HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/22/07 PUBLIC HEARING May 22, 2007 Present: Am Menconi Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver .Chainnan Commissioner Commissioner County. Manager County Attortley Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County . Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session It was moved, seconded andunanimouslyagreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on Eagle River Water and Sanitation District request for well easements at Berty Creek, Housing Guidelines update and Homestead sidewalks, which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuantto 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. Consent Agenda Chainnan Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of May 21,2007 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative " B. Approval of the payroll for May 24, 2007 Finance Department Representative c. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners meeting for April 10 and April 16, 2007 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. ResolutioD 2007-058 in support of the continuing real property tax exemption of the real property owned and operated by Vail Valley Medical Center within Eagle County, Colorado . Attorney's Office Representative E. Ratification of Contract to Buy and Sell real estate in Leadville Attorney's Office Representative F. ResolutioD2007-OS9 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina L. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, "State ofCoJorado, with respect to Jetter of credit No. NZS53834 in the amount of $215,651.31 for the account of Heritage Building and Development, Inc. for Subdivision and Improvements Agreement dated September 21, 2004 for the benefit of Heritage Park PUD Subdivision Attorney's Office Representative G. Resolution 2007-060 Authorizing the Chairman to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the purchase of 441 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado 1 OS/22/07 Attorney's Office Representative H. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and THK. Associates, Inc. for transportation improvements Attorney's Office Representative I. Agreement between Eagle County and Snowboard Outreach Society for youth services Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services J. Task Order Contract between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for Public Health Core Nursing Services Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services K. Agreement between Eagle County and Benjamin Swig for pandemic flu and emergency services Kate Forinash, HeaIth.& Human Services L. Amended Final Plat McCoy Springs at Arrowhead, Lot 4 (Eagle County File No. AFP-00254). The intent of this plat is toreconfigure the building envelope to incorporate an above grade deck, patio and hot tub; no enclosed living space. Bob Narracci, Community Development~j M. Minor Type B Subdivision Beaver Creek Landing (Eagle County File No. 5MB-00418) A ftnalplat to condominiomize the building/project known as Beaver Creek Landing (building A) creating twenty-six (26) residentiaI.and four (4) commercial condominium units, as well as to defme the limited and general common elements for the underlying property. Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development Chainnan Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated there w~ no changes. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-M. . Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none 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 A. Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce This is a request for a Special Event Permit. Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce will be hosting Mule Days. The event will be held June 8-9, 2007 from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. at the 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. Records indicate that staff has had no problems with events held by this applicant in the past. 2 OS/22/07 B. Vail Valley Charitable Fund This is a request for a Special Event Permit. . V ail Valley Charitable Fund will be hosting The Melissa Ciocian Benefit to be held on Sunday, June 10th, 2007 from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. at the Lazy J Ranch in Wolcott. All fees have been paid, no protests have been filed. Records indicate that staffhas had no problems with events held by this applicant in the past. c. DB Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a TbeGolden Eagle Inn Thisis a request for a Temporary Permit. Flexible Restaurants, Inc. has applied for the transfer of a Hotel & Restaurant liquor license currently held by Golden Eagle Inn, Inc. d/b/a Golden Eagle Inn. The applicant seeks a temporary permit in order to continue liquor operations until the formal transfer is approved. The necessary forms have been submitted and appropriate fees paid. Tim Cochrane Director of the Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce spoke to the board: He thanked the Facilities management team for their help. He stated that Mule Days is coming to Colorado on June 8 - 10. It is primarily 700 mules coming for a 4 state auction. There will be a barn dan,ce on Saturday night. The chamber will provide a safe and responsible beer garden from 12:00 to 8:00 p.m. Alllocat food vendors will be used for the event. Commissioner Fisher thanked Mr. Cochrane for his support of the Eagle River Center and for coming up with the idea to create a community fund to help defray the costs for other local users of the facility. David Goldfein and Claire McKearney of the Vail Valley Charitable Fund spoke to the board. Ms. McKearney explained the purpose of the fundraiser for the Ciocian family. The family is facing exorbitant medical expense~ and the difficulties associated with the loss of income. Mr. Goldfein stated that he would be managing the alcohol service. All servers will be TIPS trained. The event will run from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. There will be a lot of kid's activities provided. Don Bird was present for the Golden Eagle Inn. He indicated that he had purchased the restaurant from Pepi Langegger recently. They intend to open by July 1. He has managed the restaurant for more than 20 years. They have a consistent track record for responsible service. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for May 22, 2007, consisting ofItems A-C. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-coo.vene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Wellness Committee Update Jill Hunsaker, Health & Human Services Lynn Laposky spoke to the board. She introduced the committee, Jill Hunsaker, Megan Morrissey~Greg Daly, Greg Schroeder, Kelly Collier, Justin Finestone, Teak Simonton, Scott Fifield, and Nancy Wright. Ms. Hunsaker presented a PowerPoint presentation. She explained the mission of the wellness program and the programs created by the committee. She also explained the health assessment results of 2005 & 2006. Commissioner Fisher thanked Ms. Hunsaker for her participation in the program and stated thatshe appreciates her efforts. Chairman Menconi stated that it is great to see that the program is continually growing. Site visit - Cordillera Valley Club Cordillera Valley Club House 3 . OS/22/07 The site visit was taped. Planning Files PDA-00067 - Cordillera Vallev Club West End Noise Mitif!ation and Landscaoinf! I Berminf! Lisa de Graaf,Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from May 1,2007 Interstate 1-70 Noise Mitigation including a combination oflandscaping, berms and barriers along the entire cve frontage. North side ofl-70, extending the boundary of the Cordillera Valley Club LOCATION: FILE NO.IPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APP~ICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PDA-00067/ Planned Unit Development Amendment Cordillera Valley Club Sound Mitigation & Landscaping Project Edwards, Colorado Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District Same as Owner VAg, Inc. Architects and Planners 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OFREOUEST: . ./ The Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District is proposing to build a noise mitigation barrier. The purpose of the barrier is to reduce the noise levels from 1-70 vehicle traffic that is perceived asa nuisance and negatively impacts the quality of life of Cordillera Valley Club's residents and visitors. The proposed barrier would be located along the southern edge of an existing service road on the Cordillera Valley Club (CVC, hereafter) golf course parcel near the southern property line adjacent to the 1-70 right-of-way. The CVC is pursuing an Easement which is to be granted by Valley GolfLLC, the golf course operator and owner of the land upon which the proposed improvements will be made, to CVC for the purpose of the project. In addition, a Location and Extent application, LEA-00057 is also being reviewed concurrently. This pun amendment amends the most current evc PUD Guide, which was last amended March 29, 1999. It is necessary to revise language in the Guide that currently prohibits the installation of large landscape berms and noise mitigation barriers. The construction of the sound and visual mitigation is a combination of earthen berms and fencing, which would vary in height. The length of the project is approximately 7,500 linear feet; the en~re CVC 1-70 frontage. A Holy Cross Utility Easement also generally parallels the property line in this area. B. SITE DATA: 4 OS/22/07 South: ROW: 1-70 USFS Lake Creek Aptsl Brett Ranch PUD PUD East: UnplattedlResidential Resource Residential, golf related recreation 424 (project =16.6) 95.4 Project = 7,500 LF 22.5% Cordillera Metro District C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: 1991 - PUD Sketch Plan was approved for this development which was initially referred to as Cottonwood. 1992 - ThePUD Preliminary Plan and zone change to PUD was approved which allowed 848 dwelling units, a golf course and associated amenities, a "lodge" and 10,000 square feet of "convenience" commercial space. 1994 - An amendment to the PUD was approved which (a) reduced the density from 848 to44S dwelling units and "allocated" 240 dwelling units to Lake Creek Affordable Housing, (b) transferred 30 acres from the development tracts to the golf course, (c) and eliminated a "lodge site"and the 10,000 Square feet of commercial space. 1995 - The initial final plats were approved under the subdivision name of Wildhorse. 1995- By resolution, the name of the subdivision was changed to Cordillera Valley Club. Subsequent final plats were approved under this subdivision name. 1997 - ThePUD was amended to designate certain tracts as "single family" and to provide clarification to certain provisions of the PUD Guide. 1999 - The PUD Guide was amended. 2001 -The PUD was amended for westerly access. D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: On April 18, 2007 the Planning Commission heard a presentation for a noise mitigation project from staff and the consultant representing the Cordillera Valley Club. Early comments/feedback in the deliberation from the Commission focused on how the applicant 'listened' to former comments on design and landscape elements and that they did a better job in the current application. Additionally, Commission members commended the applicant/consultant on a good and improved submittal. The Commission also. made comments regarding concerns of creating a tunnel effect on 1-70, which is a precedent that is not desired. 5 OS/22/07 The following are specific issues that were discussed and/or suggested. . If the precedent of berming was to be set forth with this application, then doing it well is important. . Use west access into evc for dirt trucks during construction. . No jake-brakes allowed either access routes during construction and hours should be limited to 8 to 5 and Monday -Friday only.. . Mitigation to any and all roads into eve post construction. · The easement agreement between the Metro District and Valley GolfLLC shall be in place. . A landscape guarantee and agreement be provided including standards. . Revisit the site to ensure the landscape plan and guarantee have been followed, during construction and after two (2) years time. . The 2:1 slope is implemented on the south side of the noise barrier and berms. · Use other, more natural types oflandscaping in addition to current plan, including, but not limited to rock outcroppings. . Water rights for landscaping concerns. . Possibly building project between the fairway and the houses, to lessen the visual impact when seen from 1-70. . If the duration is longer than the anticipated three (3) months, use west access only. (This option uses east access within the first three (3) months). The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to deny application PDA- 00067. The recommendation to deny the File was not based on Regulatory Findings. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: S-240.F .3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Section Purpose: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the. provisions' of the plan shall be permitted except upon a fmding by the County, following a public hearing, called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104(1Xe} Colorado Revised Statutes. Standanls: I Sections 5-240.F .3.e., Standards. S-280.B.3.e Standanls and S-240.F .3.m. Amendment to Preliminarv Plan for PUD are used to evaluate a POD . Amendment. STANDARDS: .S-240.F .3.e 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 a/Hands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions andstandards of the P UD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS TIlE MAJ. . ORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in 6 OS/22/07 Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and lndustrial 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 pursuantto Section 5-240 F.3f., Variations Authorized Amendment exceeds allowed len Amendment.exceeds allowed height The primary uses allowed in the PUD wiD not be.changed. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS x MEEts THE MAJORITY OF. MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ,-< STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)]- The dimensional limitations that shall apply to thePUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations'~for the zone districtdesignation in effectfor the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings fornec~ssary access and jireprotection, and ensure proper ventilation,.Ught, air and snowmelt between buildings. x Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized. provides that in order for a variation to be granted, itmust be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: Obtains desired desi ualities; Avoids environmental resources and natural resources; Provides incentives for water au entation; Provides incentives for trails; Provides incentives for affordable housin ; Provides incentives for ublic facilities. No variation is being proposed. 7 OS/22/07 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards s~ified in the formerly approved PUD, other than relative to height and length of berms and noise mitigation barriers. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . .. MEElSTHE MAJOIUTY OF MOOMUM STANDARDS OOESNOTMEETMlNIMUMSTANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)J - 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. ()Ccur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) ActlUllNeeds. The octupl needs oftheproject's residents, guests and employees will be less than t~ose set by Article 4, Division 1, Qjf-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 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS TIlE MAJ. OIUTY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS This PUD Amendment does not affect parking in the formerly approved PUD. 8 OS/22/07 STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] ~ Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscapinfl and R/umination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant de1(lonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes andparking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. . x x x x X X nla nla nla x x CommentsIDescription: TheCVC must amend the language in the PUD Guide that was last amended in 2001. The applicant proposes to add sub-section under Section m. Land Use Desil!nation F.Golf Coune D. Permitted Uses. m.F.2.D., which reads: "Landscaping, sound, and visual mitigation featUl'es to include construction and installation of tree and shrub plant materltd, irrigation systems, visual screen fences, sound l!an'iers, earthen berms, and walls pursuant to approvalfrom Eagle County". See also condition #1. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS. MEETS MINIMUM STANDARJ)S X... .MEEn;THE MAJ. 0.. RIIY OF MINIMUM STANPARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, SiW' RefJUlations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340D., Sivns Allowed in a Planned Unit DeveloDment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive signplanfor the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD andprovides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. III Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? N/A 1=:1 Yes D No ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X . MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS TIlE MA)ORIIY OF l\1INIMUM STANPARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS . This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electlical supply, fire protection and roads 9 OS/22/07 and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. x In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services ~ EXCEEDS MlNIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MlNIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MJNIMUM. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEETMlNIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)J - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviatefrom the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when thefollowing minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, EffICient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide sqfe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway lengtk Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement.. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASmO) for that functional classification of roadway, (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be grantedfor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency servicesandfor installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a P UD 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 removedfrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. 10 OS/22/07 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM: STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM: STANDARDS ... MEiln;TIIE MAJO.~ OF MINIMUM. .. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Unplatted X e South: ROW: 1-70 X East: UnplattedlResi4ential Resourc X e West: UnplattedIResidential Resourc X e Staff Discussion This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD, depending on one's perspective and individual sensibilities. The proposed berming and noise mitigation barrier, when viewed from the South may be considered incompatible. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEm TIlE MAJ. ORlIT. OF MINIMUM. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - ThePUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. . As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans. may not necessarily remain static. 11 OS/22/07 EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN x x x x x x x x x x EDWARDS AlUA COMMUNITY PLAN x x x x X X x X x X X x This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approvedPUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ' STANDARD: Phasing. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (II)) - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall he constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible; then as early in the project as is reasonable. . III Phasing Plan Provided? 1:J.Yes ~ ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORTIY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 12 OS/22/07 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) o DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 pun shall provide a minimum often (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space landsfor 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~ Areas tha/Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right.of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count taward usable open space. Areas tha/Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands withineritical 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 counttowards this minimum standard even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lantls shall he corweniently accessible from all occupied structures within thePUD. Improl'ements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities sha/tbe shown on the Preliminary Plan forPUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the developmentschedule establishedfor each developmentpbase of the PUD. Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Planfor PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictionsand/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization sha/l manage all common. open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, andshallprovidefor 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 sha/l be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall bemandatoryforall landowners within thePUD. Square feet Square feet Square feet Square feet % % % This PUDAmendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 13 OS/22/07 D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Xl.. A.ccording to the Division of Wildlife, the project is located adjacent to a mule deer and elk highway crossing area. Dey suggest any berm construction should be planned to provide for deer fencing and escape ramp construction - the base of the berm should. be of sufficient distance from any deer fence to prevent the deer from using the berm to jump over the fence. AccumUlation of fill against the fencing should be avoided and all fiU on. previous berm eonstruction should. be removed and any damage to fencing should be repaired. The DOW applauds the use of native plants but cautions that it should be understood that mule deer and elk may utilize some to the more palatable.. plants, and that some of these species may actually draw wildlife to the landscaping and increase the risk of wUdlife getting on to 1-70. They recommend thllt landscaping trees and shrubs be selected for their low palatability to big game. It may be necessary to fence the new vegetation to prevent wildlife from damaging the plants. . See Condition #2. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X ME. ETS THE MAJORITY. OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARDS: 5-280.B.3.e STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)J B The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 14 OS/22/07 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Off-Street Parking and Loa4in1! Standards (Division 4-1) Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Heat, Glare, RQdiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Sidewalk and TrailStandards (Section 4-(30) Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) \ Utility and Lighting Standards. (Section 4-670) Water Supply Standards (Section 4-(80) Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-(90) ImDact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) 1 2 3 4 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM. . . STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be EffICient [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]- The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Etll!le County Road CaDual lmorovements Plan. 15 OS/22/07 (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a'single service into an otherwise un-served area This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE MAJORl1Y OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section. 5-280.B.3.e (4)]- The property proposed to be sub'divided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and rr Ob.10blefu ture p UbliC.i.mpro.vem.ents to the are a. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]- The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely qffect the future development of the surrounding area. See prior diKussion on Page 9 of this report. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS . . DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch or Preliminary Plan 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. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM.. STANDARDS D MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 16 OS/22/07 [j] MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS s..240.F .3.m. Amendment to Preliminary Plan. for PUD Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD. .No substantial modification, .removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon afmding by the County,.following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes that; . (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Developments; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect,. in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planped Unit Development or the public interest; (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEE. 1S llIE MAJ. ORl1Y OF MINIMUM... . . STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS '- 2. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated April 2, 2007. 1. Acceptance from all utilities that are affected by the proposed work must be included with. this application. Please provide Written approvals from aU utilities. 2. The limit of disturbance is shown for the golf course side of the berm, but there is no limit of disturbance shown on the COOTII-70 side of the berm. Please include on future plans the limit of disturbance on all sides of the berm. .. 3. A grading peimit or permits will be necessary prior to commencing any dirt.work including the stockpiling of any additional material that is brought in. Any stockpiles must be contained by acceptable best management practi~s (BMP). 4. A storm water management plan (SWMP-required for disturbance of areas greater than one acre) must be completed in accordance with the Clean Water Act as administered by the Colorado Discharge Permit System. This must accompany the grading permit application. S, Sections of the berms are shown with a I.S:1 slope. This is steeper than the steepest allowable slope as defmed by the International Building Code (2: 1) (Appendix J). Fill slopes steeper than 2: 1. shall be justified by a soils report prepared and sealed by a licensed engineer. Provide an explanation of how landscaping and maintenance wiltbe accomplished on slopes this steep. 6. Our inspection of the site plans suggest that there will be berms or combinations ofbenn and fence in excess of the eight (8) feet allowed by regulation, in some areas reaching nearly 30 feet. According to Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR 3-340.C.4), any fence, hedge, wall, berm, or any combination offences, walls and berms shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height (as measured fromnatural grade at any point on the side of the berm that faces an adjacent property). Please provide an explanation for the extent of this proposal's deviation from height limitations set forth in the ECLUR and include this in the list of deviations as described at the end of this memo. 7. The proposed berms vary in length with the longest being around I,IOOfeet long. The ECLUR (3-340.C.4) states that any fence,.hedge, wall, berm, or any combination offences, walls and berms shall not exceed ISO feet in length. Please provide an explanation of the deviation from ECLUR for bel'm lengths that this project is proposing and include this in the list of deviations as described below. 8. At station IS+OO, the landscaping encroaches on COOT ROW. Written approval from CDOT is required to anow any encroachment into the ROW. . 17 OS/22/07 9. There was no irrigation plan provided for any of the landscaping to the \vest of station 41 +00 (from 0+00 through 41 +00). Please provide more details explaining how the landscaping in this section will be irrigated and maintained. 10. The proposed landscaping easement was not shown on the plans. This must be shown to illustrate that the proposed easement is adequate for the desired improvements. 11. The proposed easement is not defmed as such on the exhibit to be recorded. In addition to the amendment to the PUD, the Easement Exhibit must spell out the purpose and allowable uses for the easement. 12. As was requested at the first completeness check, the title commitment is still missing from this application. As such, we cannot complete our review of this file until the title commitment is provided. After reviewing this file, we realized that this application was never completed and are still waiting for the title commitment and approvals from the owners of any easements that will be affected by this . proposal. Until these items are provided to the Engineering Department, we are unable to complete our review. All of these issues shall be addressed prior to this application moving forWard. Please feel free to meet with us to discuss any of these comments. Any approvals that must be acquired shall be provided to the Engineering Department to complete this file. We must also receive updated drawings for any 'changes that are made to address these comments, including grading, landscape. bermlfence,and easement changes. With regards to deviations that you are seeking from the ECLUR please provide a list with the following information for each deviation - the governing regulation. requested deviation, and reason for the deviation. The grading issues do not meet standards in the International Building Code (lBC). The mc defmes the steepest allowable slopes as a 2: 1 slope. This is the standard to which we review grading plans, and we require a sealed soils report from a licensed engineer stating that the proposed slope is stable. Slopes steeper than 2: 1 are generally considered a safety hazard due to the risk of the slope sliding. . See Condition No.1 and No.3 Staff note: The bulk of comments from Engineering have been satisfied. DOW - Please refer to attachment dated March 27. 2007 The project is located adjacent to a mule deer and elk highway crossing area. . FENCING: It is unclear if the proposed berm and fencing will abut the current 8 foot high wildlife fencing on the east end of the property. Any gaps in the fencing could result in increased wildlife/vehicle accidents as wildlife is funneled to these locations. Any berm construction should be planned to provide for the construction of deer fencing and escape ramps. The base of the berm should be sufficient distance from any deer fence.to prevent wildlife from using the berm in an effort to jump over the fencing. The fencing should be protected duing construction and to prevent fill from accumulating against the fencing. There ~ several areas where the previous berm construction has resulted in fill accumulating against the fencing. This fill should be removed and any damage to the fence repaired. . PLANTS: The use of native plants is applauded but is should be understood that mule deer and elk may utilize some of the more palatable plant. The list of evergreen/deciduous shrubs have several highly palatable species (Le. mountain mahogany, serviceberry, chokecherry). These species may actually draw wildlife to the landscaping increasing the risk of wildlife getting on to 1-70. The OOW. would suggest that landscaping trees and shrubs be selected . for their low palatability to big game. It may be necessary to fence the new vegetation to prevent wildlife from damaging the plants. See Condition No.2 . CDOT - Please refer to attachment dated March 27. 2007. As I discussed with you our concern with this project is the slopes adjacent to the 1-70 right of way. Our experience with slopes IV :2H and steeper have shown difficulty in establishing vegetation in this area. The 18 OS/22/07 lack of vegetation may result in sediment runoff into the 1-70 ROWand subsequent maintenance issue for COOT. Please note this comment is from the COOT Eagle Residency not the Regional Grand Junction office which may have more comments. See Condition No.3 Eagle County Environmental Health - Please refer to attachment dated March 27, 2007. A Dust Suppression Plan and Erosion Control/Storm Water Management Plan shall be included with the grading permit and contain detail sufficient to evaluate conformance to the Site Development Standards and Industrial & Commercial Performance Standards. Said Plans shall include contact information.for the person available at alItimes and responsible to immediately address public complaints or compliance issues. No grading permit will be issued without these plans having been approved by Eagle County Environmental Health and Engineering Departments. The approved Plans.must be kept on..site, and implemented at all times. Failure to adhere to the implementation of these plans shall result in cessation of work until compliance has been restored. . See Condition No.3 and No.4 Additional ReleTl'al Agencies - This proposal was referred to the fo/lowingagencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's OffICe . Colorado State: CDOT (Grand Junction Office) . Federal: Holy Cross Electric C. SUMMARy ANALYSIS: Benefits: The proposed project benefits the property owners within the Cordillera Valley Club. Furthermore it may also be construed that the substantial landscaping being proposed on the south side of the berm and the noise mitigation barriers would conceivably benefitthegreater Edwards vicinity. Disad.vantageS: The proposed project primarily benefits the property owners within the Cordillera Valley Club. The visual impacts of the project will impact the 1-70 corridor and those viewing from the south. In addition, the trucks that will transport a substantial amount of earth for the berms have the potential to create a negative impact on Beard Creek Road and the neighborhood in general. D. BOARD OF COUNTY,COMMlSSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [pOO AMENDMENT] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned 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 (POO AMENDMENT] 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 immediately 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 [pOO AMENDMENT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [pOO AMENDMENT) 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 (and/or other applicable master plans). 19 OS/22/07 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Fill slopes steeper than 2: 1 shall be justified by a soils report prepared and sealed by a licensed engineer prior to the grading penn it application. Provide an explanation of how landscaping and maintenance will be accomplished on slopes this steep and how the lack of vegetation on steep slopes will not result in sediment runoff into the CDOT ROW. .. 2. All site work must adhere to the DOW recommendations (see comments above) for plant types and fencing. 3. There was no irrigation plan provided for any of the landscaping to the west of station 41 +00 (from 0+00 through 41 +00). Prior to the grading permit application, provide more details explaining how the landscaping in this section will be irrigated and maintained. . , 4. Pursuant to The Eagle County Department of Environmental Health recommendations (see comments above), a dust suppression plan and erosion controJ/stonn water management plan must be provided prior to the ~ing pennit application. The said plans shall containcolltact infonnation for the person available at all times and that will respond immediately, to address public complaints/concerns and compliance issues. No grading permit will be issued without these plans having been approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health and Engineering departments. The approved plans must be kept on-site. 5. Prior to the BoCC Resolution, the PUD Guide shall be amended to reflect the landscaping in Section III. Land Use Designation F. Golf Course 2). Pennitted Uses III.F.2. D. 6. Prior to the grading pennit application, a Landscape Guarantee shall.be in place, per LUR Section 5- 240 h.(3)(a) 7. The easement from the Valley GolfLLC to the CVC.Metro District shall be completed prior to the BoCC Resolution. 8. Except as otherwise modified by this development pennit, all material representation made by the applicant is this application and in public meeting meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. DISCUSSION: Chairman Menconi explained the details of the. site visit. Pedro Campos, senior landscape architect, VAG, Inc. presented a PowerPoint presentation that explained the project revisions they are considering based on feedback from the May 1,.2007 meeting. He. presented an overview of the original proposal. Major i~ues and comments from the fIrSt hearing included the effect on design, fencing for visual screening, type of landscaping, erosion control measures, noise abatement vs. noise reflections, water use requirements and public benefit. He explained the existing conditions and site constraints. The original proposal proposed approx 2,500 linear feet of visual screen fencing. The revised proposal proposes approx 850 LF (66%) reduction in Area 6, 7 and 9. The applicant believes 'that the use of landscaping to soften benns and proposed visual screening will give the project a well designed edge that respects the public view. and conveys a community pride. Berm slope gradients/grading considerations were explained. The effectiveness of.benns.as noise abatement devices was explained. The irrigations system would be designed to minimize water consumption and allow flexibility in operations by watering by zones. He explained the intangible public benefits of the project. The applicant believes the project would be a model for other similar projects and other communities. It would set a positive precedent especially for water conservation, xeriscape landscaping, and use of green building materials. The project is a beautification project that conveys pride of ownership. The project sets an example for CDOTof desired level of quality along the interstate edge for residential communities that may be affected by future changes in the width of travel lanes. Possible tangible benefits included Cordillera Valley Club's commitment to 2 miles of adopt a highway clean up and community support for a future recreation trail and bike path along the south side. of the benn. Several Photos were shown that illustrated the proposed benning and vegetation. He stated the 20 OS/22/07 differences between the Arrowhead berms and the specific intent of the project to "not be Arrowhead". He concluded that the proposed 14.5 foot tall noise barrier with a surface density of at leaSt 4 psf should provide the following noise reduction. 6 to 7 decibels of noise reduction from the pond area and 4 to 5 decibels of reduction for the areas above 1-70 that would be behind the berm. The Planning Commission issues were discussed Chairman Menconi opened public comment. . Kim Lest spoke. She stated that she was pleased with the proposed changes. She was however concerned for safety with regards to material delivery to the proposed site. She believes that road will become washboard from the heavy trucks. She would like the applicant to consider using the west entrance for delivery during construction. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Commissioner Runyon stated that he has no problems with the berms or . landscaping. He believes the proposed fencing is incompatible with the surrounding community. He is sympathetic to the homeowners but they bought their property knowing there was a highway. Commissioner Fisher asked where the fill dirt for the berms would come from. Mr. Campos stated that the fill dirt would come from the Vail area. The contractor proposed using the east gate and exiting the westgate. Commissioner Fisher asked the number of truck loads were proposed for the project. Tom Larsen, Larsen engineering stated that there would be roughly 2500 truckloads over a 3 months. Rick Pirog, Cordillera Metropolitan District President spoke. He stated that it seemed logical to use the east entrance but they are very sensitive to. safety issues.. He believes they can address.. those concerns by using flagmen or temporary speed bumps. Commissioner Fisher questioned the noise mitigation and landscaping for the area around the pond. Mr. Campos explained the residents desire to create a park area around the pond if a barrier were to be approved for the area. The barrier proposed for the area would be painted and the vertical members would alternate to create shadowing. The. barrier would be 920 feet long. They would have preferred a berm but the area.doesn't allow for the room needed and the pond would have to be moved back. Commissioner Fisher stated that she is comfortable with the berming and vegetation but is conterned with the current landscaping and its poor maintenance. She believes using the west entrance may cause more problems for highway 6 and the Edwards area She suggested that loads be subject to a certain time of day. She would prefer an alternative barrier for the pond area. Chairman Menconi acknowledged and thanked Mike Long from the Planning Commission for attending the meeting. He expressed overall favor for the project. He believes there has been great care given to the proposal. The site visit was helpful for his understanding of the noise. He would like to codify some of the pieces of the proposal such as the extent of the xeriscaping and. eco materials so this can be a showcase proposal moving forward. He sees the benefit of mitigating the noise of 1-70 to the CVC residents. He would like to stay away from painting the fence. He has seen a tremendous reduction in the fencing and he believes the applicant had addressed all of the issues. He sees a need for a barrier on the east end and he would like to. fmd a board compromise for the fencing. Mr. Pirog stated that after reviewing the fencing proposal, they believe they can reduce the fencing by 25%. He believes they have a unique situation at the CVC. They will do what. every can be done to reduce the fencing in the pond area. They have been working on the project for the last four years and he is dedicated to the projects success. Commissioner Fisher wondered if they would consider eliminating the fencing in area 8 and 9. Mr. Campos stated that they could reduce the fencing by 2/3 in some of the overlapping areas. These areas are 6, 7, and 9. This would have to be considered selectively. Mr. Pirog stated that if there were a way to do this project without fencing they would certainly do it. The fencing is a valid component and has a place in the design. They have done everything they could to minimize that component. Commissioner Runyon stated that he sympathizes with the applicant's concerns but believes it's an issue of setting precedence. Commissioner Fisher asked about the proposed park area and bike path as a public amenity. Mr. Pirog stated that there was a potential for a future collaborative effort to make that accessible to bikes and pedestrians. They don't have the ability unilaterally to offer it. They would certainly support the county's effort to someday make it a reality. 21 OS/22/07 Commissioner Fisher suggested tabling the file to have the opportunity to see a reduction in the fencing. She would also like to see a plan for traffic control and get a better idea of the number of truckloads required for the project. Mr. Pirog stated that they would be in favor of a tabling the file to study and refme the issues. He believes they are on a positive track. Chairman Menconi stated that he would like to see additional dollars used for landscaping and that any xeriscaping and eco concerns be addressed. He finds the project to be very digestible and an improvement to the area. As for public benefit, he would like to see public access to the river or the park to be open to non-profit groups on certain days. . He doesn't see the fencing to be that much of a,problem but there may be options. Commissioner Fisher suggested adding additional wildflowers to the existing landscaping to brighten it up and make it friendlier. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners table File No. PDA.00067 to June 4, 2007. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PR..oo033 Freedom Park Sorav Park Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department ACTION: LOCATION: FILE NOJPROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPUCANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Construct a series of water sprays & jets for the enjoyment of children to play in. Freedom Park, Edwards Colorado .- PR~()033 / Site Specific Development Review Miller Ranch, Edwards Eagle Co~ty Eagle County Siri NelS9n, County Engin~ring Deparbnent 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: Eagle County is proposing to build a spray park at Freedom Park in Edwards. This park consists of a flat concrete pad with a series of water sprays and jets designed to be enjoyed by children on a hot summers' day. Materials for the spray park have been chosen t()_match the existing materials onsite such as the colored concrete, stone, benches, signs and shade structures. The park will be divided into three district circular areas providing differentwater toys. for a variety of age groups. A computer system will control the progression of the alternating jets in each zone as well as daily operations. The park will be free to the public and open all summer, from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District (WECMRD) will maintain the spray park via an amendment to their existing maintenance agreement for Freedom Park. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: . North: Vacant School District RE- 50J South: Residential The ReservelPUD East: ResidentiallRecreation PUD PUD .. West: Open Space . I 22 OS/22/07 Existing Zoning: Miller Ranch PUD Proposed Zoning: N/A Current Development: . Mix of recreation and residentilJl Site Conditions: Flat land area Total Land Area: 700+ sqft. Square feet - 530 pad Total Open Space N/A % . Usable Open Space: .. N/A % . Water: ERWSD . Sewer: N/A Access: Through parking lot off of Miller Ranch Road C. CBRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . 2002 - PUD approved . 2004 - PUD Guide amended D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Planning Commission met on May 16, 2006 and heard presentations from staff. Discussion and deliberation included comments about materials aad colors that will be used, but a large portion of the discussion was about the water consumption the spray park willoonsume. The representative, the County Engineering Department, presented that although they had decided to use a "flow-through" system due to public health concerns, all of the runoff from the spray park will flow into a pond and be used to irrigate the soccer fields and other areas in Miller Ranch. The Commission voted to recommend to approve the spray park, however with one (1) Nay vote. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Guide [pUD Guide, Sections B.2, D.2.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Guide. . FINl)ING: Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.2.] The development occurring on this Tract IS co~sistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan. FINDING: Consistency with the Master Circulation flan [pUD Guide, Section B.2.] The development ()Ccurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Circulation Plan. FINl)ING: Consistency with the Moster Drainage Plan [Plm Guide, Section B.2.] The development occurring on this Tract IS found to be consistent with the Master Drainage Plan. Comments/Descriotion: The County Engineering Department has confirmed that the Master Drainage and Circulation Plans are consistent with this proposal. B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please see letter dated May 3, 2001. . CMC- Verbally stated they had no comment 23 OS/22/07 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was. referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: · Eagle County: Attorney's Office; ECO Trails;ECO Transit; . Colorado State: Health Department; Water Conservation Board . Service District: ERWSD; Berry Creek Metro District . Other: School District RE50J c. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The benefits of this project include that it is a free amenity to the public and this water feature, which is rare in the Valley, enhances other play areas at Freedom Park. A disadvantage could be that the spray park does consume water - however the runoff goes into a pond for irrigating the recreational fields. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 5. Approve this File request without conditio..s if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned 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). 6. Deny this File request ifit is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately 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). 7. Table this FUe request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve this File 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 (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Chairman Menconi was not present for this file. Ms. De Graaf presented a PowerPoint presentation. The proposal was a site specific development review. The Engineering Department was acting as the applicant for the file. Eagle County is proposing to build a spray park at Freedom Park in Edwards. This park consists of a flat concrete pad with a series of water sprays and jets designed to be enjoyed by children. She stated that the conditions had changed slightly. The Environmental Health Department reviewed the amenity and recommended that water provided to the spray park be separately metered to develop an accurate account of actual water used. Siri Nelson presented a PowerPoint presentation. She stated that the total budget for the project is $200,000. Photos of the area were shown. An artistic rendering of the spray park was shown. The park will be very accessible. There will be three unique play zones. A sitting wall will be installed around the westem- perimeter of the. spray pad. There will be a shade structure and seating benches. Water use has been a concern from the beginning. In order to prevent risks to public health, the park is a flow through-system. The park hours 24 OS/22/07 will be limited to 5 hours each day. The sprays will only turn on when activated by a user. The park will be shut of during drought years. There was no public comment. Commissioner Runyon. stated that it's a great project and he is pleased that the county is only paying 20% of the total cost. due to outside funding. He stated that Eagle County had a tendency to make signs to big and he would like the signage to be subtle. He commended the Engineering Department for an excellent job. Commissioner Fisher suggested that Sara Will be involved in the proposal and layout. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PR-00033 Freedom Park Spray Park,. incorporating stafffmdings and with the following condition. 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. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: 25 OS/22/07