Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 04/10/07 PUBLIC HEARING AprillO, 2007 Present: Am Menconi Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Christina Hooper Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on Purchase Contract for 441 Broadway; Rumpus Room liquor violation; and Marketing Strategy for Housing Guidelines, which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24~6-402(4)(b) and (e) Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Following discussion open discussion on road improvement standards, it was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters associated with the County Attorney and County Manager reviews which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6- 402(4)(f), Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of April 9,2007 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative \. B. Approval of the payroll for April 12, 2007 Finance Department Representative C. Agreement between Eagle COllnty and Taylor Fence Company for security fence - Eagle to Gypsum Trail Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails D. Agreement between Eagle County and Ryan Rodriquez for barrel man specialty act services for the 2007 Fair & Rodeo Brad Higgins, Fair & Rodeo E. Agreement between Eagle County and Hal Bums for stock contractor services for the 2007 Fair & Rodeo Brad Higgins, Fair & Rodeo F. Agreement between Eagle County and Benje Bendele for audio services for the 2007 Fair & Rodeo Brad Higgins, Fair & Rodeo G. Agreement between Eagle County and J.P. Trucking, Inc. for the supplying of road base materials 1 4/10/07 Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge H. Agreement between Eagle County and Envirotech Services, Inc. for supplying of magnesium chloride Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge I. Agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood Partners for parenting education services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services J. Agreement between Eagle County and Olga Wilkins to provide family services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services K. Resolution 2007~032 amending Resolution No. 2007-24; Resolution establishing regular public meeting days for the Eagle County Board of Commissioners for fiscal year 2007 Attorney's Office Representative L. Resolution 2007~033 appointing Canvass Board Members for the May 1,2007 election concerning the Eagle COllnty Home Rule Charter Attomey's Office Representative M. Approve and ratify the Contract to Purchase Real Estate at 441 Broadway Street, Eagle Colorado Attomey's Office Representative N. Amendment No. Five to contract between Eagle County and Carter Burgess for support design services Rick Ullom, Facilities Management o. 5MB~00416 Whiskey Hill, are-subdivision of Lot 26. The intent of this plat is to re-subdivide Lot 26 into two Y2 duplex lots. Lot 26A will consist of .325 acres, Lot 26B with .184 acres for a total of .509 acres Terri Johnson, Community Development Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no comments on the consent agenda. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-O. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none First Quarter Interest Report Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer's Office Ms. Sheaffer stated that they were on schedule to make the budgeted amount and possibly more depending on how much more money was in the portfolio. Commissioner Menconi opened it up for board deliberation. He stated that the report is a quarterly requirement that does not require any action. Second Reading of an Ordinance Prohibiting the Feeding of Wildlife and Regarding Waste Disposal in Unincorporated Eagle County Attorney's Office Representative 2 4/10/07 Bryan Treu stated that the ordinance had been previously been presented to the board and subsequently published in full in the paper, as required by statute. If approved the ordinance would go into effect in 30 days. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Treu to explain the process and development of the ordinance. Mr. Treu stated that the development of the ordinance began 6 years ago. The county was approached by the Department of Wildlife to draft a wildlife-feeding ordinance prohibiting the feeding of wildlife and instituting a requirement for bear~resistant containers. He stated that the DOW has done a phenomenal job in getting voluntary compliance however, unfortunately, continues to struggle with some areas. Last year atthe time of the drafting of the ordinance, it was the decision of the board to wait and see what the Town of Vail and Avon were going to do to have a consistent policy throughout the county. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Matt Donovan, Vail Honeywagon representative and county resident spoke. He would like to see the board address the wildlife feeding and bear issues separately. He believes the ordinance poses an unnecessary burden to those that may not have a problem. The proposed waste containers are costly and only one company makes the containers. H~ sees a problem with the broadness of the ordinance. He believes doubling fines might get people to follow the laws. He doesn't believe there is good reason to have a consistent policy if there is not a consistent problem. He believes the twO-inch requirement on the bottom of the door to keep the wildlife out is too strict. He would like to see the neighborhoods that don't historically have a problem be excluded from the ordinance. Brian W oodrichof the Division of Wildlife spoke. He stated that imposing higher fines only addresses the human tolerance but the DOW has to continue to put down animals due to the two-strike rule. The two-inch gap could be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Runyon stated that just because a neighborhood may not have a problem today there could be a problem in the future. He believes we live in bear country and have a responsibility to take care of the creatures that live in our environment. He believes the ordinance is totally appropriate. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the containers apd if they would be difficult for people that may be shorter in stature or have some physical restrictions. Mr. Donovan stated that the containers cost $200 each and are heavy and burdensome. They would have to replace several thousand containers and the old ones would need to be discarded. The customer would ultimately carry the cost. The containers would also slow down route times. He doesn't believe the Townsof Gypsum and Eagle would be able to comply with the ordnance because they currently run an automated system. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the construction trash containers. Mr. Donovan stated that it would not be feasible to cover the containers. He doesn't believe that section 7 regarding communities opting out is a realistic option. Commissioner Runyon stated that the DOW would not have veto power; ultimately, it would be the decision of the board to make any exceptions. Commissioner Menconi stated that the board used its legislative authority given by the state to create the ordinance. He has seen over the decade many alternatives that have not worked and what frustrates the DOW is the lack of effort that government has made. Ignoring the Departments recommendation would be irresponsible. When the ordinance was created, they knew it could not be enforceable every hour of every day but it would allow the now to go after those who were chronic offenders. This may not be the end result but another starting place. He's worked on the ordinance for the last five years and understands that there will be some counties opting out. The county will continue to look at the DOW with some filter of skepticism on whether the ordinance should be a blanket policy or customized. He would vote in favor of the ordinance as presented. Commissioner Fisher asked Mr. Woodrich about the steps taken when a violation occurs. Mr. Woodrich stated that violations are handled on a case-by-case basis. If it is a human issue, it is noted. He believes a proactive approach is necessary because the DOW doesn't have a whole lot ofleniency through their regulations as to what they do with a bear is caught due to human activity. Commissioner Fisher wondered what happens when a homeowner has been negligent. Does the Sheriffs Office issue situations or are fines doubled. Mr. Treu stated that currently there is not an ordinance precluding that. The complaint would be turned over to the DOW to get voluntary compliance. Mr. Woodrich stated that voluntary compliance has worked but they would like to add some teeth to permit additional enforcement when needed. Concerning enforcement, he would like to see the Sheriffs Office or anyone with law enforcement that can act within the title be permitted to enforce the ordinance. . 3 4/10/07 Mr. Treu stated that the ordinance as written has a very broad definition of law enforcement to allow for flexibility. Commissioner Fisher wondered if for a time there was enough flexibility in the ordinance to put the burden on the trash collecting companies to identify problem areas and provide the county with this information and through that process possibly inflict fines or place requirements on the homeowners. She wondered if the trash collectors would be willing to take on an enforcement angle. Mr. Donovan believes it puts them in a tricky position from a customer relations point of view. He believes the problem is a human problem and as the ordinance reads, does not provide any flexibility. The ordinance doesn't get much more restrictive than requiring everyone in Unincorporated Eagle County to have a ' bear proof container. Chairman Menconi stated that he understands that the Honeywagon is one of the major trash providers in the county and he had tried to take into account Mr. Donovan's thoughts to balance it out. He believes the proposed ordinance is much lighter than the one in Pitkin County. Mr. Donovan encouraged the county to review their code enforcement to date. Commissioner Runyon stated that the reality in Eagle County is that 50% of the dwelling units belong to second homeowners and educating them is a daunting task. He believes the ordinance will be a no thought process for them. He believes Mr. Donovan is over emphasizing the perceived burden of his customers. However, he is concerned with the people in the county of modest means paying $150-$200 for a bear proof container. Commissioner Fisher stated that she doesn't want to down play anyone's concerns but she would like to revisit the ordinance further. She would like to look at an ordinance that has all of the same components but not necessarily the mandatory requirements of the bear proof containers. She believes it is a people problem and a lack of education problem. She moved to table the ordinance for further discussion to provide an opportunity to come back with a revised version. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the board could enter into further discussion because it was the .second reading. Mr. Treu stated that there were no restrictions for a continuance. When the board does finally adopt the ordinance on second reading the only requirement is that any modifications to the previously published version would need to be republished. Commissioner Menconi requested another meeting with Mr. Donovan and Bill Andree present. He would like to honor Mr. Andree's public service to the community and his antidotal evidence. Commissioner Fisher stated that in the interim because it's almost bear season, she would not be opposed to approving the ordinance in part and enforcing the feeding and improper disposal of refuge in storage of containers. Commissioner Fisher moved to table the ordinance for further discussion. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Ti Amo, Inc. d/b/a Ristorante Ti Amo This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. B. Daniel's Foods, Inc. d/b/a Mirabelle at Beaver Creek 4 4/10/07 This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. C. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Holden's Restaurant This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. D. Top of the Rockies, Inc. d/b/a Lodge at Camp Hale This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Red Cliff. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. E. DKM Associates, LLC d/b/a Juniper 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. F. State Bridge Lodge, Inc. d/b/a State Bridge Lodge This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. G. The Dusty Boot, LLC d/b/a The Dusty Boot Saloon This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. Other Consent H. Eagle County Government This is a request for a Special Event Permit. Eagle County Government will be hosting the 2007 Annual Rocky Mountain Oyster Feed on May 12,2007 from 5:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m, at the Eagle County Fairgrounds/ Eagle River Center in Eagle. All fees have been paid, no protests have been filed, and the various Eagle County departments have stated no objections. Staffhas had no problems with events held by this applicant in the past. I. drink! Inc. d/b/a drink! This is a request for a Retail Liquor Store Tasting Permit in Edwards. The applicant wishes to conduct in-store tastings at its location. The applicant has filed the necessary forms and paperwork and has paid the required fee. Ms. Scriver recommended removing item C from the consent agenda as the item was mistakenly placed on the agenda as a renewal. Commissioner Fisher asked if the files for item A-G had been reviewed to make sure their files included an alcohol management plan and proof of server training. M~. Scriver stated that the Clerk's Office is still working on gathering all the required information. Proof of server training for Items H and I were submitted with their applications. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for April 10, 2007, consisting ofItems A-I, excluding Item C. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Other Liquor ESTABLISHMENT: REPRESENTATIVE: The Rumpus Room, Inc. d/b/a The Rumpus Room William (Bill) Woodruff, Owner/Manager Sterling Bradbrook, Owner 1140 Edwards Village Blvd B201-B203 in Edwards 5 4/1 0/07 LOCATION: YEAR LICENSE ISSUED: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: September 19,2006 Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: Show Cause Hearing stemming from the following events: Rumpus Room's liquor license was suspended pursnant to the March 13, 2007 order of the Liquor Authority. Rumpus Room was prohibited from serving alcohol on April 1, 2007 at 12:01 a.m. At approximately 12:15 a.m., on April 1, 2007 the Eagle County Sheriff's Office performed a random bar check a.nd found that this establishment had continued to serve alcohol at both bars and failed to post its suspension signs, despite the fact that their active suspension had gone in effect. STAFF COMMENT: The Rumpus Room was issued their "Notice of Suspension" signs on Thursday, March 31, 2007. The signs were handed to Bill Woodruff along with a copy ofthe "Order Approving Stipulation and Setting Penalty." The name of the establishment, dates and times were all highlighted with a yellow marker. Mr. Woodruff was instructed that the signs were to be posted both inside and out and the Sheriffs Office would be notified of the dates and times of their suspenSIOn. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes requiring the licensee to serve all 14 days of active suspension would be appropriate given the establishments recent violation and disregard for the integrity of the Liquor Authority' Order. As such, staff recommends that the Rumpus Room liquor license be required to serve aU days of suspension previously held in abeyance. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the file and read the staffs recommendation. Roger Morris, Attorney for the establishment spoke. He stated that Mr. Woodruff was present the night the violation occurred and was present to make a statement. Mr. Woodruff stated that the Rumpus Room was currently undergoing a change in management, and they made an honest mistake. He has severed his business relationship with Sterling Bradbrook, the other owner/manager, and he was to take over all managerial responsibilities beginning April 1 st. He admitted to making the mistake and accepted responsibility for the oversight. Due to the gravity of the situation, he has not yet reopened the business and will not do so until he canbe certain that no further infractions would be made. He is currently working on a new alcohol management plan, and reorganizing the staff. He plans to implement a new business model intended to increase food sales. He has learned a valuable lesson and assured the County Commissioners, as well as the community in Edwards, that there will be no future oversights. He has taken the violation from last December very seriously, and will take all necessary steps to insure that nothing like this happens again. Mr. Morris stated that Mr. Woodruff was present the night of the violation but was in his capacity of a soundman. Chairman Menconi opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher asked if Mr. Bradbrook was present at the time the Sheriffs Officer entered the establishment on the night of the violation. Mr. Woodruff stated that Mr. Bradbrook was in charge of staffing that night. He further stated that Mr. Bradbrook chose the days of suspension and was completely in charge of the bar schedule that evening. Commissioner Fisher requested a copy of the statement read by Mr. Woodruff. She asked if he and Mr. Bradbrook were going to continue to be partners in the organization. Mr. Woodruff stated that he and Mr. Bradbrook had agreed to sever their business relationship. He will take over the business after serving the suspension and before reopening. Commissioner Fisher asked if it was his intent to rewrite his alcohol management plan and reorganize the menu during the next interim period. 6 4/1 0/07 Mr. Woodruff stated it was. Commissioner Runyon asked if his closing the establishment was self-imposed. Mr. Woodruff stated that the closure was self-imposed because he felt the need to stop operations in order to insure that nothing else went wrong. Commissioner Runyon asked how many days he had been closed. Mr. Woodruff stated that he had been closed for (9) nine days. Commissioner Runyon asked if the day of the violation was the first chosen day of suspension. Mr. Woodruff stated it was. The ir license was suspended for 3 weekdays and 2 Saturdays, April 1-3, April 7 and April 14. They had one Saturday left to serve. Commissioner Rllnyon stated that he was appalled that they were not paying attention. He stated that the board had concerns early on that they were taking a restaurant license and pursuing more of a nightclub approach. He wondered if Mr. Woodruff was switching his business plan to be more consistent with a restaurant license or was his intent in the future to reapply for a different type of license. Mr. Woodruff stated that the entire business plan was under revision for a number of reasons. He believes a restallrant model is ideal for the community and in better compliance with the license. As far as the late night entertainment is concerned, he would certainly exercise the right to be open until 2 a.m. thought it's never been his intention to be an annoyance to the community and would consider community opinion on that matter. Commissioner Runyon stated that each time the organization has come before the board he has accepted and understood what seemed to be sincerity when it came to straitening up and flying right, each time this has not happened. He continues to be concerned but finds it encouraging that he has closed down to reassess the situation. He asked Mr. Woodruff when he planned to open his doors. Mr. Woodruff stated that he was not able to give a specific date because there are several important things that need to be addressed. He does not want to present the community with a product that is unsatisfactory or unsafe. He speculated a month. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Morris if after hearing, the staff recommendation he would accept the stipulation or did he have an alternative? Mr. Morris stated that he did not have an alternative but wondered how many days in row another suspension would be. He asked ifhis client would get any credit for time served. Ms. Scriver stated that there would be 9 days of active suspension left to serve. Mr. Morris stated that they would prefer to serve the 9 days in a row. Commissiot;ler Fisher stated that she appreciates Mr. Woodruffs desire to get things right. She stated that once Mr. Woodruff believes he has everything in place and once the establishment has provided an alcohol management plan accepted by the Clerk's Office and all staffhas gone through server training and a meeting with the Sheriffs Office has taken place, the final days of suspension shall be served after the date has been determined to reopen. Mr. Woodruff stated that he did not have any problems with the terms. He stated that he would close after serving his final days of suspension and remain closed of his own will until things were resolved. He would accept whatever the Commissioners agreed to. Chairman Menconi thanked the Sheriffs Office for their assistance. He wondered if the night of the violation was the straw that broke the camel's back on his partnership with Mr. Bradbrook. Mr. Woodruff stated that entire management scenario had been under scrutiny since December 2006. Chairman Menconi asked if there were earlier discussions with Mr. Bradbrook over his share of the business and if he had contemplated severing the relationship prior to that night of the violation to shut down the month of April. Mr. Woodruff stated that they had not contemplated shutting down for the month of April but there had been discussion between Mr. Bradbrook and himself regarding Mr. Woodruff taking over the business. Chairman Menconi asked if Sterling Bradbrook would have any interest in the business. Mr. Woodruff stated it was a legal matter. Mr. Morris stated that because there would be a change in the ownership of stock this would trigger a change in corporate structure. This would be filed with the Local Licensing Authority within 30 days and typically, a hearing in most cases is not required. Ms. Scriver stated that this would not require a transfer of ownership, just a change in corporate structure. Chairman Menconi stated that he thought and what he heard earlier from the County Attorney's Office was that the state had considered that staffs recommendation had been too stringent. He agreed that the three items mentioned earlier by Commissioner Fisher get done as housekeeping efforts and that 2 or 3 days be chosen for 7 4/1 0/07 suspension, those days would then be served at the licensees discression. He stated that when the establishment comes up for renewal there would be a lot of scrutiny with regards to their renewal. Christina Hooper, Assistant County Attorney suggested'that the period of time in which the active suspension be served and the time of reopening should not be left open ended. Chairman Menconi stated that there would be several items required before opening. Those items include having a management plan in place, everyone TIPS trained and a food service plan. Instead of serving the remaining 9 days of active suspension he recommended 3 days be served within 30-45 days after reopening. Ms. Hooper stated that it may help by determining by which date the licensee can have that information complete and to the Clerk's Office. Chairman Menconi suggested 3-4 weeks. Mr. Woodruff stated that he could agree to 3-4 weeks however, the original order required him to provide updated server training and alcohol management plan by April 12. Mr. Morris requested that the original order be amended. Chairman Menconi stated that that could be done. Commissioner Fisher stated that the date would be amended to the date that the county is notified that they are ready to open for business. The day following the reopening will be the final day or days of suspension to be served. Mr. Woodruff stated that he is concerned with the food service regulations as he is with the liquor regulations. He would not reopen until he is 100% ready. Commissioner Fisher stated that she would like Mr. Woodruff to use the resources available to him untilthe time comes that they are ready to reopen. The final day will be served with the remaining 9 days held in abeyance. The original order would then be modified to change the Aprill4 day of active suspension to be day prior to the da.y they reopen. \ Ms. Hooper suggested that the licensee and the authority enter into a stipulation to the effect that the licensee agrees to a voluntarily closure until it can reorganize and their required paperwork is submitted. The authority will allow the amendment of its initial order. First, the April 14th day of suspension may be served after the licensee has finished its voluntary closing and serve the one remaining day still needing to be served, h()lding the remain 9 days in abeyance. Second, the April 12th deadline requiring the licensee to submit proof of server training and alcohol management plan would be amended to a date chosen in the stipulation. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the suggestion ofthe Assistant County Attorney. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Attorney's Office Representative 1. Approval of the minutes of March 27,2007 meeting; Mr. Runyon moved to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2007 meeting Ms. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Consideration of: a. Agreement for operation of coffee/retail concession - News & Gift Shops International, LLC - West space/space 1 b. Agreement for operation of coffee/retail concession - News & Gift Shops International, LLC - East space/space 3 Chris Anderson stated that at the direction of the ECAT Board the airport proceeded with the agreements with News & Gift Shops International who was the successful bidder in the RFP process. Agreements with 8 4/10/07 News & Gift Shops International had been signed for the operation and construction of a coffee shop in the terminal with a minimum annual guarantee of $35,000 a year and 15% of gross revenues. The second space will operate as a news and gift shop, with a minimum annual guarantee of $40,000 per lease year ahd 17% of gross received, which ever is greater at the end of the lease year. They have signed the agreements and agreed to the terms that they had presented in the RFP proposal. Mr. Treu stated that the previous occupant of the space did a great j obbut this will bring a significant increase for the ECAT budget and Mr. Anderson should be commended for his work. Mr. Baumgartner stated that it was his under~tanding that this contractor did meet DBE-Disadvantage Business Enterprise requirements but the contract indicated zero participation. Mr. Anderson stated that they are requiring concessionaires to meet future DBE requirements as they are established for the terminal. At this point, for this type of concession, the present DBE is 0 percent. Mr. Baumgartnh recommended approval with the condition that the DBE requirement be changed to whatever the contractor can currently meet so the airport would get credit. He also stated that the contract doesn't specifically require that the ECAT approve the renovation/remodel plan, yet states that they will meet all the standards. .I Mr. Treu stated that this was addressed in section 5.14, restrictions on changes and alterations. Mr. Baumgartner moved to approve the two leases as proposed with one change. The DBE requirement would be changed from zero to whatever number the corporation could currently meet without any changes. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. New Business; Ms. Fisher stated that she had spent some time recently with one of the Commissioners from Pitkin County, who stated on the day of closure service ended at II :00 and at 11 :01 they began demolition on the. runways. Mr. Anderson stated that they expect to see an i:J:1crease in business once the summer season gears up. United Airlines has increased the overall numbet of seats into the airport for that period to compensate for the Aspen closure. Ms. Fisher asked how many additional flights that meant for the Eagle County airport. Mr. Anderson stated that there would be roughly 100 inbound seats per day. He anticipates an increase in general and private aviation. 4. Adjourn Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-cOhvene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Other Sheri Mintz, Adult Services Manager for Eagle County spoke about the tornado that hit Holly, Colorado. She stated that one of her responsibilities is to oversee the county's volunteer center. She introduced Tammy Mathews, the Volunteer Center Coordinator and stated that just a few short months ago the department was requesting approval of an affiliation agreement between the Eagle County Volunteer Center and the Points of Light. 9 4/10/07 The boaid approved the agreement and this provided a connection between the county and the Colorado volunteer network. Ms. Mathews presented a PowerPoint presentation. She stated that the tornado that hit Holly, Kansas on March 28, 2007 caused 7 miles of damage through the town. 164 homes were damaged and 44 needed to be demolished. The tornado killed one person and eight people were hospitalized. Ms. Mintz stated that volunteers could be the most valuable resource in a disaster situation or they can be the biggest detriment to progress depending on how they are trained and organized. Ms. Mathews stated that being the Eagle County Volunteer Center and being affiliated with the Points of Life, allows the county to be involved in a network that meets every month. The Volunteer Center in Denver' received a call asking if the she and Ms. Mintz would make a trip to Holly and manage all of the volunteers. They agreed and made the trip to Holly. Once in Holly they managed all the volunteers and assisted the residents with their needs. She showed several photos of some of the destruction caused by the tornado. Ms. Mintz stated that the town of Holly is truly an amazing and resilient community. Ms. Mathews stated that they also provided assistance with donations. Ms. Mintz stated that the Town of Vail and Red Cliff were generous with offering donations. She stated that the Eagle County had already been generous in allowing her and Ms. Mathews to go and help but she wondered if the County would be able to help with a contribution as well. Chairman Menconi asked for an indication of type of donations that other towns or counties sent. Ms. Mintz stated that the Arvada and Aurora offered to have their public works available for water needs. Montrose County made a cash donation. The Town ~fVail made a $2,000 dollar cash donation. The donations varied. Ms. Mathews stated that they became a part ofthe community whi1e there and decided to become a part of the adopt-a-family program. Commissioner Runyon thanked Ms. Mintz and Ms. Mathews for representing the county. Commissioner Fisher thanked them for services and stated that although she was unable to be there except in prayer, she felt as though she was there with them in Holly. Chairman Menconi asked for an understanding of how many families were trying to be adopted so that some of the county's contributions could be directed to them. Planning Files ZS",00145 Spahmer ADD Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department ACTION: Owners of a nonconforming, unimproved 14 acre ( approximate) property located in the resource zone district are seeking a Special Use Permit in order to construct a secondary, 1783 sq ft Accessory Dwelling Unit (and main residence; however, the primary dwelling unit is a Use by Right). LOCATION: 0850 HW)' 131 in Wolcott; S15 T4S R93W STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Spahmer Accessory Dwelling Unit Jim Spahmer Owner Bill Nutkins, Tab Associates 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant, Jim Spahmer proposes to construct a primary dwelling unit and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on his property in Wolcott. Currently, the applicant and his spouse are preparing to live in a residential dwelling unit (which will be the future ADU) above a recently constructed garage until the construction of the primary 10 4/10/07 dwelling unit has been completed. The Spahmers will then move into the primary unit leaving the ADU available for rent to an employee ofMr. Spahmer; Mr. Spahmer is a plumber by trade and regularly works in Eagle County. His business office is located off site in Avon. The ADU space is approximately 1783 square feet and has a separate, independent entrance to the exterior; it does not connect to the garage/hobby room (defined as an Accessory Use) below. The small "hobby room" or Accessory Use, which also includes a bathroom, are intended for use by Mr. Spahmer and not the future resident of the ADU. In addition, the hobby room and garage are not intended to be used for an office/Home Business use and are for private use only. Per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Resource Zone District permits an Accessory Dwelling Unit of up to 1800 square feet as a 'use by right' on conforming properties of 35 acres or greater. Mr. Spahmer's property is comprised of 14.77 acres rendering it a (legal), nonconforming property. As such, the ADU use requires a Special Use Permit in lieu of a 'use by right' via building permit in order to assess the potential land use with a more detailed analysis. Also located on the Spahmer property is a Telecommunications Facility (Special Use Permit ZS-00l25) for Nextel that was approved by Eagle County in 2005. The proposed Special Use Permit at hand recognizes that that use also exists on the property, however; the current Special Use for the Accessory Dwelling Unit does not include and/or amend the existing telecommunications use. ' Special Use Permits are v.alid for three (3) years before use implementation. With the onset of the approved use, Special Use Permits remain valid for perpetuity thereafter; unless an expiration date or exception has been placed upon the permit by the Board of County Commissioners. B. SITE DATA: Hwy 131 Resource Unplatted Resource BLM Resource Resource Resource Zone District Residential; Telecommunications Facility (per ZS-00125) C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: 11 4/10/07 . 1995- Parcel is sold to Mr. Spahmer from G. Jouflas Ranches, LLC. The 14.77 acre parcel is the remainder of lands sold to the Denver water Board. . 2005- Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Facility for Nextel is approved by BoCC D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Planning Cot11mission requested clarification regarding two (2) aspects of the proposal: l) was the square footage ofthe Accessory Dwelling Unit and the "hobby" or Accessory Use space square footage calculated together; and 2) what mechanism is in place to guarantee that the ADU was going to be used as an employee housing unit? Response(s): I) The Accessory Dwelling Unit has an independent access direct from the exterior of the structure to the living unit. The area within the garage is to be used solely for the owner of the property. In the Resource zone district, a property may contain accessory uses of up to 850 sq ft as an independent structure, or within lawful accessory structures, like a garage. The square footage of an accessory space is included in the total habitable floor area calculations for the entire property. 2) By definition, Accessory Dwelling Units are, ".. .designed and intended for occupancy by the caretaker of said property, persons who live and work in Eagle County, or relatives and guests of the occupants of the principal use of the property." It cannot be rented out year-round as a second home or to tourists passing by. In addition, by virtue of this Special Use Permit and Condition 1, this unit is intended for an employee of Mr. Spahmer's business. Motion: [5-0] To approve ZS-00145 incorporating Staff findings and conditions. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5~250 Special Use Permits -Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, denSIty and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration o(the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.l} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12 4/1 0/07 lRural- The Future Land Use Map indicates that the property where the Spahmer residence(s) will be located is within the designation of 'Rural' , mostly surrounded by public lands. Residential densities on rural lands are limited to one primary residence and one accessory dwelling unit per 35 acres, although some smaller non- conforming residential lots exist. Rural areas are not typically aSso9iated with Pllblic facilities such as schools and rely on community or rural centers to serve their daily needs. WOLCOTT AREA COMMUNITY PLAN x x x x x x x x x EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS TH.. E MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 13 4/10/07 STANDARD: Compatibility. {Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its . proposed location an,d compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. South: UNPLATTED Resource BLM Resource x East: BLM Resource x West: UNPLATTED Resollrce Hwy 131 Resource x Staff Discussion This land use is appropriate for the zone district and is compatible with surrounding zoning and existing uses. ~ EXCEEDs MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MBEtScffiE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. {Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards o/the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. 3.310.A Accessory Dwelling Unit Size: SqFt: No. Bedrooms: 2 ADU Location: Above Garage Parking: Two (2) parking spaces (required) Potable Water: Private- Water tank/filter system Waste Water: Private- ISDS Solid Waste Disposaz:. Yes Electrical Supply: Yes Fire Protection: Greater Eagle Fire Protection District Access: US HWY 6 Access Permit See Condition 5. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact {Section 5-250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding/rash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. 14 4/10/07 See Condition 2 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM ST ANDARbS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MBBTS TIffi MA'O~. O, MIN. IMUM. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. See Conditions 3 & 4 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEE" TlI" MAJO~ O' MJN1MUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ] The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilitie,s and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 15 4/1 0/07 x Xl t X2 x X x Xl- This property is in close proximity to an area of Wolcott is currently slated for future service bya pubic water system via the Vines at Vail PUD and later, solely by the Eagle River Water and \ Sanitation District. Although this property is not located in either the District boundary or in the 1041 for the Vines at Vail 1041 Permit, once service has been established, and as recommended by the Environmental Health Department, it may be possible for Mr. Spahmer to receive treated water in lieu ofa cistern/filtered water as is proposed at this time (to do so would necessitate (1) being inc1udedin the ERWSD boundary and (2) inclusion in the future ERWSD 1041 Permit or modification and inclusion in the existing Vines at Vail 1041 permit). X2- See previous Xl ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7} The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaoing and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) x Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) 2 x Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) 3 and 4 X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) X Conunercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) 16 4/10/07 X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) . X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) . . X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) 3 X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) 3 X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) 4 X Imoact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEm TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDAROO DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Environmental Department - Please refer to attachment dated. · The applicant should demonstrate that a site and an alternate site exist on the property for the purpose of situating the ISDS drain field for the main dwelling especially due to the fact that another ISDS already exists on the west side of the property which serves the garage (ADD); and since the topography appears to be relatively steep. · Please note that the Vines at Vail PUD is about .5 miles south east of this property and is scheduled to initiate construction of a wastewater treatment plant later this year. · The applicant should consider the feasibility of connecting to this system for more reliable service into the future and to accomplish better wastewater treatment. · The building permit application should be accompanied by a separate grading permit to assure appropriate environmental mitigations are included in to the project relative to storm water management, dust suppression and erosion control. · It should be made clear that this special use would create a situation where the existing "garage" is the ADD which can only be used for non-commercial uses. . See Conditions No.3 and 4 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: · Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Assessor; Engineering; Sheriff's Office; Weed and Pest · Colorado State: Colorado Department of Transportation; Division of Wildlife · Bureau of Land Management C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages. 17 4/10/07 There are not many disadvantages to this file. The applicant has received an updated Highway 131 Access Permit from CDOT; has an existing well and is proposing a potable water cistern and filtration system for the for the current and future dwelling units; has received a building permit and is the process of completing the first dwelling unit (future ADU). Benefits: The ADU is intended to be used as employee housing for an employee ofMr. Spahmer's plumbing business; Disadvantage: The site is not flat and does have significant topography and potential visual impacts, .however; if the proposed primary dwelling is constructed.in compliance to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, impacts should be properly mitigated. As per the date of this report, the applicant has still not presented possible ISDS options for the proposed primary unit. Please see Condition 4. D. PLANNING COMMISSION / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the pllblic health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attllned with the immediately adjacent and'nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the irmhediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain.conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (an?for other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Ms. Skinner-Markowitz presented the file with the use of a PowerPoint presentation. She explained the applicant's request as presented in the staff report. She presented a brief background of the property usage from 1995-2006. The presentation included several photos of the site and the existing unit. The photos illustrated the access points and proposed location of the accessory dwelling unit. She indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. Bill Nutkins, from Tab Associates, architecture firm for the Spahmer's was present. He stated that currently the applicants have an existing garage building that was approved and is currently under construction. The special use would be utilized within the roof space of the garage building. The have gotten approval for a building permit for the space as their primary unit and wish to dedicate it as a special use accessory dwelling unit so it can be utilized while they build their primary residence. The special use is approximately 1700 square feet. The applicant employed a soils engineer to research the need for an additional septic field because one of the conditions brought up by the Environmental Health Department related to the existing septic field and whether the property could sustain an additional septic field for a larger home. A letter was submitted to the Environmental Health Department indicating there was a sufficient amount of area for a septic field for the size home they were proposmg. 18 4/10/07 Chairman Menconi opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher stated that she knew the Spahmers and that they did contribute to her campaign however she felt that their relationship would have no affect on her decision on the file. Mr. Morris stated that in the opinion of the County Attorney's Office that is not a conflict that would require disqualification, disclosure is appropriate although unnecessary. Commissioner Runyon wondered how the future primary residence fit within the county's hillside and ridge line regulations. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the property in question does not have a platted building envelope and by no means does this special use permit excuse or alleviate the process of going through the ridgeline analysis. The proposed primary unit will be recessed into the hillside and there may be a portion of the roofline that might have to be augmented. Tab, Bonidy, Tab Associates spoke. He stated that he doesn't believe there is anyway the home will be in a problem area because it has a steep hill behind it but until a full analysis is done they won't know for sure. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the square footage of the primary home. Mr. Nutkins stated that the anticipated square footage was approximately just under 7000 square feet. Commissioner Runyon asked about the concernsofthe Planning Commission and what were the conditions they proposed. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz explained the Planning Commission findings found on .Page 2 of 11 of the staff report. She stated that the accessory dwelling unit is self-contained, has a direct access to the exterior of the entire structure and the garage itself can be retained for the owner of the property. The only concern was that Mr. Spahmer would like to eventually rent the unit to an employee. She stated the regulations would permit this use and the Planning Commission unanimously approved the file. . Commissioner Fisher wondered if there was a concern for public water in the area with all the new development in the area. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the property was not included in the district; it is also not part of the 1041 for Vines at Vail but may be added in the future. The fire district is Greater Eagle. 1" Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. ZS-00145 Spahmer ADU with the following conditions. 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. All refuse must be contained in wildlife-proof receptacles or as permitted in Section 4- 41O.C Wildlife Proof Refuse Container/Dumpster Enclosure Standards. 3. A separate grading permit is required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the primary dwelling unit. 4. The overall site plan and/or the site plan for the primary dwelling must be revised to show a primary and alternate site for the proposed ISDS for the primary unit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the primary dwelling unit. If it cannot be shown that there is an area acceptable for an ISDS for the primary unit, this Special Use Permit will be deemed invalid and the garage/dwelling unit shall be the only dwelling unit permitted on this parcel. 5. Upon the construction of the primary residence the dwelling unit above the garage shall be no larger than 1783 sq ft, and shall be independent of any other aspect of the garage/hobby room; the ingress/egress to the ADD must be direct to the exterior of the structure. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with this condition prior to the TCO for the primary dwelling unit. Commissioner Rllnyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 19 4/1 0/07 AFP-O()249 Lake Creek Farm Lots 1 & 2 Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this plat is to amend the existing building envelope on Lot 2 and move it closer to the shared lot line between Lots 1 and 2. In addition, a new access, drainage and utility easement will also be created on Lot 1. . LOCATION: 1003/1005 Lake Creek Road; Edwards STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Whiterock Properties, LLC Owner Reslock and Sullivan, LLC 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Lake Creek Farm is a three (3)-lot subdivision approved in 2000. The subdivision is accessed via an easement across the Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision, from Lake Creek Road. The property has significant topography, and is in a highly visible location. At present, all three (3) properties have platted bui1ding envelopes; Lot 3 is not subject to this amendment. To access the developable building site on Lot 2, anew access drive would be necessary. This access would require significant disturbance of the site. As such, the applicants would like to relocate the building envelope on Lot 2 and situate it closer to the northern property line of Lot 1. By moving the envelope to its proposed location, the access drive would be significantly shorter, and result in less site disturbance. In addition, the envelope (and proposed single family home) would be further removed from significant wildlife habitat on the neighboring lands to the west. During this process, the Division of Wildlife was contacted in order for Staff to obtain their opinion regarding this proposal. They were very much in favor of the proposed amendment. B. CHRONOLOGY: $ 2000- Lake Creek Farm was platted. $ 2006- Application for modifying the Lake Creek Farm was made. The application was initially a request to subdivide the property. After obtaining responses from the Eagle County Planning and Engineering Departments, and the Division of Wildlife, the applicants modified their request in the opposite direction by requesting to move the existing building envelope further away from significant wildlife habitat and closer to the existing driveway easement on Lot 1; thus, minimizing the site disturbance that would result from the necessary access drive for Lot 2. C. SITE DATA: South: Residential Rural Residential East: Residential Agricultural Limited 20 4/10/07 37.494 (Lot 1-23.024 ac; Lot 2- 14.470ac) Yes- Lake Creek Metro 1,633,238.6 sq it No ISDS D. NECESSARY FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. . All adjacent property owners were notified for this file as required pursuant to Section 5-210. No responses were received from any of the adjacent property owners. By relocating the envelope lower on the slope, closer to Lot 1, site disturbance will be minimized to the greatest extent - possible. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. Lake Creek Farm was platted in 2000. At the time of platting this subdivision, all three (3) lots were iritended for residential development and were provided platted building envelopes determining placertJent of the dwellings. As this project seek to relocate an existing envelope for a future residential structure, the intent of this plat IS consistent with the previous approval. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. E. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefi~/l)~advantages. When considering this proposal, the benefits of relocating the building envelope on Lot 2 far outweigh the disadvantages of utilizing the existing building envelope for future development. Benefits include: Minimizes site disturbance; Reduces the visual effects of future development by relocating the building envelope/future dwelling lower on the hillside which minimizes scarring on the hillside from a shorter driveway; Further separates the future residence from significant wildlife habitat. Disadvantages: None. At present the property owner could apply for, and would receive a building permit for a single family home to be constructed in the existing/platted building envelope location. 21 4/10/07 The applicants have satisfied all of the necessary findings for this application. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners table File No. AFP-000249 Lake Creek).'arm Lots 1 & 2 at the applicants request until May 1,2007. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS...00048 Ute Creek Industrial Service Park Expansion PUD . Bob Narracci, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 12/6/06 ACTION: Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan to add 88 acres to the Ute Creek Industrial Park. The application includes the total of 160 acres which encompasses the original Ute Creek Planned Unit Development inclusive of the proposed additional 88 acres located to the south and east of the existing development. Minor changes are proposed from the original layout of the Ute Creek Storage pun. The additional land area included in this application is similar in character to the land in the original PUD. Dlle to strong market demand, the originally approved 72-acre PUD is nearing full utilization. As proposed, the project includes 40% open space. Additional one on-site caretaker's unit is proposed. Also, the development is to be gated to control access. LOCATION: 0220 Ute Creek Road! Accessed from Hwy 131 via the Eagle County Landfill Road (EC Road S-49) approximately two miles northeast ofWo1cott. OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: CJC PropertiesLP / Chris P. Jouflas Owner Knight Planning Services, Inc. / Terrill Knight and Tom Boni STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION: During deliberations the Eagle County Planning Commission offered the following comments: . This PUD Amendment is a great opportunity to correct problems within the existing development; . Questioned whether or not fencing should be erected adjacent to the riparian areas of Ute Creek; (Condition No.6) . Indicated that nighttime lighting and daytime glare from metal surfaces is a concern when viewed from across the valley; (Condition No.8) . An agreement for service needs to be formalized with the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District; (Condition No.4) . Due to the Colorado Geological Survey comments they question if Lots 21, 22 and 23 are really needed. These lots would also be potentially more visible from across the valley than is the balance of the industrial park and may fragment Open Space; (Condition No.5) . Landscaping should be introduced around disturbed areas and the caretaker's unit. Landscaping is currently lacking. With Preliminary Plan, it was requested that the applicant prepare a landscape plan with appropriate (low water consumptive) planting materials and water supply. This is needed for screening and revegetation efforts; (Condition No.9) . The Housing Plan needs to be strengthened; . Questioned how the Wolcott Reservoir may affect the subject property; . How is water provided for fire fighting? 22 4/10/07 · No dogs should be allowed on site. The on-site caretaker can enforce this to mitigate impacts upon wildlife; (Condition No. 10) · The Property Owner's Association needs to be the first line of defense in enforcing the Planned Unit Development; · No inoperable vehicles should be allowed on the site; · The type and location of fencing needs to be rectified within the CDOW agreement at Preliminary Plan. (Condition No.6) · As opposed to establishing complete conformance with the current PUD Guide prior to Preliminary Plan approval; complete conformance with the current PUD Guide must be established prior to application for Preliminary Plan. (Condition No.7) Following deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the conditions provided at the end of this report. Some of the Planning Commission comments not covered by the originally proposed set of conditions have since been added by staff. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The intent of this Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sketch Plan application is to: · Increase the size of the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park by 44 acres from its current size of 72 acres for a total of 116 acres; · To reconfigure several of the existing platted lots; · To revise the PUD Guide to better reflect experience gained over the last ten years since the initial approval; · To increase availability of space to companies that need staging or outdoor storage areas; · To provide space to firms involved in the waste management operations within Eagle County; · To allow a single-family home to be constructed near the entrance of the project for housing a full- time caretaker on site, and; · To install a gated access into the project so that better control of on site activities will be possible. · If approved, the development will consist of 32 industrial lots on 68.85 acres and 37.77 acres of surrounding, passive open space and approximately 10 acres ofprivate right-of-way. The existing PUD contains 19 acres of designated open space; this proposed expansion includes 18.77 additional acres of open space. Over the past decade, the subject property has proven to be a viable location for this type ofland use due to its centralized location in Eagle County and relative isolation with the Eagle County Landfill as the closest neighbor. The industrial park has experienced a number of activities occurring on the site over the years which are not contemplated by the existing PUD. The owner's of the Ute Creek Industrial Park have been working with the lessees within the park over the past several months to clean up the property and bring it into conformance with the existing governing Planned Unit Development Guide; inclusive of removing junked vehicles, old tires, debris, improperly stored waste oil, etc. The park is notably improved since last summer; however, some of the lessees have not yet completed their portion of the clean-up effort. As such, a condition of approval is provided to ensure. that the Ute Creek Industrial Park is 100% in compliance with the existing PUD Guide prior to Preliminary Plan approval of this proposed expansion. (Condition No: 7) Due to uncontrolled access to the site, the park has also regularly received illegal (nighttime) dumping of assorted debris, old tires, old appliances, etc. by people other than the lessees. Again, a condition of approval is provided to ensure that the Ute Creek Industrial Park is 100% in compliance with the existing PUD Guide prior to application for Preliminary Plan. (Condition No.7) This application will assist in correcting aberrant activities within the PUD by providing greater clarification of uses by right, how storage is to occur on the site, distinction between uses allowed by Limited Review (administrative) and Special Use (public process). Most notable is the proposal to employ 23 4/1 0/07 a permanent on-site caretaker. The on-site caretaker's unitis to be constructed near the entrance to the Ute Creek Industrial Park. . Ingress / Egress to the park will be controlled through the installation of a new gated entrance, located near the on-site caretaker's unit. The provision of full-time on site supervision and the gated ingress / egress, will eliminate the pr6blem of uncontrolled dumping. The on-site caretaker will also serve to enforce the park operations amongst the various lessees to maintain compliance with the governing PUD Guide over time. B. CHRONOLOGY: May 30, 1995: The Preliminary Plan for the Ute Creek Industrial Park was approved (File No. ZC-264-94 and PD-3l4-94-P). April 2, 1996: The Final Plat of the Ute Creek Industrial Park received approval. July 8, 2003: Special Use approval was granted for Vail Honeywagon's permanent maintenance building. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Open Range / Resource West: Open Range (ELM) / Resource North: Open Range (BLM) / Resource South: Open Range (BLM) / Resource Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water: Sewer: Access: PUD and Resource 116 +/- acres Bottled Water or 'Trucked-in water via contract with the Edwards Metropolitan District. Portable toilets, vaults or engineered ISDS. Via Eagle County Road No. S-49 / aka: Ute Creek Road 2. STAFF REPORT D. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Environmental Health Department: In a verbal response from the Eagle County Department of Environmental Health, the following comments were provided: . It is our intent to have the project achieve environmental protection. . A Dust Suppression Plan shall be submitted to Eagle County Environmental Health, along with information for a contact person with whom to address complaints or concerns. . The approved Dust Suppression Plan must be kept on-site and be implemented at all times. . A Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to Eagle County Environmental Health for approval and must include the following: . Specifics on what measures will be utilized to clean up any off site sedimentation. Should impacts be realized off-site, the development would be subject to the Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards as specified in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, as amended. . Require notification to Eagle County Engineering and Environmental Health of any failure of the erosion control measures . Specific information on what actions will be taken in the event the plan is insufficient or noticeable off-site impacts are realized. . Submit a detailed materials handling and spill prevention plan. 24 4/1 0/07 · Contact information for the person available at all times, responsible for immediately addressing non-compliance issues. · Trash/waste storage is stipulated in the PUD Guide and as such implies enforcement through the County; it is recommended that maintenance of the property and its associated waste materials be a function of the Property Owners Association. · Standards outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations are the responsibility of the Property Owners Association. The property is subject to our Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards as it involves off-site impacts. · Due to the proximity of the site to Ute Creek and ground water resources, all ISDS systems will need to accomplish advanced wastewater treatment and be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer. (Condition No.2) Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached responses dated April 10, 2006 and June 16,2006. The most notable comment is relative to the lack of water and sewer facilities to serve the subject property. Particularly with regard to the proposed care taker's residence and fire fighting water supply. (Condition No.3) Eagle County Landfill: Please refer to the attached response dated June I, 2006. The Eagle County Landfill Solid Waste Manager offers no comments and approves of the project as submitted. Eagle River Fire Protection District: In a verbal response, the ERFPD indicated that they do not serve the subject property. The application materials provided indicate that the ERFPD is the emergency service provider for this vicinity of the County. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District: In a verbal response, Tom Wagenlander indicated that the Ute Creek PUD is not located within the boundaries of any fire protection district with the exception of the Vail Honeywagen site. It is suggested that the applicant discuss with the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District the possibility of either being included within the District's boundaries or ensure that service is provided via contractual arrangement. (Condition No.4) Colorado Geological Survey: Please refer to the attached response dated June 1, 2006. · The steep slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 have evidence of recent mudslide debris flow activity with debris flow gullies and levees located in the upper (northern most) part oflots 22 and 23. The debris flow hazard can be mitigated with a berm, but designating an area that would not be developed around the debris flow would be the easiest mitigation. · There is a minor rockfall hazard on the slope above Lot 21. There are numerous boulders in the colluvium on the slope but there are no outcrop source areas. The hazard can easily be mitigated with avoidance or a small berm or fence. · Lots 29A through 29D have a steep, apparently man-made slope at the edge of the access cul-de- sac on the conceptual plan. The proposed grading and drainage plan does not include any grading for the access driveways to Lots 29B, 29C or 29D. The access driveways should include appropriately engineered slopes for retaining walls for access driveways. · The slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 do not appear to be active landslide slopes. Rather, they appear to be ancient or relict landslides, but do not appear active at the present time. These slopes may be prone to minor debris flows or mudslides. · Lots 3 and 4 have steep banks adjacent to Ute Creek within their boundaries. Building envelopes within the lots should exclude these steep bank areas and should be setback by a distance of approximately H/3 where H is the height of the bank. · The proposed grading and drainage plan shows an existing detention pond west of Lot 1 which could not be located during a site visit. The proposed detention pond is located in a suitable area. · In conclusion, the property is suitable for the proposed use with a few minor modifications. The caretaker's house should not be located in the areas described above that have the potential for rockfall or debris flow hazards. Lots 21, 22 and 23 should have some sort of mitigation for the potential debris flow hazard if the lots are not redrawn to avoid the hazards. 25 4/10/07 . If the recommendations in the submitted reports and the recommendations in this letter are complied with, then the CGS has no further geologic concerns regarding this subdivision. (Condition No.5) Colorado Division of Wildlife: Please refer to the attached response dated June 14, 2006, . The wildlife analysis presented is not accurate because the maps shown are outdated. . The project is located in critical mule deer habitat (winter range, concentration area, severe winter range, migration corridor), elk winter range, bald eagle winter range and sage grouse overall range. . Wildlife habitat values have been impacted by the existing development but not to a significant extent. . The Wolcott area still provides a considerable amount of critical wildlife habitat. The Eagle County Landfill and Ute Creek Industrial Park both had mitigation plans that have been implemented. . The project site consists of native sagebrush, mountain shrub, old pastures, and intermittent drainage. . Beyond the direct loss of habitat, the current use of the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park, by the nature of its operations, has had minimal wildlife impacts. . Since this project is only at Sketch Plan, the DOW cannot accurately assess the wildlife impact. For the County's and the applicant's use for future discussions, the following items require additional information: ./' Fencing - will the six foot high chain link fencing be around the entire property or individual lots? ./' Will the open space along Ute Creek be fenced to improve the riparian habitat? ./' Updated wildlife maps with the project overlay to accurately assess the number of acres to be impacted. ./' The level and extent of perimeter fencing to determine the impacts to mule deer migration corridor. ./' A wildlife plan for the project. (Condition No.6) Colorado Historical Society: Please refer to the attached response dated May 15, 2006. A search of their files indicates that there are no historic or prehistoric sites located within the area of potential eff~ct. However, some archaeological discoveries have been made in this general vicinity and it is possible that historic or prehistoric remains may exist at the project location. If any artifacts are discovered during the course of work, CHS requests that work cease immediately and that CHS is contacted. Bellyache Ridge BOA: Please refer to the attached response dated June 15,2006. The Board of Directors reviewed the proposed expansion and is generally in favor of the plan. It is a perfect spot in the Eagle River Valley for the storage of materials of this kind. The only concern is that of night lighting. Several of the Board members who live on Big Dipper Road find the current lighting obtrusive. We would like to .see a more comprehensive lighting plan. Additional Referrals were sent to the following agencies and Homeowner's Associations: . County Attorney's Office . Animal Control . Eagle County Sheriff's Office . Eagle County Housing Department . ECO Transit . ECO Trails . Eagle County Road & Bridge . Eagle County Historical Society . Colorado Department of Transportation . Bureau of Land Management . U.S. Army Corp of Engineers . Natural Resources Conservation 26 4/10/07 . Century Tel . KN Energy . Holy Cross Electric . Western Eagle County Ambulance District . Northwest Colorado Council of Governments . Red Sky Ranch HOA . Town of Eagle E. STAFF DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan 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 PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicanthas demonstrated that the entire area affected by this PUD Sketch Plan is in single ownership. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person and/or entity. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in thePUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed asa 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 afthe application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. The uses proposed include all of those uses previously permitted within the existing Ute Creek PUD plus the addition of Landscape Contractors Operations, Concrete Operations, Log Home Construction, General Staging Areas for off-site construction projects, Waste Contractor's Storage and Maintenance Operations and one single-family residence to be utilized as an on-site caretaker's unit. Additional intended clarification is also proposed in the draft PUD Guide with regard Performance Standards, Non-Permitted activities, Fencing, Lighting, Open Space, specific uses by Lot and Fire Protection. More specificity has been provided with regard to uses by right, 1.!ses allowed by limited review and uses allowed by special review. The additional 44 acres proposed for inclusion into the Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD are currently zoned 'Resource' [+/-] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD SHALL BE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule," for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)]- The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for P UD. Variations of 27 4/10/07 these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed are the same as those specified in the existing Ute Creek POO (maximum FAR,. maximum building lot coverage, maximum impervious area, minimum structural setbacks, maximum height, minimum building separation and minimum lot area). The dimensional limitations proposed would also be applicable to the 44 acre land area proposed to be encompassed in the Ute Creek Industrial Park POO which is not the same as the dimensional limitations required in the Resource zone district. [+/_] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the POO SHALL BE those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. 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. Off street parking proposed is identical to the standards set forth in the existing Ute Creek POO and defer to the Eagle County Land Use Regulation standards. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] The off-street parking and Loading provided in the POO DOES COMPLY with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaoinf! and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides suffident 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. As specified in the existing Ute Creek PUD, landscaping for the project will be minimal due to the fact that a viable source of water for the purpose of introducing landscape materials to the site is non-existent. Further, given the secluded location of the subject property, introduced landscaping would offer little benefit to screen the site from adjacent properties. A condition of approval is provided requiring a comprehensive landscape and irrigation plan be provided with the Preliminary Plan application. At the time of Preliminary Plan a comprehensive lighting plan will be necessary. 28 4/10/07 (Condition No.8) [+/-] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] With application for Preliminary Plan, a comprehensive landscape plan, irrigation plan and lighting plan will be required consistent with the industrial nature ofthe development and its secluded location. 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 4-340D., 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. Signage within the proposed development will comply with the standards set forth in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. . [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sif.!n ReflUlations 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. As with the existing Ute Creek PUD, facilities for potable water supply and sewage disposal ate non- existent. Bottled potable water and trucked-in water for fire suppression and other applications is proposed. , Individual sewerage collection vaults or individual engineered sewerage disposal systems are also proposed. Solid waste disposal can be easily handled at the nearby Eagle County Landfill. Electrical supply is available on the site. Adequate fire protection is uncertain due to the fact that the site is not located within the boundaries of any fire protection district nor is there a contractual arrangement with a fire protection district to provider services to the site. (Condition No.4) The proposed road design will need to be engineered at the time of Preliminary Plan. The Eagle County Sheriff's Office will provide police services. With the possible exception of the caretaker's unit, proximity to schools is not applicable. The Western Eagle County Ambulance District did not respond to the referral for this proposal, although it is anticipated that the District would be the responder in the event of an emergency. Despite the absence of certain facilities, the Ute Creek PUD has successfully accommodated the uses allowed over the past ten years. It is reasonable to expect that the proposed expansion would be able to function similarly. [+/-] FINDING: 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 police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. . STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmen/al impacts, when the follOWing minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be 29 4/1 0/07 by a public right-ofway, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (e) 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 foe the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) . PrincipillAccess Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be. permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from offstreet parking areas. The property is currently served by adequate existing roadways. The applicant will need to demonstrate that newly proposed roads will be required to meet applicable County standards with application for Preliminary Plan. Given the industrial nature of the proposed development, pathways internal to the project would not serve. to provide a legitimate purpose because the individuals working on the property are not inclined to take leisurely constitutionals. Nevertheless, numerous roads and trails into adjacent BLM land would offer a more inviting experience. Emergency vehicles can acces.s the site from U.S. Highway 131 along Ute Creek Road to the subject property. The existing internal road network is sufficient for this purpose and newly proposed roads will have to be designed accordingly. Access to the site is provided via Ute Creek Road (the Eagle County Landfill Road). Secondary access is from Cache Creek Road which is a ranch road. If the surrounding property is . ever developed, this ranch road will be upgraded to satisfy County standards. The Engineering Department referral response indicates that this ranch road (Spalding. Reservoir Road) does not provide a second point of access at this time. Sufficient land area either adjacent to the road network or on each individual lot exists to accommodate adequate snow storage. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS been 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 Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development' proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. If properly executed, the proposed expansion will be consistent with existing uses approved in 1995 and will employ greater control over on-site activities. 30 4/1 0107 As has been demonstrated over the past decade, the subject property has proven to be a viable location for this type of land use due to its centralized location in Eagle County and relative isolation with the Eagle County Landfill as the closest neighbor. [+J FINqING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] This PUD ex ansion IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. . STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Comprehensive 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 ~oves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN General Development - "Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations". The existing Ute Creek PUD and the proposed Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD provide a continued need in the County for the types of industrial uses proposed. The location of the development and th~ uses contained therein minimizes negative visual impacts that might otherwise be located along the Eagle Valley floor. The site is visible from Bellyache Ridge and portions of Red Sky Ranch, however, lighting / glare and not the specific on-site activities are of greater concern when viewed from across the valley. The J3roposed development does propose to maintain approximately 32.5% of the land area involved in this application as open space and will serve to protect the Ute Creek Drainage channel and associated riparian areas. "Growth should be managed toward future sustainability - a healthy balance between economic success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment". This development proposes to expand to accommodate the needs of the County's growing economy. Appropriate location for the less desirable uses driving a healthy economy are accommodated by this development and is necessary consistent with the determination of the Board of County Commissioners in 1995. "Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved." This development helps to alleviate the pressure upon more highly visible properties within the Eagle Valley, thereby indirectly assisting with the goal of preserving open corridors. "Development should be fully responsible for the mitigation of development related impacts upon both the natural and built environments." This PUD expansion proposal provides an opportunity for the County to ensure that the property owner reassumes control and maintains full responsibility for the mitigation of development of . development related impacts associated with the Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD through more rigorous enforcement, control and implementation of the governing PUD. Economic Resources - "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered." This development will help to ensure that intensive commercial/industrial development occurs in a location that is compatible with surrounding uses. "Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers. " The development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations should be allowed provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties. This proposed expansion is in response to demand for industrial use locations within the County and which would be incompatible with the'Character of existing town and community centers. Housing - "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers. ", and "Land use planning objectives should promote an appropriate amount of worliforce housing. ", and 31 4/10/07 "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce needs. " The proposed expansion does propose living accommodations for a future on-site caretaker although no information has been submitted indicating the size of residence, intended timeframe to construct the caretaker's residence or how affordable said residence will ultimately be. The DRAFT PUD Guide does include language requiring the provision of local resident housing at such time that any permanent habitable structure is introduced onto the site. Said plan would be reviewed concurrently with the required (also proposed) Limited Review or Special Use review process. Additionally, at staffs behest and in an effort to respond to the as yet to be updated Affordable Housing Guidelines, the applicant proposes the following affordabff housing mitigation plan (Please see attached letter from Knight Planning Services, Inc. to Bob Narracci dated February 15, 2007): "After consideration of the existing yards iocated in the existing Ute Creek Planned Unit Development, we believe that a reasonable employee generation rate associated with these outdoor. storage yards is one employee per two acres. The availability of these yards is not a fundamental need or requirement of most of the companies that locate here. Rather, it is a benefit perhaps allowing them to operate more efficiently. An inventory of the site shows that some of the yards are used for more permanent storage of materials while others are more actively used. Therefore, we believe that the availability of outdoor storage yards would reasonably relate to the addition of one full time employee per two acres of yard area. Based on the proposed expansion of the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park PUD to include an additional 18.9 acres of yard space, we calculate that this expansion would relate to 9.5 employees. The nexus established in the existing Eagle County Housing Guidelines is that a commercial or industrial development provide for 20% of the housing impact generated. Using Eagle County Housing Guidelinesformulas, 9.5 employees results in a demandfor 4.3 housing units. Understanding that Eagle County is considering raising the percentage requirementto (at least) 30%, the requisite number of housing units related to this 18.9 acre yard expansion would be 1.3 dwelling units. " Infrastructure and Services - "To preserve mountain character, county roads should be adequate and safe for their intended use, but not over-designed." The roads serving the development provide adequate access for emergency responders. New roads within the development will be required to satisfy the County's standards with the Preliminary Plan application. "Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and second home owners." This proposal was referred to the potentially affected emergency and service providers for comment. The Greater Eagle Fire Protection District indicated that the Ute Creek PUD is not located within tpe boundaries of any fire protection district with the exception of the Vail Honeywagon site. It is suggested that the applicant discuss with the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District the possibility of either being included within the District's boundaries or ensure that service is provided via contractual arrangement. (Condition No.4) Water Resources - "Protect the long term viability of both ground and surface water sources. " This existing development and proposed expansion has operated without reliance upon either a public water system or well water and is proposed to continue in this manner. Additionally, landscaping, if introduced at all, will be minimal. Thusly, the impact of the development upon water viability in terms of consumption is practically nil. With Preliminary Plan, the applicant will be required to provide details regarding water supply and sewage disposal relative to the proposed on-site caretaker's unit. The Department of Environmental Health has requested the following relative to protecting the long term viability of both ground and surface water sources: . A Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to Eagle County Environmental Health for approval and must include the following: 32 4/10/07 . Specifics on what measures will be utilized to clean up any off site sedimentation. Should impacts be realized off-site, the development would be subject to the Commercial and Industrial Performance Startdards as specified in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, as amended. . Require notification to Eagle County Engineering and Environmental Health of any failure of the erosion control measures . Specific information on what actions will be taken in the event the plan is insufficient or noticeable off-site impacts are realized. . Submit a detailed materials handling and spill prevention plan. . Contact information for the person available at all times, responsible for immediately addressing non-compliance issues. . Trash/waste storage implies enforcement through the County; it is recommended that maintenance of the property and its associated waste materials be a function of the Property Owner~ Association. . Due to the proximity of the site to Ute Creek and ground water resources, all ISDS systems will need to accomplish advanced wastewatertreatrnent and be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer. (Condition No.2) "Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented." This existing development and proposed expansion has operated without reliance upon either a public water system or well water and is proposed to continue in this manner. Additionally, landscaping, if introduced at all, will be minimal. Thusly, the impact ofthe development upon water viability in terms of consumption is practically nil. . ( "Surface and groundwater supplies shou~d be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts. " The development will provide a buffer area of natural vegetation between the on-site activities and Ute Creek. "Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts. " The development will provide a buffer area of natural vegetation between the on-site activities and Ute Creek. Wildlife Resources - "The quality, integrity and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved. " This proposal will preserve a significant stretch of Ute Creek as open space thereby protecting wildlife habitat and riparian areas. "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. ", and "Measures designed to protect wildlife from human activities and disturbances should be implemented and enforced. " The Colorado Division of Wildlife response states that: . The wildlife analysis presented is not accurate because the maps shown are outdated. . The project is located in critical mule deer habitat (winter range, concentration area, severe winter range, migration corridor), elk winter range, bald eagle winter range and sage grouse overall range. . Wildlife habitat values have been impacted by the existing development but not to a significant extent. . The Wolcott area still provides a considerable amount of critical wildlife habitat. The Eagle County Landfill and Ute Creek Industrial Park both had mitigation plans that have been implemented. . The project site consists of native sagebrush, mountain shrub, old pastures, and intermittent drainage. . Beyond the direct loss of habitat, the current use of the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park, by the nature of its operations, has had minimal wildlife impacts. . Since this project is only at Sketch Plan, the DOW cannot accurately assess the wildlife impact. For the County's and the applicant's use for future discussions, the following items require additional information: 33 4/1 0/07 ./ Fencing.- will the six foot high chain link fencing be around the entire property or individual lots? ./ Will the open space along Ute Creek be fenced to improve the riparian habitat? ./ Updated wildlife maps with the project overlay to accurately assess the number of acres to be impacted. . ./ The level and extent of perimeter fencing to determine the impacts to mule deer migration corridor. ./ A wildlife plan for the project. Assuming that the applicant can address these concerns to the satisfaction of the CDOW through the Preliminary Plan then the expanded project should continue to have minimal wildlife impacts. (Condition No.6) Sensitive Lands - "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard. ", and 'The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the integrity of the natural environment and the visual quality of the area. " The Colorado Geological Survey offers the following comments in this regard: . The steep slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 have evidence of recent mudslide debris flow activity with debris flow gullies and levees located in the upper (northern most) part oflots 22 and 23. The debris flow hazard can be mitigated with a berm, but designating an area that would not be developed around the debris flow would be the easiest mitigation. . There is a minor rockfall hazard on the slope above Lot 21. There are numerous boulders in the colluvium on the slope but there are no outcrop source areas. The hazard can easily be mitigated with avoidance or a small berm or fence: . Lots 29A through 29D have a steep, apparently man-made slope at the edge of the access cul-de- sac on the conceptual plan. The proposed grading and drainage plan does not include any grading for the access driveways to Lots 29B, 29C or 29D. The access driveways should include appropriately engineered slopes for retaining walls for access driveways. . The slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 do not appear to be active landslide slopes. Rather, they appear to be ancient or relict landslides, but do not appear active at the present time. These slopes may be prone to minor debris flows or mudslides. . Lots 3 and 4 have steep banks adjacent to Ute Creek within their boundaries. Building envelopes within the lots should exclude these steep bank areas and should be setback by a distance of approximately H/3 'where H is the height of the bank. . The proposed grading and drainage plan shows an existing detention pond west of Lot 1 which could not be located during a site visit. The proposed detention pond is located in a suitable area. . In conclusion, the property is suitable for the proposed use with a few minor modifications. The caretaker's house should not be located in the areas described above that have the potential for rockfall or debris flow hazards. Lots 21, 22 and 23 should have some sort of mitigation for the potential debris flow hazard if the lots are not redrawn to avoid the hazards. . If the recommendations in the submitted reports and the recommendations in this letter are complied with, then the CGS has no further geologic concerns regarding this subdivision. At Preliminary Plan, it must be demonstrated that the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey have been incorporated into the plan. (Condition No.5) Also, the Colorado Historical Society indicated that no sensitive historic or archaeological sites are present in the project area. The proposed development will preserve 32.5% ofthe total land area involved as passive open space inclusive of Ute Creek and adjacent riparian areas. Environmental Quality - "Lighting plans that reduce nuisance glare and protect the quality of the night sky should be encouraged." With application for Preliminary Plan, a comprehensive lighting plan will be necessary. (Condition No.8) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) - The Future Land Use Map found in the Comprehensive Plan defers to the Wolcott Area Community Plan which does not provide a specific recommended land use other than, "Proposed land uses 34 4/1 0/07 (outside the Wolcott activity center)should resolve potential impacts through appropriate design measures and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. " The plan further states that, "The appropriate location for industrial uses within the Wolcott Area is in the vicinity of the Eagle County Landfill". WOLCOTT.AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Xl x3 x' x6 x7 x2 x5 x x X 1 ~ The proposed development location is c,onsistent with the Plan's recommendation that, "The appropriate location for industrial uses within the Wolcott Area is in the vicinity of the Eagle County Landfill". x2- The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has provided several recommendations which must be adequately addressed with the Preliminary Plan application. The CDOW response does indicate that the existing Ute Creek PUD has had minimal impact upon wildlife habitat. It is anticipated that this proposed expansion can co-exist with wildlife as well. (Condition No.6) x3 - "Maintain the character afthe Wolcott Area as development occurs, while protecting ecologically sensitive areas. When feasible, connect the area through a network of public and private open space, trail corridors and active and passive recreation areas." The proposed development would tend to maintain the existing character of the Wolcott Area and will provide private open space inclusive of the Ute Creek drainage and associated riparian areas. Given the type of development existing / proposed and its location, there is not a readily apparent need for trail corridors and active I passive recreation areas. x4 - "The quality and quantity of potable water should be maintained or improved as new development occurs. " The existing / proposed development is operable without either a public water source or well water. Potable water is either bottled or trucked-in. With Preliminary Plan, the applicant will be required to provide details regarding water supply and sewage disposal relative to the proposed on-site caretaker's unit. x5 - The Colorado Geological Survey offers the following comments in this regard: . The steep slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 have evidence of recent mudslide debris flow activity with debris flow gullies and levees located in the upper (northern most) part oflots 22 and 23. The debris flow hazard can be mitigated with a berm, but designating an area that would not be developed around the debris flow would be the easiest mitigation. · There is a minor rockfall hazard on the slope above Lot 21. There are numerous boulders in the colluvium on the slope but there are no outcrop source areas. The hazard can easily be mitigated with avoidance or a small berm or fence. . Lots 29Athrough 29D have a steep, apparently man-made slope at the edge of the access cul-de- sac on the conceptual plan. The proposed grading and drainage plan does not include any grading for the access driveways to Lots 29B, 29C or 29D. The access driveways should include appropriately engineered slopes for retaining walls for access driveways. . The slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 do not appear to be active landslide slopes. Rather, they appear to be ancient or relict landslides, but do not appear active at the present time. These slopes may be prone to minor debris flows or mudslides. · Lots 3 and 4 have steep banks adjacent to Ute Creek within their boundaries. Building envelopes within the lots should exclude these steep bank areas and should be setback by a distance of approximately H/3 where H is the height of the bank. 35 4/10/07 . The proposed grading and drainage plan shows an existing detention pond west of Lot I which could not be located during a site visit. The proposed detention pond is located in a suitable area. . In conclusion, the property is suitable for the proposed use with a few minor modifications. The caretaker's house should not be located in the areas described above that have the potential for rockfall or debris flow hazards. Lots 21, 22 and 23 should have some sort of mitigation for the potential debris flow hazard if the lots are not redrawn to avoid the hazards. . If the recommendations in the submitted reports and the recommendations in this letter are complied with, then the CGS has no further geologic concerns regarding this subdivision. At Preliminary Plan, it must be demonstrated that the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey have been incorporated into the plan. (Condition No.5) 1{6 ~ "To protect the people and property of the Wolcott Area from th~ harmful effects of air pollution, excessive noise and noxious odors." A Dust Suppression Plan shall be submitted to Eagle County Environmental Health, along with information fora contact person with whom to address complaints or concerns. The approved Dust Suppression Plan must be kept on-site and be implemented at all times. No negative olfactory and auditory impaqts were observed emanating from the existing development. It is not anticipated that the proposed expansion would serve to create undue impacts. (Condition No.2) X 7 - "Preserve important historic and archaeological resources for their social and econllrnic values. " The Colorado Historical Society did not identify any historic or archaeological resources in the project area. Open Space Provision: 32.5% of the proposed project area is proposed as passive open space. Unique Character Preservation: The subject property is not located within and does not encompass any unique land forms. VisualOuality: The location of the subject property is designated as 'Class 3 - moderately constrained'. As mentioned previously in this report, concern with the visual quality ofthe existing / proposed development when viewed from distant vantage points is relative to nighttime illumination and glare. With application for Preliminary Plan a lighting plan will be required. (Condition No.8) Development Patterns: The existing / proposed development is consistent with established development patterns in this vicinity of Wolcott. Hazards: The Colorado Geological Survey offers the following comments in this regard: . The steep slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 have evidence of recent mudslide debris flow activity with debris flow gullies and levees located in the upper (northern most) part oflots 22 and 23. The debris flow hazard can be mitigated with a berm, but designating an area that would not be developed around the debris flow would be the easiest mitigation. . There is a minor rockfall hazard on the slope above Lot 21. There are numerous boulders in the colluvium on the slope but there are no outcrop source areas. The hazard can easily be mitigated with avoidance or a small berm or fence. 36 4/1 0/07 . Lots 29A through 29D have a steep, apparently man-made slope at the edge of the access cul-de- sac on the conceptual plan. The proposed grading and drainage plan does not include any grading for the access driveways to Lots 29B, 29C or 29D. The access driveways should include appropriately engineered slopes for retaining walls for access driveways. . The slopes above Lots 21, 22 and 23 do not appear to be active landslide slopes. Rather, they appear to be ancient or relict landslides, but do not appear active. at the present time. These slopes may be prone to minor debris flows or mudslides. . Lots 3 and 4 have steep banks adjacent to Ute Creek within their boundaries. Building envelopes within the lots should exclude these steep bank areas and should be setback by a distance of approximately H/3 where H is the height of the bank. . The proposed grading and drainage plan shows an existing detention pond west of Lot 1 which could not be located during a site visit. The proposed detention pond is located in a suitable area. . In conclusion, the property is suitable for the proposed use with a few minor modifications. The caretaker's house should not be located in the areas described above that have the potential for rockfall or debris flow hazards. Lots 21, 22 and 23 should have some sort of mitigation for the potential debris flow hazard if the lots are not redrawn to avoid the hazards. . If the recommendations in the submitted reports and the recommendations in this letter are complied with, then the CGS has no further geologic concerns regarding this subdivision. At Preliminary Plan, it must be demonstrated that the recommendations of the Colorado Geological SlltVey have been incorporated into the plan. (Condition No.5) Wildlife: The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has provided several recommendations which must be adequately addressed with the Preliminary Plan application. The CDOW response does indicate that the existing Ute CreekPUD has had minimal impact upon wildlife habitat. It is anticipated that this proposed expansion can co-exist with wildlife as well. (Condition No.6) Land Use: The proposed development will set aside that portion of the property which Ute Creek runs through as privately owned open space. Wildlife: The proposed development would not adversely impact open space or riparian areas, as conditioned. (Condition No.6) . EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue. . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle 37 4/10/07 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. . Itis 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 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 owners\1ip by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of .-. . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. Conunercial, 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 conununity center. . . Xl 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to conununity 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 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- The proposed expansion does propose living accommodations for a future on-site caretaker although no information has been submitted indicating the size of residence, intended time frame to construct the caretaker's residence or how affordable said residence will ultimately be. The DRAFT PUD Guide does include language requiring the provision oflocal resident housing at such time that any permanent habitable structure is introduced onto the site. Said plan would be reviewed concurrently with the required (also proposed) Limited Review process. Additionally, at staffs behest and in an effort to respond to the as yet to be updated Affordable Housing Guidelines, the applicant proposes the following affordable housing mitigation plan (Please see attached letter from Knight Planning Services, Inc. to Bob Narracci dated February 15,2007): "After consideration of the existing yards located in the existing Ute Creek Planned Unit Development, we believe that a reasonable employee generation rate associated with these outdoor 38 4/1 0/07 storage yards is one employee per two acres. The availability of these yards is not a fundamental need or requirement of most of the companies that locate here. Rather, it is a benefit perhaps allowing them to operate more efficiently. An inventory of the site shows that some of the yards ate used for more permanent storage of materials while others are more actively used. Therefore, we believe that the availability of outdoor storage yards would reasonably relate to the addition of one full time employee per two acres of yard area. Based on the proposed expansion of the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park PUD to include an additional 18.9 acres of yard space, we calculate that this expansion would relate to 9.5 employees. The nexus established in the existing Eagle County Housing Guidelines is that a commercial or industrial development provide for 20% of the housing impact generated. Using Eagle County Housing Guidelinesformulas, 9.5 employees results in a demandfor 4.3 housing units. Understanding that Eagle County is considering raising the percentage requirement to (at least) 30%, the requisite number of housing units related to this 18.9 acre yard expansion wouldbe 1.3 dwelling units. " [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The existing / proposed development DOES NOT wholly satisfy all pertinent aspects of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and ancillary documents. It is anticipated, however, that with application for Preliminary Plan that the identified concerns pertaining to wildlife, geologic hazards / sensitive lands, infrastructure & services, water resources and. environmental quality should be adequately addressed. 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 providedfor 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. I [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) The proposed project is to occur in one phase. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-aI-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 (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (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 39 4/10/07 covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (j) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and seCure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. 32.5% of the project area will be preserved as natural, passive open space. No manmade improvements to the open space are proposed or required. Said open space will remain in private ownership. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS NOT demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The PUD endeavors to protect the natural resources while concurrently providing the type of industrial space necessary to serve Eagle County. As discussed previously in this report, with application for Preliminary Plan, identified concerns regarding wildlife, geology and water source protection must be fully addressed. [+/_] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] At a Sketch Plan level of detail, this proposal DOES NOT fully respond to the recommendations of all referral agencies. With Preliminary Plan application that the referral agency comments must be satisfactorily addressed. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the file with the use of a PowerPoint presentation. He summarized the applicant's proposal. The property is accessed via the landfill access road. The land surrounding the property is either owned by Eagle County as part of the landfill land or it is additional ownership by Chris Jouflas. The applicant wishes to increase the size of the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park by 44 acres from its current size of 72 acres for a total of 116 acres. The proposal would allow a single-family home be constructed near the entrance ofthe project for housing a full-time caretaker on site. If approved, the development will consist of 32 industrial lots on 68.85 acres, 37.77 acres of surrounding, privately owned passive open space and approximately 10 acres of private right-of - way. Referral responses from the Environmental Health Department, County Engineering Department, Eagle County Landfill, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Historical Society and Bellyache Ridge HOA were presented. Several photos of the area were presented. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this PUD Sketch Plan application. Tom Boni, Knight Planning presented a PowerPoint Presentation. He stated that his firm was contacted by the Jouflas family to look at the land around the existing Ute Creek storage PUD. His slide presentation included se;veral photos of the property. He showed the proposed Ute creek PUD and the existing approved PUD. He explained the history of usage for the Ute Creek industrial service park PUD. The purpose of the application would allow for a more efficient layout, PUD guide modification and caretaker unit. The expansion would address a 40 4/10/07 continued need for large storage and staging of related uses. Standards for a planned unit development would be addressed in the future such as snow removal, phasing, open space and fencing. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the ranch road connecting the property. Mr. Boni stated that the road Commissioner Runyon was referring to was the Cash Creek/Ute Creek connection, the main access road to the landfill. The road on the hillside isa ranch road that goes to the top of Cash Creek. Chairman Menconi opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the illegal dumping currently taking place on the property. Chris Jouflas stated that he believes having a caretaker unit on the property near the dump site will eliminate the illegal dumping problem. Commissioner Fisher wondered ifthere was anyone there during the day and how many port-a-potties were available for Use. Mr. Jouflas stated that he was not sure of the port-a-potty count. Commissioner Fisher stated that that could be a concern as they get larger and have more people using the facility and using it without the appropriate accommodations. She asked about the available water services. Mr. Jouflas stated that they currently have a spring and a well on the property. Some lots have water and some do not. Mr. Boni stated that they may consider adding the need for port-a-potty service to the PUD guide. Commissioner Fisher asked about proper disposal of oil and fuel and proper containment of the same Mr. Jouflas stated that a letter had been issued to all the lessees stating that they need to be incompliance with Eagle County regulations and Environmental Health for mitigation of vehicle maintenance. He believes this is another good reason for having a caretaker unit on tne property. He stated that it is difficult to manage the property when you are not there hour to hour. Commissioner Fisher asked whether it would be a single person or a family living in the caretaker unit. Mr. Jouflas stated that they don't currently have anyone for the unit but the unit would be a two bedroom unit. Commissioner Fisher stated that landscaping should be a consideration to shield the area from future development. Mr. Jouflas stated that they had considered the housing potential in the area and he believes there are a number of alternatives for this PUD in conjunction with future housing. Commissioner Runyon wondered if any of the lessees would be putting trailers on their lots. He also wondered if any of the lessees would be conducting retail operations. He doesn't want to see something like Mission creek. Mr. Boni stated that storage would only be a way of containing visual clutter. They would not create any permanent units. The units would only be used for storage. The idea was not to create any permanent habitable structures. Commissioll~[~uny~statedJhat he doesn't want to see a hillside covered with white sheds. Commissioner Fisher stiifeCl tllat she didn't see anything in the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park Planned Unit Development Guide that precludes someone from living on site. Mr. Boni stated that additional language could be added to prevent anyone else on the property permanently, except the caretaker. Commissioner Fisher stated that she didn't want the county to micro-manage the property. She would like the applicant to address fire protection due to the flammable liquids that may be evident on the property. Chairman Menconi stated that he believes there is a need for this type of facility in the community, it's in the right area and is accessible. Adding the caretaker aspect alleviates some of the enforcing authority and the role of the county would need to take with regard to people living on the property. He requested more information on the caretaker unit, type of unit and the type of person they are looking for. He wondered about the housing mitigation proposal. He wondered if the caretaker unit was sufficient to meet the county guidelines or if a "cash in. lieu" option should be considered. He asked if the one caretaker unit was a percentage of the 4.3 housing units that was created by the overall employee base. Mr. Boni stated that it was. Chairman Menconi wondered about the preservation of the remaining open space. 41 4/1 0/07 Mr. Narracci stated that there would be a new final plat, which will memorialize the layout. Each of the developed lots would be individually fenced to contain the activities on that site and out of the open space areas. The only other alternative would be to create a conservation easement. Chairman Menconi wondered what the community benefits would be. He would like to have greater consistency with community benefit and suggested the applicant bring back more than the business economic aspect. Mr. Jouflas stated that he believes that the storage facility would be a service to the community but will contemplate the idea further. Commissioner Fisher stated that she would like dogs to be permitted under the control of their owner. She believes that a dog would be a nice amenity especially for a caretaker but with guidelines. Chairman Menconi recommended removing item 10 for further discussion. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PDS-00048 incorporating all Staff findings and the following conditions excluding item 10, regarding dogs, for further discussion. 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. With application for Preliminary Plan, all comments ofthe Environmental Health Department as set forth in this staff report must be adequately addressed. 3. With application for Preliminary Plan, all comments of the Engineering Department detailed in its memoranda dated April 10, 2006 and June 16, 2006 must be adequately addressed. 4. With application for Preliminary Plan, it must be demonstrated that the subject property has either been included within the boundaries of the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District or that a contractual service agreement for fire protection services has been entered into. 5. With application for Preliminary Plan, all comments of the Colorado Geological Survey detailed in its letter dated June 1,'2006 have been adequately addressed. 6. With application for Preliminary Plan, all comments ofthe Colorado Division of Wildlife detailed in its letter dated June 14,2006 have been adequately addressed and that a fencing plan be approved by CDOW and incorporated into the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement. 7. The Ute Creek Industrial Park shall be in complete compliance with the existing Planned Unit Development Control Guide recorded in Eagle County records at Book 669, Page 891 on June 21, 1995, prior to Preliminary Plan application submittal for this proposed expansion. 8. With application for Preliminary Plan, a comprehensive site lighting plan must be submitted, designed to minimize nighttime sky light pollution. Also, reflective surfaces stored or erected on-site must be done so in a manner which minimizes off-site glare. 9. Landscaping should be introduced around disturbed areas and the caretaker's unit. Landscaping is currently lacking. With Preliminary Plan a landscape plan with appropriate low water consumptive planting materials and plans for a water supply distribution system must be provided for appropriate screening and revegetation efforts; 10. No dogs should be allowed on site. The on-site caretaker can enforce this provision to mitigate impacts upon wildlife Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Chairman Menconi stated that because housing wasn't mentioned in the condition he didn't want it to be forgotten. He would like that between now and preliminary plan when the housing planis laid out. The vote was declared unanimous. - 42 4/10/07 There being no further business before ~~~.the meeting ~~\ ~? # ~ ~,l' .;! Clerk to the Board '\~?~rJ)7;..:; -I.;;.>._.,.",.....,.lf.......... ,: Attest: 43 4/10/07