related services; and service oriented establishments such as a tailor, photography studio or dry-cleaning facility (pick-up only). 45 10/24/06 The West End development project is a proposed redevelopment of the Havener property located off of Highway 6 in the commercial core of Edwards, CO. Currently, the property hosts a variety of uses including: a small mobile home park; trucking operation; a 'defunct' refu.eling site; a construction materials storage yard; and a masonry storage and delivery yard. The mobile home park is in very poor condition with many homes over 25 years old. In addition to the variety of uses on the property, there are several 'out' buildings that are old and decrepit. According to the applicant, the current Sketch Plan has been designed and oriented according to, Current Site ConditiollS- 2004 ".. . a pedestrian scale". Further, ". . .the project will consist of lively streets with appealing storefronts, ample sidewalks, street fuflliture, landscaping and on- street parking that will create a Vibrant and convenient place for residents and visitors to interact, work, dine and shop." The West End is also directly adjacent to Eagle River Preserve Open Space parcel. As such, the applicant is willing to incorporate necessary buffering and/or improvements between the West End and the Eagle River Preserve Open Space parcel; to more effectively manage the current topography which includes a drop in elevation from the West End property, to a significantly lower grade on the Open Space parcel (12 feet in certain portions of the property edge). B. CHRONOLOGY: 1969- Havener purchased the subject property 1974- RSL zoning was placed on the properties when Eagle County introduced zoning in September, 1974 Co SITE DATA: SUrrounding Land Uses I Zoning: East: Commercial: Kemp / Unplatted / CG West: Commercial: Vogelman / Unplatted / CG North: Eagle River Preserve Open Space Parcel/Resource South: Highway 6 Existing Zoning: RSL Total Area: 3.28 acres (142, 876.8 sq ft) Water: Public- as proposed Sewer: Public- as proposed Access: Direct from Hwy 6 46 10/24/06 D. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGSffiELIBERATIONS: The applicants ofthe West End participated in two (2) Planning Commission hearings. At the second and final hearing, the following commentslideas/concerns were shared by the Planning Commission: . The architecture was well received by the Planning Commission; however, there were concerns regarding the massing of the buildings along the property edge shared by the Eagle River Preserve . The minimal side setbacks, especially on the western side of the property was a concern · Planning for the entire corner and connection to adjacent property, and not just the West End property was appreciated . Smaller studios or one-bedroom condos should be considered in the mix of housing options; people may not want roommates . Design guidelines will be an important consideration; especially if the County adopts design guidelines through the sub~area plan or by some other means . Current plan does not offer any "communication" with the Eagle River Preserve and abruptly stops at the property line . Needs to be more pedestrian and mass-transit oriented . (Anticipated) Market study will be important to show the need of the proposed uses . The proposal offer good public benefit; however, the final housing plan is critical A motion to approve the file with Staff and additional conditions was made with the understanding that this application still needs "Work" and that the applicant should incorporate Planning Commission concerns regarding massing and Setbacks as part of the Preliminary Plan application. E. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion: [4: 1] The Planning Commission recommended to approve file PDS-00049 incorporating Staff findings and conditions, and with the understanding that the applicant will incorporate Planning Commission concerns regarding rnassing and setbacks. 2. STAFF REPORT F. REFERRAL :RESPONSES: (see attached) Environmental Health Department, telephone conversation, July 12th, 2006: . A 1041 may be necessary if the applicants cannot show sufficient evidence that the water and wastewater generation for the West End is less than or equal to the previously approved 1041 for the Havener mobile home park. · It is recommended that incompatibilities between land uses internal to the project and issues that may arise regarding compliance with the Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations be the responsibility of the Property Owners Association. . The property remains subject to our Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards as it involves off~site impacts. Engineering Memo, dated July 7th, 2006: · The proposed access plan to Highway 6 is inconsistent with the guidance provided by the "US 6 Corridor Feasibility Study" for this area. . The proposed main entrance is in compliance with the guidance in the Corridor Study, but the existing access at the west end of the property is identified for closure. · This access should be closed and a shared access provided to the property to the west with the development of this site. . The proposal does not address improvements required for Highway 6 outlined in the Corridor Study. . This section of Highway 6 is identified for additional lanes, paved shoulder and bike path, curb and gutter, and attached sidewalk with a total ROW width of 110'. 47 10/24/06 · This full section may not be required for construction by this developer, but the development proposal must accommodate the ROW required and not prevent these future improvements. · The proposed main entrance to the site appears to be problematic in providing the necessary stacking distance for cars exiting the site, and necessary separation from conflicting movements for cars entering the site. · Similar accesS configurations in the River Walk development have had operational problems. · The proposed grading from the site onto the open space property is very significant (15' vertical +/_), and would impact the USe ofthe open space property. · This appears problematic and alternatives should be considered. · The proposed grading at the east and west property lines of the site includes significant retaining walls. · These retaining walls could be difficult to construct, and pose drainage conflicts in later phases of design. · Based on a review of the overall utility plan, there appear to be numerous challenging conditions that will need to be addressed with the preliminary plan for this site. · These issues include site drainage (especially overland conveyance of runoff in the event that inlets are plugged), detention and storm water quality, and sanitary seWer routing across the open space parcel. · Based on the comments cited above, the Engineering Department feels that significant reVisions to the proposed site plan are justified. · If reVisions to the proposal are made, please refer the revised plans to this department for additional review and comment. !tCO Tralls.email dated July 6th, 2006: · A 10' trail should be provided on this property per the US Highway 6 Corridor Plan that anticipates pedestrian/bike facilities on both sides of Highway 6 in the core of Edwards. · The 2003 Access Plan details a more precise Vision than the 2001 Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan for the highway 6 c'orridor circulation in Edwards, including toutes vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. · The ttail should be constructed by the development on the private property per CDOT's preference and to allow for future expansion of the highway. · As an exarnple, the trail across the highway on the Edwards Village Center property is located on an easement obtained from the private property owner, not on CDOT right-of-way. · Development shouldpfOvide a connection to the adjacent open space lands which are often cited in the proposal as a project asset · A paved 8 foot Spur trail, built to county standards is recommended unless the Eagle River Preserve planning and managing entity prefers otherwise · A corridor for the trail connection and responsibility for construction should be described in the final prdject approval language ECO Transit, email dated July 6th, 2006: · We continue to search for a site for a transfer center in Edwards, similar to Avon Center, where we can provide efficient access to Edwards from 1-70. · This may be our chance, but there are many challenges. · I understand they are considering structured parking. · Great idea for a small site with intensive use. · Perhaps a level of underground parking could incorporate a turnaround area for buses. This would make the site attractive for shoppers and employees who take the bus and a small underground transit center would be visually unobtrusive. · However, I'm sure it would be very expensive. · We do not have a lot of money to contribute to such a project. · Another issue is access: I think we would need some sort of dedicated or semi-dedicated lane directly to Edwards Access Road, but it would have to cut through private, developed property to the East. 48 10/24/06 · If We travel Highway 6 to the Access Road, all the turning movements (particularly left-hand) and signalization will cause travel time delays. · It would be difficult to justify the cost of an underground facility without having efficient access. Colorado Geological Survey, memo dated July 6th, 2006: · The proposal is a redevelopment of a mobile home park into a mixed use development with mu1ti~family, retail and office; the site is approximately 3 acres With an average slope of 5% . Reports regarding geotechnical constraints or geologic hazards were not submitted with this application; existing hazard mapping indicates thatthere are no hazards that would preclude development. · Soil survey information indicates that soils on the site may have properties that could impact the design of structures, roads and utilities (e.g.) soil-induced chemical action may corrode steel or that basements may be difficult to construct due to rock. · The site's soils also appear to be underlain by evaporate bedrock that may be susceptible to subsidence. · The County should require that a geotechnical report be submitted before approval of final layout and construction plans. Colorado Division ofWiIdliie, telephone response, July ih, 2006: · The DOW does not have any comments for this file. Eagle County School District, memo dated June lOth, 2004 · The Sketch Plan is proposing 55-65 multi-family units. The units would result in the dedication requirement as follows: 55 Multi-family Units X .0025 acres per unit = 0.1375 acres or 65 Multi.;.falllily Units X .0025 acres per unit = 0.1625 acres . As the land dedication acreage is minimal, the District will accept cash in lieu of land for this Subdivision Sketch Plan. . Per the recently revised County School Land Dedication Standards, the value of this cash payment wiiI he determined by an appraisal ofland provided by the developer with the application for Final Plat. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, memo dated June 28th, 2006: · The application refers to the ERWSD (District) as the water proVider; the water proVider is the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. · Engineered construction drawings mUst be submitted to the District Construction Review Team for review of the water and sewer infrastructure prior to the beginning of construction · Because this PUD constitutes an up-zoning of the existing development area dedication of water rights may be required. · Construction drawings will not be approved until water rights issues have been resolved and an Ability to Serve letter has been issued. · Following the Ability to Serve process, connection to the District and Authority system may be made once the applicable fees have been paid. · The development site is located in the ERWSD for sanitary sewer service. · An Ability to Serve letter from the District and payment of fees is required prior to connection. · The applicant has been in contact with the District and the Authority concerning water rights issues and the process is currently underway. Additional Referrals were sent to the following agencies and Homeowner's Associations: · Eagle County Attorney, Assessor, Housing, Road and Bridge, School District (Transportation), Sheriff's Office . CDOT . Ambulance District 49 10/24/06 · Edwards Metro District, Eagle River Fire Protection District · Eagle County Historical Society, Eagle Valley Land Trust, Postmaster for Edwards · Homestead HOA, Riverwalk HOA, Edwards Village Center POA, Old Edwards Estates HOA, Singletree HOA South Forty HOA, Lake Creek HOA, Heritage Park HOA G. STAFF DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch Plall for PUD: 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 pub 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. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire area affected by this POO Sketch Plan is in single ownership. 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 applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. The subject property was zoned RSL (Residential Suburban Low Density) when zoning was applied to unincorporated Eagle County, in 1974. This proposal contemplates 55-65 free-market residences; and 8-12 local resident housing units. In addition, a variety of commercial uses are also proposed. Of the proposed forms of residential uses, residential dwelling units are the 'uses by right'. In addition to residential dwelling units, there are a few residential-type uses permitted via Limited Review including: bed and breakfast and home business. Hotel, or 'boutique hotel', is not a residential use pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; and is perrnitted Via Special Use Permit pursuant to the proposed West End PUb guide. Most of the proposed uses are currently permitted in the RSL zoning; however, time~ share/fractional-fee and hotel uses are not. Pursuant to the Edwards Cotntnunity Master Plan, this area is slated for "mixed use" development. Uses may include, ".. .commercial, residential high-density, office recreation, among others," in this area of Edwards. The majority of the proposed residential and commercial uses are found within a typical residential/mixed- use neighborhood; however, as the West End PUD offers a multitude of uses for this property, it is imperative that the applicant continue to examine the PUD guide to ensure that the site would be able to accotntnodate all of the proposed uses in any configuration, and at any time. It is not constructive to simply permit certain uses as 'Special Uses' and transfer the site review analysis to Staff to investigate if that use would be acceptable and be able to function on the site after final designs and approvals are obtained from the Board of County Commissioners. Without the benefit of a full use analysis at Preliminary Plan, subsequent use approvals, not considered at Preliminary Plan may have an affect on local resident/employee housing needs and transportation infrastructure. The POO guide must be clear and concise, and provide understanding in how to administer the variety of uses throughout the project. Where extreme caution should be taken is in how the proposed uses would be able to function together, all at the same time; there is nothing in the POO guide limiting the number of uses at anyone time (aside from the amount of available square footage), or where the uses would be located to ensure that the shared parking areas would be evenhanded. This PUD offers so many uses, that it is difficult to understand how this Sketch Plan PUD would function if approved at this time. Fortunately, the applicant is utilizing a multi- 50 10/24/06 step process. At this concept-level phase, Staff and applicant can continue to work on analyzing the types and functionality of the proposed uses. Staffs biggest concern at this point, is to ensure that the stated intent of this Sketch Plan is maintained; that this project is both a residential and commercial project. Staff recommends that the PUD be pared down/amended to the following uses: (mandatory) residential dwelling units; hotel as a commercial use- not residential; commercial uses including but not limited to: service oriented uses such as tailor, salon, photography studio, veterinary, and banks; retail establishments; office, business and professional uses; drive-thru establishment in Building 2 only; and a limited number of restaurants. This site is not a very large property, and would have difficulty in supporting the number and types of uses proposed with this development. Based on the submitted site plan, proposed uses like 'grocery store', would have difficultly setting up Without being implemented from the onset of the planning process (loading docks would be necessary), like the proposed drive-thru has been. As Such, it is recommended that for the Preliminary Plan the applicant look at potentially tying uses to buildings or creating planning nodes to further control the organization of uses on the site. None of the commercial uses, as proposed, are currently permitted in the RSL zone district. Many of the proposed residential uses are permitted in the RSL zone district as uses by right, Limited ReView or Via Special Use Permit; however, some of the uses are also not permitted in this zone district. Uses not currently petIriitted in RSL,but are perrnitted in the proposed POD guide, will require a Variation to be approved by the Board of County Conunissioner prior to the approval of the Preliminary Plan. (See condition 4) [+1-) FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] AS CONDITIONED The 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 either Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule" or Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule"; however, many of the colTlIfietcial uses ARE NOT currently permitted in the underlying zone district. This finding may be found positive assuming approval of the Variations by the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan. STAN:I>ARD: 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 disttiCt designation in effectfor 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.3f, Variations Authorized. ptovided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fite ptotection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The following Variations will be also be requested by the applicant in the Preliminary Plan application: 1. Maximum lot, floor area and imperVious coverages. 2. Setbacks. 3. Heights. The applicants are proposing development on the majority of this property. Given the necessary infrastructure needs for parking and commercial road layout and design, the applicants are proposing minimal side and rear setbacks; less than what is currently permitted in either the underlying zoning, or as required in standard commercial zoning. In response to the current site plan, the Planning Commission provided direction to the applicants to revisit their design and proposed layout focusing on functionality and architecture, with a recommendation to 'step or terrace' the buildings away from the property lines to ensure that the proposed buildings do not act as a wall between neighboring properties (buildings are currently massed along the west and north property lines, using minimal setbacks). A complete list of possible Variations must be submitted by the applicant as part of the Preliminary Plan. More Variations, than identified in this application, could be requested. (See condition 14) 51 10/24/06 (+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] AS CONDITIONED The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the pUb ARE NOT those specified in the existing Planned Unit Development Guide for these properties; however, this finding may be found positive assuming approval of the Variations b the Board of Coun Commissioners at preliminar Plan. 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. With thena.ture of this proposal, and the design of the buildings for the multiple uses, a site specific parking plan will have to be developed and submitted as part of Preliminary Plan. The parking plan must adequately address loading areas, residential, employee, Visitor and commercial patron parking. The maximum number and viability of any shared-use parking spaces must also be addressed in the parking plan. At this time, Staff is most concerned with the implementation of a hotel; business necessitating loading docks/bays; and garbage removal using the current parking and/or circulation plan as proposed. Further, based on the comments from the Engineering Department, potential access modifications may affect the proposed parking and/or site plan. Staff is also concerned with the amount of surface parking shown on the ptoposed plan. Although the plan apparently reflects the proposed uses, this current site appears to be designed for the automobile, and does not necessarily incorporate pedestrian design throughout the site. Currently, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings are not shown as considerations from the West End shopping district to either of the future east and West connections to neighboring properties; nor are there designated crosswalks corning into the site frorn the bike trail on the south property line. Given that this is a Sketch Plan, however, the applicant has a.mple time to incorporate these considerations for Preliminary Plan. (See conditions 4 & 6) [+) FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] AS CONDITIONED Given the Sketch Plan level detail ofthe development plan, it is likely that the applicants WiLL be able to demonstrate that off-street parking and loading provided in the POD CAN comply with the standards of Article 4, Division I, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards, at Preliminary Plan. 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. A detailed landscaping plan is required to be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan. That plan should detail all types and location of landscape materials to be utilized as part of this development. A cost estimate will also be necessary for collateralization purposes. Site lighting and illumination standards must also be satisfactorily addressed with the Preliminary Plan. (See conditions 7 & 8) (+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] AS CONDITIONED It WILL be demonstrated that landscaping provided in the PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Illumination standards must be considered as part of Preliminary Plan. 52 10/24/06 STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit 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 applicant has made statements that a Comprehensive Sign Plan will be included with the Preliminary Plan applicati6n. Signs should be focused at the pedestrian level, and at a scale that would attract persons from greater distances, off the West End site. (See condition 5) [+1 FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] AS CONDITIONED The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. ThePUD guide properly references that signs shall be as allowed pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is required to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. 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. Existing facilities such as electricity (telephone, gas, cable, etc.), and fire protection currently service the residents liVing on the proposed property. Solid waste removal areas should be designated on the Preliminary Plan; waste receptacles should be wildlife-proof containers. In regards to water and Wastewater service, it may he necessary for the Applicant to apply for 1041 approval. The applicants have provided the required "Ability to Serve" letter from the appropriate entities. In a.ddition to the subrnittal of a 1041 permit (if wart anted), all materials, as required in Section 5-240.F.3 Preliminary Planfor PUD must be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan. This also includes detailed information regarding water and sewer service. The applicants have shown preliminary road layouts on their Sketch Plan which provide internal connections to future developments to both the east and west. All Eagle County road standards must be adhered to, unless a Variation or a Deviation from those standards is approved with the Preliminary Plan. In addition to adherence to Eagle County road standards, the applicants will also need to apply for and obtain a Highway 6 Access Perrnit from CDOT. Pursuant to the Engineering memo dated July 7th, 2006, the applicants have been adVised to reVise their current site plan to adequately anticipate these improvements to, specifically, Hwy 6, among other things. Currently, they do not have detailed designs of this aspect as of yet. It is imperative that all road designs and access/Hwy 6 improvements be recognized and incorporated as part of the Preliminary Plan application. (See conditions 3 & 4) [+1-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (7)] AS CONDITIONED The Applicant HAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in this Sketch Plan for PUD will be provided adequate access and feasible, internal roads. The applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Sketch Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water and sewage disposal, and HAS also demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police, 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: 53 10/24/06 (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-ol-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) more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officia (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 fot 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. This. development will have to meet all minimum County and/or Colorado Division of Transportation standards regarding road designs (including access entrance and highway 6 improvements), unless a Variation from Eagle County standards is granted by the Board of County Commissioners during the Preliminary Plan process. A new Highway 6 access permit must be received prior to the approval of the Preliminary Plan. Pursuant to the Engineering memo dated July 7'\ i006, the applicants have been advised to revise thei _, current site plan to adequately anticipate future improvements to Hwy 6 and access, among other things. . Staff is also concerned with the site design and the number of uses proposed in the PUD guide. There is not enough. infoffIiation within this Sketch Plan to effectively ascertain whether the access is adequate. Although this is a Sketch Plan application, leaving the full analysis to Preliminary Plan may result in significant modifications to this plan. As such, the Preliminary Plan could not go forward, and the Sketch Plan would have to be amended/re-evaluated. Currently, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings are not shown from the West End shopping district to either of the future east and west connections to neighboring properties; nor are there designated crosswalks coming into the site from the bike trail on the south property line. Given that this is a Sketch Plan, however, the applicant has ample time to incorporate these considerations for Preliminary Plan (See conditions 3, 10 & 13) [-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] AS CONDITIONED It HAS NOT been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. ( c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e Snow Stora e. 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. Currently, the underlying, residential property is compatible with the character of the lands surrounding it. Both the proposed residential and commercial uses are uses which could benefit the Edwards area for both 54 10/24/06 residents and visitors; the Edwards Area Community Plan recognizes this property as suited for mixed use development. This development, if properly executed, will be compatible with the entirety of the Edwards core. (+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. (Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS com atible with the character of surroundin land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTERPLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN x x x x x x x x x X General Governance - Conforms withthe policies of this Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Development ~ The residential cofuponent of this development is currently permitted in the underlying zone district, albeit, not all dwelling types are permitted as a use by right (timeshare/fractional-fee units, and hotel uses are prohibited in RSL zonmg). The proposed uses must be thoroughly evaluated to ensure true compatibility between the residential and commercial uses, and mitigation must be implemented to ensure that this compatibility is feasIble. Hotel, as a residential Use, is also a concern. Currently, hotel is solely permitted in commercial zone districts, and should not be able to replace true residential dwelling units. Mixed use developments have been development in Edwards as part of the Riverwalk and Homestead subdivisions. The existing site (and neighboring site) is unplatted and may contain "grandfathered" uses or uses which may now require a greater level of detail/review than previously permitted through past regulations. This proposal will potentially eliminate the grandfathered uses, ensuring that the site is analyzed and properly developed. Significant policies in this Section of the Comprehensive Plan relate to preserving quality of life attributes, maintaining or enhancing community character, and limiting economic development to a scale and type that is consistent with local character. This is an extremely important aspect of this analysis; Eagle County has hired a consultant to analyze this site, and the majority of the Edwards core to ensure proper planning and functional developments are implemented as part of the core area. This property is one of the last, undeveloped properties of the Edwards area. Economic Resources - The proposed commercial uses would tend to support and enhance the regional economic structure and local economic drivers. In addition, the proposed development would not significantly detract from eonomic activities that depend on healthy natural environments and ecosystems. With commitments to satisfy the 55 10/24/06 recommendations of the Housing Guidelines, local residents, currently traveling elsewhere for employment, would have the opportunity to travel less and work closer to their homes. Housing - The applicant, from the onset of this application, is proposing 8-12 units of local workforce housing to be provided onsite for employees, in the event that an employee may need a place to reside. There currently is not enough information to formulate an opinion to how many units will be actually necessary, given the number and type of uses ptoposed in the POO guide; Comments from the Housing Department qualifying this amount of housing have not been received. Infrastructure and Services -- Highway 6 has been improved and is sufficient for the needs of this proposal; however, pursuant to the Engineering memo dated July 7th, 2006, additional reView and modifications to the proposed plan require further review and modification, which may affect the design of the site. Water Resources ~ It appears that ground and Surface water sources would be protected with respect to negative impacts from sediment transport, nutrients, dissolved metals or other contaminants; negative impacts due to ex.tended periods oflow flows; or negative impacts on aquatic habitats or riparian areas. Wildlife ResourCes - The development would not directly negatively impact the quality of wildlife habitat or species of lesser economic importance. Sensitive Lands ~ As little or no vegetation exists on this property, the applicant will re-introduce needed "greenspaces" around the development, wherever possible. EnVironmental Quality ~ The proposed development will not impede diurnal (down-valley) air flows. GeIierated noise would not likely diminish the enjoyment of the general area, but may affect onsite residential properties without proper mitigation. The proposal encourages walking or biking by contributing to the construction of a sidewalk north ofHwy 6; however, the proposed pedestrian pathway may not be sufficient to replicate what is required for a trail. This business is also located near a mass transit stop, allowing customers to utilize ECO Transit Future. Land Use Map (FLUM) ~ The site of the proposed development is in the designated Edwards Area Comrnunity Plan. That particular plan designates this property as "mixed use." EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x x x The West End is not located in a recognized unique landform area of the county, nor is it located in a natural hazard area. 56 10/24/06 x The West End is currently is in the "District" for water and wastewater service. An 'Ability to Serve' by the District is required, and has been provided to Staff. Most likely the applicant will be able to provide cash in lieu of water rights the District and purchase water from sources in the Eagle River basin and Colorado River systems. If deemed necessary, 1041 approval must be obtained prior to Preliminary Plan approval to ensure efficient utilization of water and wastewater. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will compromise either the Eagle River watershed or the Eagle River. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's Vision for housing are: r . . . . . . . Housing is a COIIlfI1unity-wIde IsSUe. Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County rnaster 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 for other infrastructure needs. Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated. POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle Comity will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . x 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County Xl 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 X2 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 oftheir units for local residents X3 7. Commercial, 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 57 10/24/06 ITEM 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 n. There is a need to segrtlent a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl- Local resident housing is proposed with this development. X2- The proposed employee housing units will most likely be rental units. X3~ See XI. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNI'fY PLAN COnformance Non-Conformance Mixed Not Applicable Conformance Land Use X . 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 Histbric Preservation X Implementation X Future Land Use Map X Land Use - The stated goal is, "The location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". This proposal does serve to balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the entire Edwards Community. 58 10/24/06 Housing - "Affordable" housing is anticipated in the current application; however, at this point, there is no iridication of what rental or sales prices will be for the housing unit component of this application, or if the amount of units being offered is sufficient for the number and type of proposed uses. Transportation ~ The applicant needs to work with the Eagle County Engineering Department and the Colorado .Iepartment of Transportation to secure appropriate access permits. A bus stop is anticipated in or near the entrance f this development. Open$pace ~ "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with land owners, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal does not represent a coordinated effort to preserve any of the subject site as Open Space which, in turn, helps to define a buffer between developments; however, landscaping will be found throughout the development, and as this property is contiguous with the Open Space parcel, it may be found moot to preserve additional, onsite open space areas. PotableHWater and Wastewater ~ Public potable water and sanitary sewer serVice is anticipated to be made available to serve the proposed development, however, according to the ERWSD, the applicant will have to pay cash in lieu to the District before service will be provided. An ability to serve letter has been proVided to the applicant. SerVices and Facilities - This element of the Edwards Area Community Plan pertains to the management of solid and hazardous Wastes and the support of public schools, occupational training and higher education. These particular goals do not apply to this development; however, educational space is a proposed use by right in this development. Environmental Qualitv ~ This proposal does not necessitate the creation of any new wastewater or water supply facilities and it addresses stormwater runoff related issues; however, as proposed, stormwater is anticipated to be discharged onto the Open Space parcel. To date, no indication has been provided to Staff verifying that this is acceptable. This issue will have to be addressed in more detailed drainage plans to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan and possibly, the 1041 application. EConomic Development - The proposal attempts to promote a balanced mix of land uses in the Edwards community to encourage a diverse economy. The applicant has stated that a "market study" has been developed; however, this study has not been provided to Staff. . Recreation and Tourism ~ The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are -rovided to meet Current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in ch a Way as to ensute increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning ea'sparks and open space system". This application does not offer any community recreational or open space amenities; however, other pedestrian-friendly provisions have been provided thtoughout the development. Histonc.Pteservation - No historic resources were identified on the subject property. At the time of this writing, neither the Eagle County Historical Society had provided comment. Implementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Compliance with the Hwy 6 Access Control Plan is strongly recommended as well, with highway improvements most likely to be constructed by the applicant, or at a minimum, accommodated with the site plan. According to the applicant, water and wastewater services will be provided, although an 'Ability to Serve' letter has not been received from the District. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) -The proposed commercial site is identified on the FLUM as an area appropriate for mixed use development; the plan does not offer site-specific goals or guiding statements. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Sketch IS NOT entirely consistent With all stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of applicable master plans; however, more information will be provided at Preliminary Plan which may accomplish compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. final housing plan; final infrastructure plans and design) STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The current phasing plan has development slated for one phase; however, this needs to be verified with the Preliminary Plan. 59 10/24/06 STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shalt comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devot 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. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ol-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (J 00) 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 accessiblefrom all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (/) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land withih 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. As quoted above, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations only recomm:end that 25% of the total POO area be utilized as open space. The total acreage of the West end is approximately 3.28 acres. Development will occur on the majority of property, with minimal area left as useable open space. Landscaping will fill in any lands not covered by asphalt or buildings, with the exception of a small courtyard and potential rooftop patio. The West End does not plan to reserve areas for parks or reserved recreation areas at this point; development of the site will be maximized. Where this project is unique is that the north property line is adjacent to the Eagle River Preserve Open Space parcel. The Board of County Commissioners may find that 25% common open space would not further benefit this project. Information regarding maintenance responsibilities has been proVided as part of the PUD guide. The Pun guide submitted with the Preliminary Plan application should more specifically explain that maintenance includes items such as landscaping, roads, snow removal for parking lots, etc. [+1-) FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The POO HAS NOT demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the Common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; ( c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. 60 10/24/06 STANDARD: Natura/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. Pursuant to the memo dated July 6th, 2006 from the Colorado Geological Survey, a geotechnical analysis mUst be submitted with the Preliminary Plan. As the storrmvater drainage proposes to collect onsite runoff, which discharges onto the Open Space Parcel, agreements supporting this proposal must be received prior to Preliminary Plan. (See condition 10 & 16) (+1 FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] AS CONDITIONED The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was Sl.lblnitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. OTHER APPLICABLE STANI>ARJ)S: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15).(a): (15) Any or all of the following requirements, as determined by the Community Development Director, based On the complexity of the proposal: (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned; To date, no justification of the commercial uses has been provided for this project; although the applicant has stated at Planning Commission that a "market study" was underway. Recommended Conditions: 1. Except as othervvise modified by this Permit, all material representationsrnade by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The buildings should utilize finish materials and colors designed to "blend" in with the surrounding landscape, prohibiting bright finish colors. 3. All comments pursuant to the Engineering Memo, dated July 7th, 2006 must be adhered to with comments addressed and provided prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing. 4. Applicant shall reView the proposed uses in the POO Guide to ensure that they are reasonable; that they all may coexist sirnultaneously especially- with regards to shared parking needs; can be cornprehended/administered easily by Staff and public; and that the site can accommodate the needs of each of the proposed uSes. 5. A Comprehensive Sign Plan shall be developed and submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 6. A site specific parking plan shall be developed and submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 7. A detailed landscaping plan is required to be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. Further, information regarding maintenance of common areas must also be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. 61 10/24/06 8. Comprehensive lighting and illumination standards shall be established in the PUD guide submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. 9. A detailed geotechnical report shall be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. 10. A trail shall be proVided on this property per the US Highway 6 Corridor Plan that anticipates pedestrian/bike facilities on this side of US Highway 6. The trail design must be approved by ECO Trails prior to Preliminary Plan approval. 11. The West Erid Pun shall be designed anticipating a potential paved spur trail, built to County standards, to be connected to the adjacent open space lands. 12. This property must accommodate through-connections to both the east and west sides of the development, in anticipation of redevelopment on both the adjacent Kemp and Vogelman properties. Through connections should include both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 13. The internal roads within the West End PUD shall be designed to accommodate potential bus service frorn US Highway 6, through the West End to the eastern property line. 14. A complete list of Variations and/or deviations must be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 15. The applicant must obtain peftnission from the landowner of the Eagle River Preserve to install any drainage structures, and/or any other structures as proposed on the neighboring open space parcel. DISCUSSION: Ms. Skinner-Mark presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included the applicants request, Edwards's vicinity map,. aerial photos of the surrounding area and existing site. The applicant has modified the cifcular parking to accommodate the parking. Several photos of the surrounding area were shown to illustrate the current conditions of the site. She indicated that staff recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Commission also recommended approval with conditions and with the understanding that the application still needed work. The Planning Commission had concerns regarding massing and setbacks. She shared the Planning Commissions recommendations. The applicant had submitted an updated traffic/improvements plan, site plan, housing plan and PUD guide. Commissioner Menconi stated that he believed the proposal was very incomplete. He wondered what had been done about the traffic issue. Sin Nelson, County Engineer spoke. She stated that CDOT had concerns with the proposed roundabout but would support a V-Turnaround if there were an actuated signal. She proVided a corridor feasibility study. Staff had concerns with the V-Turnaround because there are none locally and implementing something like this may cauSe confusion. Staff believes that a roundabout would be the best solution but funding may be a challenge. Brian Bair, partner spoke. He presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included details of the parking plan, transition/connection to the Eagle River Preserve, and the west property line and setbacks. The site plan illustrated the grading issues. The applicant proposed a 50' grading and landscape buffer. The buffer would be landscaped and enable a viable trail connection. The four-story building on the west property line would be moved back 10' from the property line. The new roundabout concept would allow for a bus stop. The on site parking and circulation was explained. There would be dedicated underground parking for the residential units. There would also be designated underground parking for commercial space owners and a controlled parking plan. Some of the traffic mitigation challenges were stacking for vehicles exiting the site, circulation and two-way streets. The onsite traffic access and control plan had been modified to restrict eastbound traffic. Cost sharing would be required to pay for the roundabout on Hwy 6. The applicant believes the roundabout would be a community benefit. 62 10/24/06 Sid Fox ex.plained the housing plan. He explained the guiding principles and policies. The applicant believes that bringing housing to the commercial core is a key element. They would connect to transit and Eagle River Preserve Open Space. The plan provides for a variety of in-town housing types. Mr. Bair stated that the development would include 9 on-site employee housing rental units. They would uy 10.21 Fox Hollow credits. A letter of intent signed Sept. 29, 2006 was submitted. He explained the ommunity benefits. Some of the benefits included: efficient use of land, commercial Space for local serVices, mixed-use design would reduce traffic; the plan provides for 19 affordable housing units and cleans up a Btovvnfield site. The applicant believes the community supports the development. C6ftunissioner Stone wondered what Hwy 6 improvements would be made by the applicant. Ms. Nelson stated that the applicant would add an acceleration lane and a left turn lane. She explained that the current conditions and stated that CDOT believes that a roundabout would reduce the speed of traffic and a change in classification may not be necessary. She believes that adding a roundabout at both ends of Edwards's J corridor may be necessary in the future. Commissioner Stone asked what the challenges were for funding the roundabout. He wondered if the road irnpact fees Were to be used onlyon roads and not intersections. Ms. Nelson stated that in order for them to get additional right-of-way to handle the roundabout, they would need support from The Vail Valley Foundation, The land Trust in Eagle County and Homestead. Greg Schroeder, county engineer stated that as long as it's on the capital improvernents plan it would be included. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Brett Cooper spoke. He believes that the project is balanced and the Edwards area needs more retail commercial space. He likes the way the development would be linked to the open space parcel. Terrell Knight spoke. He stated that his firm is currently working with Kurt V ogelmen, property owner west of the project. Mr. Vogelrnen is concerned with future access to his property and has some concerns for drainage. Commissioner Menconi wondered if Mr. V ogelmen had been approach by the Midtown Group to purchase is property. Mr. V ogelmen stated that the Midtown group had expressed interest but the numbers wcren't right for him. He would like to develop his property in the future and is concerned with his access being doWn graded. He would like to continue to have direct access to his property. Commissioner Menconi stated that he believes the Midtown proposal would benefit his property. Tom Healy, Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity spoke. He would like the Board to consider the community of Edwards and come up with something that would work for everyone so they can start their building on Fox Hollow sooner rather than later. Ruth Powers, Habitat for Humanity board member spoke. She encouraged the Board to approve the project. She believes it's a great opportunity and a good looking development Jose Lazzano spoke. He stated that he is in favor ofthe project and is interested in purchasing one of the West End residential units. Cotntnissioner Menconi wondered about the price of the units. Mr. Bair stated that prices had not yet been deterlllined. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Commissioner Stone wondered about recent trends and having a mixture of units in the development. KT Gazunis, County Housing Director spoke. She believes that there is a high demand for mixed size units. She prefers a mixture of sizes. Based on the current needs assessment, there is still a shortage in both rental and homeownership housing. Commissioner Menconi wondered how many units would be required. Ms. Gazunis stated that the preliminary plan would include the designated uses of the commercial property and the formula for commercial and residential linkage could then be calculated. At this point, she doesn't have the . formation or data needed to answer more specify. Mr. Bair stated that they tried to be creative with the plan by creating a variety. 63 10/24/06 Commissioner Menconi stated that he likes the Fox Hollow idea. He would be willing to give up density in return for housing units. At this time, he doesn't believe the number of residential units is adequate. He wondered about the roundabout funding and time line. Ms. Nelson stated that CDOT would not be able to build a roundabout for 3-4 years. Mr. Bair stated that ifthey were unable to get a roundabout funded they would go with aU-Turnaround until they could get funding. The applicant believes there would be enough stakeholders benefiting from the roundabout that they would be able to get the needed funding. Ms. Nelson believes that a challenge could be that the Edwards area is currently focusing on three roundabouts at the interchange and the funding for those is close to 13,000,000. Commissioner Menconi wondered how the final phase could be built without a roundabout and how the project faired with ECO. David Johnson, ECO Transit Planner stated that on a one to five scale he'd give the project a two. Currently ECO has very poor access to Edwards. They would give the turnaround a two given the land use and the density. Eco is looking for regional busses to efficiently access Edwards. Commissioner Menconi wondered about the back area of the property and the exposed parking area. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that massing along the ERP was a concern of the Planning Commission. She is more concerned with the elevation. Commissioner Menconi stated that believes that the contributions towards the Hwy 6 improvements are unclear. He would also like to see more affordable deed restricted housing units. Mr. Bair stated that the applicant is open to options. Cornmissioner Menconi wondered if it would be profitable for the applicant to move forward if the applicant couldn't proVide a higher level of detail. He is not satisfied with the number of housing units. He would like to see definite answers regarding the roundabout and who would be paying for it. He would also like to see square footage prices. Mr. Bair stated that they would go to a higher level of detail in the preliminary plan. Sid Fox stated that the proposed community benefits do not happen with low-density development. Chait1nan Menconi stated that they were given 2-3 times more density than the sub area master plan allows for. He believes it's "show me time" with regards to housing. Chairman Runyon stated that he is concerned with the affordable housing component. Ms. Gazunis stated that there are currently 12 affordable housing units on the site. The comprehensive plan calls for a one to one replacement of those units. Chairman Runyon stated that the need for the community isn't for more second homes. He wondered if Ms. Gazunis could provide a closer number of jobs that would be created with a project. Ms. Gazunis stated that if they were to build 52 for market units that were approximate 1500 square feet, which.would generate eight employees. The cotnmercial space would generate approximate 110 ernployees. The nurnbers may be higher depending on the commercial usage. Commissioner Menconi wondered how many potential units could be built at Fox Hollow. Rob Levine stated that Fox Hollow was zoned for 16 units in 8 duplexes. So far, three housing credits had been sold. Ten housing credits relate to two duplexes. Chairman Runyon stated that the county needs more affordable housing and he believes the applicant needs to get those numbers up. He believes it would be beneficial for the applicant to request a tabling of the file for further discuSsion. Commissioner Menconi stated that he likes the project and doesn't want to deny the file. He recommended that the file be tabled to provide a clearer understanding and address the Board's concerns. Mr. Bair stated that they're confident that the housing gap could be addressed. The increased density could be worked through in the preliminary plan. He also stated that condition 17 would be functional for the development. Commissioner Stone stated that he'd like more information with regards to the roundabout funding. He wondered if the applicant was requesting money from the county as the owner of the ERW preserve and where the balance of the money needed would come from. He believes that Edwards should be developed responsibly. He would like to work cooperatively so the applicant could have a viable project. He would like to hear more discussion prior to the preliminary plan. He suggested a short term tabling. Sid Fox asked the County Attorney if a work session could be engaged with the County Commissioners. . 64 10/24/06 Mr. Morris stated that the applicant could engage in a work session with staff and staff would then present the infdrmation to the Board. Mr. Bair stated that they would like to move forward with the project and get past the sketch plan stage. Commissioner Stone mdved to table the file until December 5, 2006 at a time to be determined, at the applicant's request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. COl11lJlissioner Menconi would like to know if there are any other alternatives to a roundabout. Commissioner Stone agreed with Commissioner Menconi There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned until October 31, 2006. Attest: ~Lb Chairman -~ 65 10/24/06