No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/13/11 PUBLIC HEARING December 13, 2011 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Kathy Scriver 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: Consent Agenda Chairman Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of December 12, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Commissioner Meetings for November 1, November 8, November 15 and November 22, 2011 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder C. Parking Agreement between Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority and Summit Stage for Leadville Bus Storage Facility Kelley Collier, ECO Transit D. Standard Software Maintenance Agreement between Eagle County and New World Systems Corporation Finance Department Representative E. Agreement between Eagle County and Community Health Services for the Provision of Prenatal Health Care Services Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -E. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Resolution 2011 -143 Ordering Cancellation of Certain Uncollectible Taxes Treasurer's Office Representative Ms. Sheaffer stated that these were personal property taxes that the county had no means of collecting. A few were businesses that had left the area. Commissioner Fisher asked about Vail Plaza Development. Ms. Sheaffer stated that the business was in bankruptcy. When the county attempted collection, they were given the bankruptcy information. Bankruptcy discharged personal property taxes. 1 12/13/2011 Commissioner Runyon stepped out of the room. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution ordering cancellation of certain uncollectible taxes. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2011 -144 in the Matter of the Adoption of the Budget and the Making of Appropriations for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for Fiscal Year 2012 Finance Department Representative Chairman Stavney complimented the fmance team and Keith Montag for their efforts in taking ownership of the budget. John Lewis stated that the proposed budget represented a decrease of approximately 24% from the prior year. This was accomplished through the hard work and dedication of county staff, directors and elected officials. The challenges were due to a loss of revenue. They prepared the initial forecast and assumptions for 2011 -2015. He stated that they had a great success with the financial advisory board and thanked each of the board members. The advisory board recommended holding the line on expenses. The mill levy had not increased to take up the decrease in revenue so the county needed to make the necessary adjustments. It was expected that sales tax would increase by about 6% in 2011. However, they did not budget for those increases. License permits and fees had decreased, primarily due to the slump in construction. There was also a big decrease in interest investments. The solution was to ask departments to hold the line, there was no increase in expenditures levels, there was a soft hiring freeze, filling vacancies for natural attrition must be approved, and the early out program was established. Chairman Fisher spoke about the new assistant county manager position and the fact that Rachel Oys had received an additional title and taken on additional work. Chairman Stavney asked about the overall number of FTE's (full time employees) that been reduced since 2008. Mr. Lewis stated that there had been a 14% decrease. They set their priority for budget appropriations following the board's direction in strategic planning and applied a back to basics approach. The reviewed all services in detail to properly evaluate their efficiency and effectiveness. They reviewed grants to determine if the grants were really needed if additional spending was required. Every department head and elected official met with the county manager and finance team. The objective was to reduce general fund expenditures in 2012 and 2013 and increasing the reserve level. Operating expenses were reduced by $1 million from 2011. Analysis of the general fund budget showed an excess of $500,000.00 of revenue over expenditures net, which excluded the 2011 merit increase. Reserves at year -end would be $16 million dollars. Revenue reductions were expected to be 20% in 2012 as compared to 2011, largely due to decreases in property taxes. Chairman Fisher spoke about the comments made regarding the 2008 "windfall" based on the 2008 appraisals. She stated that the county made the commitment to take the additional revenues and deposit them into the reserve fund in order to prepare for future adjustments. Commissioner Runyon believed those dollars needed to continue to be locked up in preparation for future adjustments. Mr. Lewis stated that in fact the demand in service did not change so keeping the money in reserves and spending what was needed to maintain the service levels was in the best interest of the citizens of Eagle County. He continued his presentation stating that the FTE's in the general fund had dropped 23 %. Total FTE's in all funds were flat in 2012 holding at 430 and they were not projecting any increases. Commissioner Runyon asked if "all funds" include the general fund. Mr. Lewis stated that it did. He explained that the Housing Department had been moved out of the general fund into its own fund and has become self - supportive. Mr. Lewis explained that expenditures were dropping down to $32.5 million. Chairman Fisher explained that the increase in 2011 expenditures was a result of the open space purchase in Edwards. The money would be reimbursed by the open space fund eventually. Mr. Lewis stated that there was also approximately $3.5 million dollars of expenditures in the Energy Conservation Grant. The grant was received the prior year but the money needed to be spent in 2011. He explained the distribution of property taxes. The county received a little more than 12% in some districts. The 2 12/13/2011 money was held by the County Treasurer and was then given to other districts. The county gets a small percentage of the revenue. Chairman Stavney believed that the graphic was helpful. He thought it would be useful to have a tool for the public on the website so they can see their tax dollars at work. Mr. Lewis presented an "All Funds Financial Summary" that indicated the fluctuations in expenditures, revenue, and FTE's from 2005 through 2012. He thanked everyone for their help on the budget. He appreciated Mr. Montag stepping in and Tom Hyatt and Robbie Arndt for taking a leadership role on the budget as well as all the participation of elected officials and departments. Chairman Fisher thanked the entire Finance Department for their hard work. Chairman Stavney suggested that the presentation, cover letter dated December 13, 2011 and budget summary be posted on the county website. Mr. Lewis stated that the county was required by state regulations to have budget to the state by January 31. The budget book should be ready by February 15, 2012. Ms. Friel stated that the information would be posted on the website. Mr. Montag added his thanks and appreciation to the Finance Department. The entire organization had stepped up over the past few years understanding the budget challenges. He believed the county was positioned well and he looked forward to the upcoming years. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolution in the Matter of the Adoption of the Budget and the Making of Appropriations for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for Fiscal Year 2012. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2011 -145 Adopting the 2012 Fiscal Budget Mill Levy Finance Department Representative Chairman Fisher asked about the insurance reserve fund. Robbie Arndt stated that the insurance was for the county buildings and property insurance. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the Eagle Ranch mill levy and wondered why they could increase the mill levy without a vote of the people. Mr. Lewis stated they had a general obligation debt bond that required that the mill levy would have to be adjusted anytime the assessed value dropped below a certain point. There was an exemption in the tabor rule for this time of bonded debt. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution adopting the 2012 Fiscal Budget Mill Levy. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ZS -2576 Good Earth Storage Yard Adam Palmer, Planning David & Melanie Crandall, Applicants Lucas Peck, Representative ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for a landscaping storage yard upon Rural Residential - zoned property, which requires a special use permit. If approved, the permit would legalize an existing landscaping storage yard operation on the subject properties, which includes material and equipment storage, cultivation, and employee parking/access. No retail sales are proposed on the site. LOCATION: 1053 and 1021 Valley Road, Carbondale area FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS -2576 / Special Use Permit 3 12/13/2011 PROJECT NAME: Good Earth Landscaping Storage Yard OWNER: Rivada LLC • APPLICANT: David and Melanie Crandall REPRESENTATIVE: Lucas Peck 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Proposed is a landscaping storage yard upon Rural Residential -zoned property, which requires a special use permit. If approved, the permit would legalize an existing landscaping storage yard operation on the subject properties, which includes landscape material and equipment storage, cultivation, and employee parking/access. No retail sales are proposed on the site. B. SITE DATA: Surroundl+i° / Zo t � : North: Highway 82 Resource South: Residential Rural Residential ' East: Residential Rural Residential West: Residential Rural Residential ng 'S Rural Residential N/A Curtest Deopt: ''' Historic residence and ancillary structures SiteComdi o Office building, metal sheds, carport/storage structure, greenhouses, ponds Total Land Are*. 'fit : i . 5.4 235 Wes c: lit /a* Well (domestic), ditch irrigation L Seviiert Pte: Mid - Valley Private: Valley Road C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: • 1996: Lot 3 of the Arlian Ranch Subdivision was subdivided into Lots 3A and 3B • 2007: Rivada LLC purchased Lots 3A and 3B Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing November 3, 2011: The RFVRPC reviewed the proposed land use at their regularly scheduled hearing November 3, 2011, and recommended approval of the file 4 -0 including recommendations 1,4,7,8 and 9. The recommendations not recommended to be included are shown in strikethrough at the end of this report. The discussion from the RFVRPC members included comments regarding compatibility of use, general appearance, forgiveness vs. permission, and use of the existing storage facility vs. construction of a new one. At the hearing, there were not comments from the public. 4 12/13/2011 The RFVRPC considered the use to be compatible with its location, and considered the general appearance to be compatible as well, but did offer requests to continue to keep the site clean and make aesthetic improvements. There was also discussion regarding the process, in which the use as been essentially in operation in violation of the land use regulations for a number of years and may be cleaner if the request was for a new use, noting some potential pressure that if the request was not approved, they would be advocating for the removal of an existing use and livelihood. The applicant responded to this in that the proposal is essentially a known entity which has not received neighbor complaints, and shouldn't be approved nor denied based on the fact that the use is currently in place. The RFVRPC discussed the proposed new storage barn structure and preferred the existing wood -clad storage `carport' to the new larger one which is proposed to be metal siding. Staff noted that the new larger storage structure would be necessary to meet the requirement of item 3.310.Ee.1 which requires all equipment, work vehicles, and machinery to be stored `inside a garage, shed, or other enclosure.' Since the existing structure is not a full enclosure, it doesn't meet the technical definition of this design requirement. However, the RFVRPC and staff agreed that the existing structure meets the intent of 3.310.Ee.1 which is to demonstrate adequate visual screening for such equipment. Also, the smaller, lower - profile structure would support and retain a more rural residential character. To this end, the RFVRPC recommended to eliminate condition #2 which discusses the deconstruction of the existing storage structure and construction of a new one. They also didn't support the recommendation from the Town of Basalt to construct an employee housing unit on the property since the applicants are planning on constructing their primary residence on the property within the next five years if they are able to financially. The RFVPC considered Condition 5 regarding CDOT encroachment requests as a separate issue which should be exclusive from this special use approval, and didn't recommend Condition 6 since they didn't believe that new technology backup systems were realistic or OSHA approved. The RFVRPC then voted unanimously in favor of the proposal 4 to 0 including conditions 1,4,7,8 and 9. The hearing was adjourned at 4 pm. 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 5 12/13/2011 sa S 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 of the Special Use Permit. STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 250.B.1] 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 6 Dtsi'FLernaticlik ` b . r x x a w Meets Comp Plan Recommendations X X X X X X X X X Community Buffer Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable The proposed use for a landscaping storage yard in the Rural Residential zone district generally supports the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for lower intensity commercial uses to support neighborhood- or regional - scale local businesses which are compatible with surrounding residential uses and rural character. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN w � � S 5 inc tes �., X X X X a a abeS In rnendat ' Not x X The proposed plan is not expected to adversely affect open space or view corridors in the surrounding area as a comparison to the previous uses on the property and adjacent properties. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5- 250.B.21 The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning Compatibility Oiups YOS No North: SH -82 Resource - - X South: Residential Rural - - X Residential 6 12/13/2011 East: Residential Rural - _ X Residential West: Residential Rural - _ Residential The scope and intensity of the proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding uses. While a processing facility may not potentially be compatible with adjacent residential uses, the current proposal is expected to be within the noise and vibration standards, and the rural nature of the area does provide for adequate space between uses. Also, the proposed use which is already been in place on the property has not generated any complaints from adjacent property owners. An augmentation of the existing use beyond which is currently proposed on the property could rise to a commercial level of activity, predominated by intensity of materials and equipment on the property, as well as traffic and deliveries accessing the property. However, if operation exists within the parameters outlined in the applicants proposal, the proposed use appears to be compatible with surrounding properties. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS 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 of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3 -310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3 -330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. As proposed, the project would meet the dimensional requirements for height, setbacks, square footage, noise and vibration, and parking in the Rural Residential zone district. Specific use standards for Landscaping Storage Yard will be discussed later in this document. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS 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 trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. 1 �; M { Satis s EC ,T X X . X X X X r., "X X No >qukt'eni 1 'Does Nest Batt: ECLU C Not Ap ltcable ,;' ' ' The proposal generally meets the performance standards as outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. CDOT is requesting an easement or encroachment agreement from the applicant for the construction of a wildlife fence along SH -82 as well as acceleration/deceleration lanes turning onto Valley 7 12/13/2011 Road from SH -82. Staff recommends making these conditions of approval per the attached site plan and specific request from CDOT not yet received. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM 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. h gg : � .0 i a Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable The proposed use would not significantly change the existing and historic layout and use of the property. Two ponds exist on the property which are fed from existing ditch diversions and provide onsite storm water detention areas. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5- 250.B. 6] The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 1 a � i i ': ' 1 Satisfies ECLUR X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X X Currently the property possesses a private well for domestic water uses. Sewer is provided by Mid - Valley Metropolitan District public sewer system. The proposed use will meet the provision of water and wastewater standards for the property and not have a significant impact on public facilities. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 8 12/13/2011 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. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS 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. Section 3- 310.Ee provides specific standards for Landscaping Storage Yard as follows: B. Landscaping Storage Yard 1. Parking and Storage. A landscaping storage yard shall demonstrate adequate parking for employees working from the site. Employee parking shall be behind any structures on site and/or effectively screened. One parking space shall be required for each employee. Any heavy equipment, work vehicles, or machinery stored on the property would require demonstrated storage space inside a garage, shed, or other enclosure. Provide an itemized list of all equipment to be used on the property including any delivery vehicles. The applicant has provided a list of the equipment and parking plan for employees on the site. The vehicles stored on site include 3 pick -up trucks, 2 vans, 1 flatbed truck, 1 hydraulic bed truck, 2 bobcat loaders, and 3 box trucks. Currently the vehicles are somewhat screened from SH -82 by landscaping but not adequately from Valley Road. With the approval of the special use permit, a recommended condition is that the applicant remove the existing carport/storage shed and construct the proposed garage/barn to store vehicles and equipment and more effectively screen the equipment from view within one year from approval. Completing this measure would more adequately meet the above standard. 2. Signs and Illumination. Signs, illumination, and other outdoor structures advertising the business shall not be permitted. The applicant is not proposing any signs or commercial illumination on the property. It is recommended that any on -site illumination meet dark sky standards and kept to a minimum to provide for safety only. 3. Patrons. Patrons shall not be served on the premises. The applicant is not proposing to serve customers on the premises. The business plan of the operation is that all interaction and business conducted directly with customers is done off -site. 4. Sales. Sales of supplies, services, or products shall not be permitted on the premises. The applicant is not proposing to conduct any sales on the property. 5. Nuisance. The landscaping storage yard shall be in compliance with Noise and Vibration Standards (Section 4 -520); Smoke and Particulate Standards (Section 4 -530); Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference Standards (Section 4 -540); Storage of Hazardous and Non - Hazardous Materials Standards(Section 4 -550) and Water Quality Standards (Section 4 -560); and shall not operate or generate vehicle traffic in such a manner as to create a public nuisance or disturb neighbors. Hours of operation shall be restricted to daylight only, and may be further 9 12/13/2011 restricted if necessary. The application outlines compliance with the standards outlined above. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:30 am to 6 pm during peak months, with vehicular deliveries not to occur outside of 8 am and 2 pm. Material deliveries are not to exceed three per week. 6. Screening/fencing. A fencing and/or landscaping plan is required that demonstrates adequate visual screening from adjacent properties, applicable view corridors, and/or public roads and rights of way. In some cases wildlife fencing may be required to prevent deer and elk from causing damage to trees and/or plants on the property. The screening plan utilizes a split rail fence, berms, trees and shrubs for visual screening. Also CDOT is planning a wildlife fence along the North boundary of the property along SH -82. The combination of these features generally provides adequate visual screening of the proposed use. 7. Scale. The use shall be in a scale that retains a rural character, and maximizes open space on the subject property. This shall be clearly reflected in the amount of materials, structures, and number of employees accessing the property. The finding of appropriate scale in the property can be subjective. A concern is that the use be too intense and prevail on the entirety of the property, and become a commercial scale in nature not compatible with surrounding residential, agricultural, and low impact commercial uses. The subject property is somewhat unique in that it borders SH -82 which supports access to other commercial uses nearby. On one hand this may support a higher intensity use, however, it also provides for a higher level of scrutiny for this location since it possesses a higher profile of visual impact to passersby, and the retention of view corridors and buffer areas identified in the Mid - Valley Sub Area Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Since the site restricts most of the proposed use upon Lot 3A, much of Lot 3B will remain open, and the applicant owns Lot 4A adjacent to the South, it is determined that the use is in an appropriate scale for the property. Staff recommends that the uses on the property be restricted to the approved site plan and uses not be expanded to the adjacent property on 4A. 8. Wildfire Hazard. In applicable wildfire hazard areas, building materials and storage of plant and tree materials shall be in compliance with Section 4 -430 Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazard Areas. The area is a low wildfire hazard as identified on the Eagle County Wildfire Hazard Map. 9. Access. Legal access shall be established for the operation pursuant to Section 4- 620.9. Where required, an access permit may be necessary for the proposed operation. Road Impact Fees may apply pursuant to Section 4 -710. A plan for employees accessing the property and delivery of any materials onto the property must be included, including maximum number of deliveries allowed per month, time of deliveries, and vehicles making such deliveries to the subject property. With the existing and proposed use on the site, no change in access requirements are predicted, and no changes to the existing access is required by the Eagle County Engineering department. 10. Performance Standards. The landscaping storage yard shall comply with Article 4, Division 4 -5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards of these land use regulations and shall not operate in such a manner as to create a public nuisance. Hours of operation shall be restricted to daylight only, and may be further restricted if necessary. Vehicles equipped with backup alarms shall incorporate new technology backup alarm systems. The application demonstrated compliance with the Performance Standards identified above, 10 12/13/2011 including operation of the use during daylight hours only. Compliance with new technology backup alarm systems has not been demonstrated by the applicant. 11. Special Use Permit Renewal Process. The Special Use Permit for landscape storage yard shall be valid for a period of five years after its issuance. The Director of Community Development shall review the Special Use upon request by the applicant. If conformance with the above - referenced performance standards is demonstrated, the Special Use may be renewed for a period of five years. The applicant has agreed this standard for period renewal of the special use permit, if approved, accordingly. It is determined that the proposed use generally meets the above standards outlined in Section 3- 310.Ee for Landscaping Storage Yards with the agreement of the outlined conditions /recommendations, and compliance with the plan and other performance standards outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. EXCE ED S MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS C. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: See attached memo from Greg Schroeder. Town of Basalt: See attached memo from the Town of Basalt requesting a residence on the property for employee(s) as well as dust suppression of dirt/material spoils on the property. Adjacent Property Owners Steve and Sandy Rieser: See attached letter from Steve and Sandy Rieser supporting the proposed use. D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits /Disadvantages. The intent of the land use regulations to review specific uses outside of those allowed by right is to make sure that off -site impacts are minimized and the use is compatible with adjacent character, forms, and uses on a case -by -case basis. In this case, there is general compliance with the standards outlined in the Land Use Regulations. While the proposed new vehicular /equipment /material storage structure will improve the visual screening of the site, staff would recommend this structure utilize traditional barn wood materials and colors to be more compatible in nature to historic agricultural uses. Also, confining the intensity of the business operation to the areas provided for in the site plan is recommended, so that the intensity of the use does not exceed the intent of Landscaping Storage Yards in rural residential areas and become incompatible. However, with the adherence to the proposed conditions and those proposed by the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, and other stakeholders through the public hearing process, the use appears to be in general compliance with the standards provided. BOCC OPTIONS: 1. APPROVE the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request with or without conditions. 2. DENY the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request. 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. 11 12/13/2011 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: (Items in strikethrough were recommended to not be included by the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission) 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. Remove cxisting carport/storage structure and construct proposcd garagc/barn storage 4. Provide dust suppression plan for material storage on the property. 5. Comply with CDOT requests for wildlife fence requirements on northwest corner of Lot 3B. - - • - - - . - - - - technology backup system:, 7. Restrict uses to approved site plan; uses shall not expand onto Lot 4A or adjacent properties. 8. Only vehicles and equipment directly associated with the use on the property are allowed; no vehicle or trailer storage will be permitted. 9. No use or storage of hazardous materials on site. DISCUSSION: Adam Palmer presented the request. He introduced the property owners /applicants David & Melanie Crandall. He explained the surrounding land uses /zoning. The Mid Valley Plan was in the process of being revised but encouraged mixed -use development. He presented an aerial photo of the site. The permit would legalize an existing landscaping storage yard operation. The current existing carport/covered storage structure did not meet the technical definition identified in the regulations. However, in the hearing process it was determined that it met the intent of providing adequate screening and allowed continued use of the structure. He presented the special use standards. The most subjective standard was compatibility. He presented the Landscaping Storage Yard Standards and stated that all requirements were met. The applicant would be required to come back and demonstrate continued compliance every 5 years. He presented the referral response. CDOT proposed wildlife fencing but the Planning Commission believed that this was a separate issue. He presented staff's recommended conditions. The Mid Valley Planning Commission recommended that conditions 2, 3, 5, and 6 not be included. Chairman Fisher asked the applicant if they were comfortable coming before the board in the future if they wished to amend the special use if need be. Mr. Palmer stated that staff's recommendation was to remove the existing carport and replace it per the proposed site plan from the applicant. The recommendation from the Planning Commission was to allow what was currently on the property. Lucus Peck, representative for the applicant spoke about the conditions related to the storage shed. He felt an obligated to the Regional Planning Commission. They liked the smaller structure and believed it was fair that if the owner wished to expand that they see the plans again. He believed that all the conditions were appropriate. In the future, the property would probably be a home site in the next 5 years or so. Chairman Fisher wondered what prompted the special use permit. Mr. Peck stated that the process was a result of a violation. Commissioner Runyon asked if there was any push -back. Mr. Palmer stated that they had not received any negative feedback. Chairman Stavney believed it was worthwhile to note the screening requirement in the conditions. Mr. Peck believed that adding a condition that addressed the screening was appropriate. 12 12/13/2011 Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file no. ZS -2576 Good Earth Storage Yard with the proposed conditions 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9 and adding an additional condition pertaining to the current layout and the screening plan. Commissioner Stavney closed public comment and seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eco - Build Community Grant Application - Habitat for Humanity Adam Palmer, Planning Mr. Palmer stated that the current balance was $79,769.00. Outstanding items included the Bair Vortex Hydro project, $10,000.00, Vail Mt. Coffee Solar project, $5,850.00 and a handful of solar rebates awaiting documents, the current obligation totalled $22,720.00. Elyse Howard, Development Director for Habitat for Humanity of Eagle and Lake Counties spoke about the Eco -Build Fund and the goal of the organization to eliminate the burden of high utility costs. Mr. Palmer stated that Habitat for Humanity was requesting $25,464.00 in Eco -Build funding for the anticipated incremental costs for 4 homes currently under construction. Commissioner Runyon asked if there were any other applications. Mr. Palmer stated that currently there were no other applications. Chairman Fisher moved to approve the request submitted by Habitat for Humanity for ongoing efforts at Fox Hollow in Edwards in the amount of $25,464.00. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Palmer spoke about the Bair Vortex Micro Hydro Grant extension. Michael Bair was granted $10,000 July of 2010 for his Vortex Micro Hydro system. The system was complete but awaiting water rights final determination. Mr. Bair was requesting an extension to allow for completion of the water rights issues. The system was operational but was not yet permitted. Chairman Stavney expressed favor of the extension and understood the dilemma. He believed it was an exceptional project. Mr. Palmer showed photos for the system. Mr. Bair stated that they did receive a complaint from a neighbor concerned with animals or small children falling into the unit. He explained the unit was covered with a chain - linked fencing. Chairman Fisher thanked Mr. Bair for serving on the Open Space committee. Having him on the board had been a great asset being a lifelong resident of the Roaring Fork valley. Mr. Bair thanked the county for the opportunity to have served on the board, he was sorry he could not continue. He stated that he had received rebates from Holy Cross for his system. He spoke about county's requirements and felt that he had met the educational and research data requirements. He explained the details related to the delays having to do with the water rights. A water commissioner expressed concern for the lack of a measuring device. One of the stipulations was that he install a flow gauge at the station at his expense. He read into the record a letter and ruling from the water judge. He hoped to receive at least partial funding from the board to allow him to continue work on the system. Commissioner Runyon asked about the marketing opportunities. Mr. Bair stated that he would love to market the system. He believed there was huge potential. Chairman Stavney encouraged Mr. Palmer to work with the Communications Department to develop a short segment for the county website that highlighted the system. Chairman Fisher moved to approve the grant extension for the Bair Vortex Micro Hydro, Eco -Build grant. Mr. Palmer stated that Mr. Bair was requesting partial payment. He believed that because a letter was received from the water judge and an ongoing commitment toward meeting the requirements, the county questions about the water rights had been answered. 13 12/13/2011 Chairman Fisher removed her motion and encouraged that a payment be made in 2011. Chairman Stavney moved to approve an extension if needed into 2012 as proposed and at the discretion of staff. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS - 2714 Wolcott PUD Bob Narracci and Sean Hanagan, Planning Department Eva Wilson, Engineering Department Rick Hermes, Jeff Townsend and Rick Pylman (Community Concepts Colorado) Linn Brooks (Eagle River Water & Sanitation District) ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan is for a large -scale mixed -use development including a variety of residential single - family, duplex, multi - family, commercial office /retail, industrial, institutional, and community land uses. LOCATION: The Wolcott PUD consists of approximately 373 -acres and is generally centered on the Interstate - 70 Wolcott Interchange and the US Highway 6 intersection with US Highway 131. The Wolcott PUD includes lands north and south of Interstate 70 and Highway 6 inclusive of the valley floor. FILE NO./PROCESS: PDS -2714; PUD Sketch Plan PROJECT NAME: Wolcott PUD OWNER: Community Concepts Colorado APPLICANT: Owners REPRESENTATIVE: Rick Pylman 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a Sketch Plan approval for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) — the Wolcott PUD Master Planned Community. The 373 -acre PUD proposes mixed -use residential, commercial and municipal development on the Wolcott valley floor and on the south side of Interstate -70. Presently, the subject property is largely undeveloped ranch land with the exception of a few existing residences, the Wolcott Rod and Gun Club and a U.S. Post Office. The project proposes to create an entirely new unincorporated community consisting of five primary land use components: 1) Residential — 679 dwelling units. 2) Mixed use commercial — 135,000 square feet of commercial, retail and service commercial including space for local businesses, artisans and live work opportunities. 3) Municipal and Community —5,000 square feet of municipal use 20,000 square feet for a community church site, 5,000 square feet for a community Park Building, and 5,000 square feet to Regional Transit Center. 4) Private Active and Passive Open Space —138 acres which is approximately 37% of the total land area involved in this PUD request. B. BACKGROUND 14 12/13/2011 Wolcott began under the name of Russell, and continued until the village became an important point in the shipping of cattle from northwestern Colorado. In 1886 a wagon road was completed to Steamboat Springs by way of State Bridge. The arrival of the railroad elevated the importance of Wolcott as it was soon called, one of the largest shipping points on the Western slope. In June of 1889 the name Wolcott was officially given to the settlement and a post office was granted. With the new arrival of the Moffat Railroad in 1908, Wolcott's prosperity abruptly ended. Wolcott has remained as an agricultural center for the area owned by the Jouflas family beginning in 1926. The Jouflas family has continued agricultural use of much of their land as the Eagle River Valley has evolved around it. Application for this PUD Sketch Plan was received by Eagle County in April 2010. C. SITE DATA: 4x a'i k a { 'Z x :: . / ,h, ' 19 {v ors p 6 4 E � "�Tx 'T , �� { , .,..�... a`4 {� 11,q,„04, 1 I North: BLM RP Ute Creek Industrial Service PUD' Park South: Single - Family Residential `R' Red Sky Ranch `PUD' { ti t 1 ;; East: Eagle Springs Golf Club `R' Residential, commercial, West: "CL " /`R' Vines at Vail PUD a cultural 4 .8 { $N. T ,.. ., M r ilk R < We 5 (47 WA ( a .. k e , '.:il Resource (R) k { ` i Planned Unit Development (PUD) .: {F Residential, municipal, commercial and industrial uses. "(ii4C, e� �' See regional discussion above : e `� *` 0 373 : o o 16,247,880 sq. ft. �.T� ff `1 � 1 '�> q '' s: l 138 acres :,_� 37% 1 {� 101 {r t R R erg 5 NII The ECLUR's recommend that } +i t } - arfes 4 {€ € � � � ��z 138 acres = 37% { : 25 A of the total land area be set €-' e `` p rise f {� °a, ,�. et �� „ i x 1. , 144 AX.ii aside as useable o s en s e ace �t��� #'t` ` �: { { UERWA {r, N/A I eat' s , `' " k j } ERWSD N/A {{ i ,Et,11. i F { , ; Via State Highway 6 and 1 -70 D. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to fifty -six (56) agencies for review on November 10 2010 and then again on June 1' 2011. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this writing: Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated December 17 2010 and June 22 2011 as well as follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Eagle County Housing and Development Department - Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated June 27 2011. 15 12/13/2011 Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist- Please refer to the letter dated June 28 2011. ECO Trails Committee — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 24 2010, June 27 2011 and October 12 2011 as well as attached exhibits. ECO Transit — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated May 12 2010 and the email dated October 14 2011 as well as follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Eagle County Environmental Health- Please refer to the email dated August 3` 2011 Eagle County Finance- Please refer to the attached response BLM — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated November 29 2010 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. State of Colorado Geological Survey — Please refer to attached referral response letters dated December 6 June 22 2011 and email dated September 13 2011 as well as follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. State of Colorado Division of Wildlife - Please refer to the attached referral response letters dated August 10, 2009 and June 15 2011 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Colorado Water Conservation Board- Please refer to the letter dated June 9 2011. Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated January 2n 2011 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) - Please refer to the attached letter dated November 3rd 2010. Eagle River Fire Protection District — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated June 24 2011 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District- Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated October 19 2011 Pitkin County - Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated June 28 2011 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Town of Avon- Please refer to the attached referral response dated August 9 2011 Town of Eagle- Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated August 10th 2011 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Garfield County- No comment Red Sky- Please see letter of support dated July 6 2011 Bellyache- Please see letter of support dated September 7 2011 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no written response received as of this writing: • Eagle County: Assessor's Office; Attorney's Office; Road and Bridge; Sheriff's Office; Weed and Pest Control 16 12/13/2011 • Colorado State: CDOT; State Historical Society; Health Department; Division of Minerals and Geology • Federal: Bureau of Land Management; Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA); US Army Corp of Engineers; US Forest Service. • Service Districts: Holy Cross Electric; Quest /PTI /Century Tel; Ambulance District; Source Gas /Excel Energy • Other: Town of Gypsum; Town of Minturn; Town of Redcliff; Town of Vail; School District; Edwards Authority; Edwards Metropolitan District; Colorado Historical Society; Eagle County Historical Society; NWCOG;E -911; Postmaster Wolcott; Edwards Community Authority; Economic Council of Eagle County; Rural Resort Region • Home Owners Associations: Diamond Star, Red Canyon, Red Canyon Acres E. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION At their regular meeting on November 2 2011 the Eagle County Planning Commission voted to approve PDS -2714 by a margin of 5 to 2. Voting for approval were commissioners Hunsaker- Ryan, Campos, Cunningham, Carpenter and Franks. The "no" votes were cast by Chairman Heicher and Commissioner Hammon. The concerns of Chairman Heicher and Commissioner Hammon were centered on; Wolcott Area Community Plan conformance, on -site wildlife habitat mitigation, geologic concerns (Southern Hillside), Eagle Valley Core Trail alignment and non - conforming remnant parcels outside of the PUD boundary which would result if this PUD is ultimately approved. The planning commission held 6 meetings prior to their vote on the 2" Each of the commissioner's concerns is outlined in the attached set of detailed notes organized by hearing date. Please be aware that no ECPC comments were derived during their first hearing on August 17`", 2011. This hearing was for initial presentations only and to establish procedure moving forward. Also, the October 19' ", 2011 hearing was utilized to begin creating conditions of approval. The conditions of approval recommended in this staff report are the result of the October 19`" hearing and the November 2nd hearing. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5- 240/5 -280 Sketch Plan; Section Purpose: The purpose of sketch plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. It is the time when determination should be made as to whether the proposed PUD complies with the purpose and intent of these Regulations and with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the types of use, dimensional limitations and other variations that may be considered; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on -site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County. Where the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall also be required to meet the 17 12/13/2011 requirements of Section 5 -280, Subdivision, regarding procedures for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. Standards: Section 5- 240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5- 280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5- I 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, a negative finding must be made for that Standard. 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. Presently, the privately owned portion of the subject property included within the PUD boundaries is owned by three different ownership entities. The assemblage of these parcels is under the unified control of Community Concepts Colorado, LLC, via separate purchase options. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY 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 Table 3 -300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" or Table 3 -320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5 -240 F.3 f, Variations Authorized. Permitted in , Underlying Normally Permitted As: Nature of Variation Proposed Uses Zoning? `. Yes No Y t ZS LR Mixed -Use X X Variations for mixed -use Residential X X Commercial not allowed in Resource zoning. Is allowed in Commercial Commercial X X X X X General zoning. Not all uses by right. Some require special use or limited review approval. Mu nici al / X X Variations required making by -right in p the PUD. Open Space X X X Variations required depending on use of open space. Pursuant to Section 5 -240 F.3..f, Variations Authorized the Board can grant variations during application for Preliminary Plan for PUD. By virtue of approving a PUD Preliminary Plan, the Board will have also granted the necessary variations. 18 12/13/2011 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3 -340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5 -240 F.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. IOWA of PUtilUs 9IPV0 Zoning Yes Necessary for integration of mixed uses; _ Yes To allow for greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings; Yes To promote a more efficient land use pattern including an opportunity for public transportation and for safe, efficient, compact street and utility networks that lower development and maintenance costs and conserve energy; _ Yes To increase open space; _ Yes The property is constrained - use of conventional standards limits quality design; _ No To increase compatibility with neighboring developments; _ Yes Other- to minimize site disturbance STANDARD: Variations Authorized [Section 5- 240.F.3.f. - provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must 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: 4 7,d, r'tFSr .' tyl.gTai h 14'1— *y 1 _ I Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities _ No Avoids environmental resources and natural resources Yes Provides incentives for water augmentation; _ Yes Provides incentives for trails; Yes Provides incentives for affordable housing; _ Yes Provides incentives for public facilities. _ f fi, Proposed Dimensional Limitation �t Justification for'Va i Front Unknown 25'/50' None proposed at this time Rear Unknown 12.5' or 'h ht of None proposed at this time tallest building Side Unknown 12 or '/z ht of None proposed at this time tallest building _ Stream 75' or 100 -year 75' or 100 year None proposed at this time floodplain floodplain The Applicant has provided only limited details regarding the proposed dimensional limitations for the project at this time. General information has been provided within the Draft PUD Guide relative to setbacks from the 100 -year floodplain for all proposed development as well as proposed building heights within individual planning parcels. However, the applicant has stated in the application that certain "variations" from development standards will most likely be applied for with any Preliminary Plan submittal. Staff suggests that as this is a sketch plan review, such details, while helpful to understanding the qualities of the proposed development, are not critical for the proper review of general locations intended for development as well as the appropriate range and types of residential units and commercial space. However, dimensional limitations are important to consider relative to the amount of "variations" anticipated and whether such variations outweigh development as a conventional subdivision. As well, 19 12/13/2011 variations such as reduced roadway widths, reduced parking dimensions, and reduced front, side and rear yard setbacks are to be encouraged within the context of allowing innovation in design, reduced development footprints /impact and reduced costs of infrastructure. Such details should be discussed during the hearing process, specifically to allow the Board of County Commissioners, Staff, emergency service providers and the general public to better understand what the applicant's intentions are by way of design. Such details will be required as part of any Preliminary Plan submittal. The Board can grant variances to dimensional limitations (lot and building standards) as may be prudent at the time of PUD Preliminary Plan approval. The applicant will be required to itemize and apply for all necessary variations during any Preliminary Plan submittal. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. 04 fit., Uses ;"' t?» Proposa Uses � � 4 Z ti) Yes Yes I, Multi - Family: 1- Bedroom/ 2 /DU X' X X Studio Multi - Family: 2.5 /DU X' X X 2 to 3 Bedroom Multi- Family: 4 or More 3 /DU X' X X Bedrooms Retail, Service 1/250 s.f. 2 3 Commercial (NLFA)* X X X and Office Restaurant 1/ four seats X' X X Recreation X' X X (1) Per the ECLURs, one (1) "van accessible parking space shall be provided for every five (5) accessible parking spaces, or fraction thereof." The Applicant was not asked to provide the level of detail necessary to determine the number of absolute number of handicap accessible spaces required for the development; this level of detail will be provided at any subsequent Preliminary Plan submittal and the applicant will be required to meet the minimum requirements for handicap /van accessible parking spaces per the ECLURs and building code. (2) Per the ECLURs, one (1) off - street loading berth shall be provided for commercial buildings with a gross floor area "Up to 10,000 sq. ft."; two (2) off - street loading berths shall be provided for commercial 20 12/13/2011 • buildings "Greater than 10,000 sq. ft." While the plans submitted do not depict dedicated off - street loading areas, the applicant will be required to meet the minimum requirements for off - street loading for all commercial uses designed to be served by tractor - trailer delivery vehicles, per the ECLURs. (3) The proposed plans for commercial and residential units meet the required parking standards. The proposal makes no specific provision for "shared parking ", although in order to meet the Sustainable Communities goals of Eagle County, the plan could be revised to include shared parking for the higher intensity use areas (commercial and live /work), thus reducing the overall footprint of the development. As plans are further developed, the applicant may want to include provisions for shared parking. Note; NLFA — Net Leasable Floor Areas include only those areas that are designed to be leased to a tenant and occupied for commercial or office purposes, exclusive of any area dedicated to foyers, bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors and mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants on the site. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (5)] — Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Type of Develo ment mil x ' �„ ;: ` , ''.,' , ,, ',",, :.'",":,: '"" ".',':i.i. .t ,.. , ,. ,„,.'",,,t. ' %,. -1,: :,;::::, '',,,,,-:, :, , , , „: r Cli,-:"' '',",„ g ,, , , ' :' ,'", - 'r'l -'' ' "''''. --g".;' a 4 , 4 . - r p '� Excel CLUI :` X X R si ren ECl-0 ''' x x x x x x x x Does fiat : its y , CLUR R wire is Is lot A,i� , X X With application for PUD Preliminary Plan the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with all landscaping requirements. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 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, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4 -340 D., Signs. Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. 21 12/13/2011 Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? Yes X No 1 A detailed comprehensive sign plan, including signage for all internal building and way - finding signage will be required as part of any Preliminary Plan submittal. The sign plan shall be included within the PUD Control Document (PUD Guide) and shall include details of proposed locations, sizes (dimensioned), materials, color schemes lighting and installation specifications to be permitted or prohibited within all planning areas of the 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, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 4'1 1 a a� 1 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X X X X X Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Deviation/VIS Requested i f In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services X J Yes No (1) Potable water for the project is proposed to be provided by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (see attached letter from the District dated November 3 2010). Specifically, the District states that any future commitment to serve the project will be conditional on the provision of a comprehensive water requirements analysis, and associated water rights evaluation. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide infrastructure plans and referenced water requirements to the Authority prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal. The District's letter states "evaluation for a Project this size will include an assessment of its impact upon the entire water system." (2) Sewage disposal for the project is proposed to be provided by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (see attached letter from the District dated November 3` 2010). (3) The subject property lies within both the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District boundaries. Portions of the property are not located within any fire protection district jurisdiction. It further appears that the property is not presently included in either the Western Eagle County Ambulance District or the Eagle County Health Services District. (4) Conceptual Road networks proposed within the PUD are generally acceptable and provide adequate circulation within and through the development (new through road, and intersection serving the area).Current details do not provide sufficient information for detailed analysis. It is important to note that the Colorado Department of Transportation has not yet approved the relocation of Highway 6 which is key to the development proposal. The applicant has committed to following the requirements of the ECLUR EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 22 12/13/2011 DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (8)] — The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvement Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right -of -way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off - site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide jor smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off - street parking areas. Safe, icl t 0 Ell'*tg cy Pr r+c ��� " Pathways Vc mss" S : Excts E .U, ors Sat1 E� e i t X X X X X DoE E, Rcquir t — Not ‘itlipt6bIttiNo UR; Requirement viiatio0IS At a sketch plan level of detail, it appears the subject property can accommodate all necessary improvements to satisfy the minimum standards. Eagle county Engineering Department questions the assumptions made in the traffic study. Ultimately the Engineering department must be satisfied with assumptions made and accuracy of the traffic report. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY 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. 23 12/13/2011 Cam' Surrtruu g Land Uses/ Bureau of Land Ute Creek Industrial PUD X North: 'RP' Managment Service Park South: Single- Family Residential `PUD' Red Sky Ranch X East: "Private Golf Club" 'R' Eagle Springs Golf Club X Residential, undeveloped R, Vines at Vail West: agricultural land, `CL', PUD X (undeveloped) commercial /industrial `RC' EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (10)] — The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The 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. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 . i l 4 1 2 t.' ' c� r x ' ; x „.. to 'Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 of Recansmendations Does not Satisfy M , of X X X' X X Itommendatsons Not .Applicable X Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: (1) Development • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County': The proposed mixed -use development precludes development in wetlands and floodplain areas; but does encroach into sensitive viewshed, wildlife habitat and geologic hazard areas. Within those areas of the site that are developable, the applicant has presented a land plan that generally introduces compact development patterns and clustering to create pods of development which are connected by roads and separate pedestrian trails. The most intense portion of the PUD is concentrated on the valley floor; between the Eagle River and Interstate -70; spanning both sides of I -70. 24 12/13/2011 The proposed development plan calls for preservation and/or creation of active and passive open space totaling approximately 37% of the overall 373 acre site. Such open space is proposed to include passive and active (recreational) uses including conservation oriented preservation of existing wetlands and floodplain areas along the Eagle River, as well as small "neighborhood" parks, trail improvements and limited fishing access. As the plans are further developed, opportunities to increase the project's conformance with the County's Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) should be pursued by the applicant. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Further minimizing paved areas by seeking design variations from Eagle County Land Use Regulation design standards for road widths, parking and loading standards and committing to use pervious pavement materials where possible. • Visualization of structures, parking lots and/or parking underneath proposed mixed- use /commercial buildings. • Integrating Distributed Stormwater Management strategies into the layout and design of the PUD as well as individual buildings to improve overall performance of drainage and stormwater discharge systems while committing to higher level environmental protection of sensitive riparian and wetland areas found on the site. • Concentrating residential uses at or near the village core and within walking distance (2000 feet) to regional transit and the existing community core. • Incorporating additional lands for community or neighborhood scale (local) food and sustainable energy production (solar arrays). • Introducing revised building orientations where possible to take advantage of solar access. thereby potentially increasing the energy efficiency of individual buildings and units while reducing the annual energy consumption of residents and commercial tenants. • Introducing renewable energy generation for individual community residents and/or community -wide roof top mounted solar arrays. • Complete avoidance of critical wildlife habitat on the south side of Interstate -70. Preservation of sensitive public viewsheds on the valley floor; as delineated in the Wolcott Area Community Plan should likewise be avoided. • Community gardens for food production • "Work to identify and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services" Proposed is a new unincorporated community in an area of Eagle County which remains primarily undeveloped. As such, it is difficult to say that quality of life characteristics of the area will be preserved. Conversely, this application represents an opportunity to fully master plan an entire new community while incorporating transportation oriented development, multi -modal transportation opportunities and sustainable community concepts. Master planning the entire community at one time offers the proactive ability to completely modify or redefine what characteristics comprise `quality of life' in the Wolcott vicinity. The proposed new master planned community will be able to avoid and improve upon reactionary land use decisions made overtime as have been realized in other areas of the county. The proposed development concept; may introduce new quality of life characteristics such as outstanding recreational facilities and private open space in a manner that preserves clean air and water. The development proposal anticipates that a variety of residential types (some of which would be quieter than others), unique cultural events and quality services will ultimately be provided. The plans cluster development to preserve and make available to the public significant amounts of open space along the Eagle River Corridor, in and between development pods, for public use including regional and local trail systems. 25 12/13/2011 The proposed development is projected to impact local roads by introducing approximately 22,113 additional vehicle trips per day to the area at build out. The applicant has been and will continue working with the Eagle County Engineering Department, ECO Trails and Colorado Department of Transportation regarding creation of a logical vehicular, pedestrian and regional trail multi -modal transportation network of new roads and trails with connectivity to existing transportation infrastructure. Portions of the overall project have the potential to create a compact, transit oriented development in the Wolcott area. As the plans are further developed, opportunities to increase the project's conformance with the County's Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) should be pursued by the applicant. The plans should be revised to include energy efficient design and construction techniques to reduce the development's environmental footprint and to reduce overall energy and maintenance costs to future residents and commercial operators. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all, development on the valley floor portion of the subject property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of the future community center and within walking distance (2000 feet) of a planned regional bus stop. • Integrate an on -site solar "farm" or array to ensure a minimum percentage of energy needs are met on -site. • Integrate an on -site recycling program for the PUD. • Work with the Eagle River Watershed Council and area educational institutions to create outdoor, environmental research and monitoring programs and curriculum ( "living" classrooms). • Complete avoidance of critical wildlife habitat in the area south of Interstate -70. Sensitive public viewsheds on the valley floor; as delineated in the Wolcott Area Community Plan should likewise be avoided. • "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives" The application does not include a report addressing population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revise the land plan prior to Sketch Plan approval to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local jobs to housing ratios and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and residential land uses. • Incorporating needs and market analyses with the latest ridership studies available from ECO Transit with the formation of local transit feeder systems and associated funding sources to ensure that the land plan responds to and, at the same time, facilitates the creation of a transit - oriented community. • "Promote compact, mixed -use development within or adjacent to existing community centers': The proposed project is designed as a mixed -use development and encompasses a potential future community center containing higher residential densities, commercial (mixed use), recreational opportunities and planned civic facilities. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 26 12/13/2011 • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the valley floor and in within walking distance (2000 feet) of the planned regional bus stop. • Further minimizing paved areas by seeking design variations from Eagle County Land Use Regulation design standards for road widths, parking and loading standards and committing to use pervious pavement materials where possible. • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". The Housing Plan provided in the application states that "the Wolcott community will be an inclusive community; it will have a mixture of various affordability levels of units that are defined as affordable in Eagle County. The community is designed and intended for full -time residents living and working in Eagle County. The inclusive nature of the community creates a vibrancy within the public spaces that is missing in many exclusive communities in Eagle County. The balanced mixture of housing types and price points creates opportunities for a wide variety of residents, while at the same time ensuring a long term economic structure to support the community as a whole. Residents will have the opportunity to live, work, and play within the community, thereby reducing the need to commute long distances and all the environmental and social damage attributed to commuting. For residents that must, or prefer to, work outside Wolcott, the entire community has easy access to public transit and Interstate 70 and the communities that it connects ". The project has the potential to provide public access to significant amounts of private open space and recreational opportunities. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revise the land plan where needed and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department in pursuit of a public /private partnership to increase the total number and type of deed restricted and local resident occupied dwelling units within the project and specifically within walking distance to regional transit; • Include provisions for "affordable commercial" space. Similar to proposed affordable and resident occupied housing, the applicant may gain credits for meeting the Eagle County Affordable and Resident Housing requirements by introducing affordable, deed restricted and/or resident occupied commercial and/or live /work space within the development to attract local buyers and entrepreneurs. • Revising the land plan to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County, and prepare detailed needs analyses and marketing studies to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live /work land uses. • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy: The applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Stan Bernstein and Associates of the projected fiscal impacts of the development. However, little (detailed) analysis has been provided showing the need for the proposed amounts, types and sizes of residential and commercial uses, nor the potential economic or fiscal impact of the development on the local and regional economy, the impacts on county services or the impact on jobs to housing ratios. Such analyses will be critical to understanding the potential impacts of the project on the local economy as well as understanding the overall need for the proposed uses. Logically, such need analyses and marketing studies produced will inform the design development of the project and will specifically clarify how the applicant proposes to phase the project to meet future market demands. 27 12/13/2011 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Complete detailed commercial and residential needs analyses and market studies, tied to the most current demographic and regional jobs to housing data, prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. Such details will be critical to any further review of the proposed new unincorporated town of Wolcott; • Revising the land plan to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space. Similar to proposed affordable and resident occupied housing, the applicant may gain credits for meeting the Eagle County Affordable Housing and Resident Housing requirements by introducing commercial and/or live -work space within the development that is deed restricted to attract local buyers and entrepreneurs. • Provide County Staff with economic and fiscal impact modeling to inform the future design development of the project to ensure the types and amount of uses is appropriate for the local economy and to accurately forecast potential (negative) impacts on County services. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide detailed fiscal and economic analyses showing projected impacts on County services, and local taxing entities within the PUD. The project incorporates parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of proposed higher- density, and larger lot single - family residential development, such as residential cluster neighborhoods and commercial areas. The central core of the commercial/mixed use area of the project is designed as a village concept, with courtyards and appropriately scaled public spaces relating to building masses. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to provide "neighborhood" or community -scale gardens and areas for local food production; • Add areas for "dog parks ", placed closer to planned residential clusters may benefit the residents and the environment by providing more space for "active" recreation with pets while maintaining such uses away from sensitive wildlife habitat, the Eagle River corridor and sensitive riparian areas. • "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards': This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. • "Analyze development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map" The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Wolcott Area Community Plan regarding recommended "future land uses ". Please reference the detailed evaluation of conformance with the Wolcott Area Community Plan below. The Wolcott Area Community Plan provides two alternative Future Land Use Maps for the region defined as the Valley Floor Character Area. One of the alternatives is the `Wolcott Residential Community FLUM'; the other alternative is the `Wolcott Rural Center FLUM'. The development proposed somewhat complies with the `Wolcott Residential Community FLUM' but will require substantive modification to avoid defined `Quality Viewshed Areas'. The proposal is completely inconsistent with the `Wolcott Rural Center FLUM' which anticipates little to no new development. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance with the Future Land Use Map and associated comprehensive plan goals and policies include: 28 12/13/2011 • "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community" The proposal concentrates (clusters) development within pods separated by common open space. Approximately 37% of the subject property is proposed to be preserved as open space. The application indicates that variations to improvement standards will be required and will be delineated with application for PUD Preliminary Plan (dimensional limitations and site development standards such as road widths, parking space dimensions, etc). Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the valley floor, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the proposed village core of Wolcott and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop; • Avoidance of critical wildlife habitat on the south side of Interstate -70. • "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing" The Housing Plan provided in the application states that "the Wolcott community will be an inclusive community; it will have a mixture of various affordability levels including a high percentage of units that are defined as affordable in Eagle County. The community is designed and intended for full -time residents living and working in Eagle County. The inclusive nature of the community creates a vibrancy within the public spaces that is missing in many exclusive communities in Eagle County. The balanced mixture of housing types and price points creates opportunities for a wide variety of residents, while at the same time ensuring a long term economic structure to support the community as a whole. Residents will have the opportunity to live, work, and play within the community, thereby reducing the need to commute long distances and all the environmental and social damage attributed to commuting. For residents that must, or prefer to, work outside Wolcott, the entire community has easy access to public transit and Interstate 70 and the communities that it connects ". Overall, the applicant has demonstrated a commitment, if at a conceptual level, to comply with the requirements of the County's Housing Guidelines. • "Design and locate development to minimize and /or mitigate identified impacts". The subject property encompasses largely undeveloped ranch lands. Any substantive new development in this region of Eagle County will incrementally impact both the natural environment and existing public infrastructure. That said, the project has been designed as a clustered development incorporating a planned regional mass transit hub; the proposed community will implement energy efficiency, and multi - modal, pedestrian friendly environments while serving local populations through the creation of significant amounts of deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing options to specifically minimize and otherwise mitigate impacts from development. (2) Economic Resources • "Ensure that commercial / retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". The project is designed as a transit oriented, mixed use development supplying community scaled, commercial and office uses for the future local community and to the surrounding vicinity. 29 12/13/2011 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Perform detailed needs and market analyses to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live /work land uses; • "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance. The proposal is not intended to be a second home development but second home ownership is not precluded. • "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population': The project is represented as a local resident development with a variety of housing and commercial opportunities that will create an inclusive environment; presumably, this inclusiveness will include services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Ensure appropriate, adequate (ADA compliant) and efficient access at the ground or pedestrian level of commercial buildings for such "services and businesses" benefiting a growing senior population. • Work with "senior" or elder -care service providers in the Eagle River Valley, as well as with Eagle County Health and Human Services Department staff to identify those "services and business" needed in the region. And, to the extent practical within the overall land plan and commercial real estate pro - forma, designate or reserve certain commercial spaces and locations to accommodate businesses aimed at serving senior populations. • "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed -use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities" The plans do not specifically anticipate creation of "retirement" housing; however, the nature of this pedestrian friendly, transit oriented design may be complimentary to this particular master plan goal. Proposed affordable and deed restricted housing will be available to those segments of the population approaching or at retirement age. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department, as well as with the Eagle County Health and Human Services Department to further identify rental and `for -sale' housing price points (thresholds) that may be attractive and/or attainable for a growing segment of Eagle County's population living on fixed incomes. • Identify those housing and/or amenity features designed specifically for aging populations and consider incorporating those features into overall project plans and individual building design. • "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". See above comments. 30 12/13/2011 • `Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". The applicant intends to meet the minimum requirements of the Housing Guidelines. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department towards the creation of a housing mitigation plan that responds to the immediate and future (anticipated) needs of the area; • Perform detailed needs and market analyses to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live /work land uses. • "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population" The proposed mixed use PUD zoning will allow approximately 175,000 square feet of additional commercial uses in unincorporated Eagle County. The proposed commercial uses are intended to serve the needs of the proposed future local population as well as those traveling to the site from outside the community. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Perform detailed needs and market analyses to ensure the project serves the needs of the immediate local population as a priority, while ensuring the project is viable in terms of a regional attraction;; • Prepare a detailed Phasing Plan, based in part on detailed needs and market analyses, to allow flexibility in the design, construction and marketing of commercial, office and residential real estate offerings while providing a reasonable level of predictability of in commercial and residential real estate offerings, timed to respond appropriately to the local population, as a priority. • "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties': Service and "Convenience" commercial uses, as well as office uses have been primarily concentrated around a planned village core area with access to regional mass transit. Service commercial uses are also proposed adjacent to residential development pods south of Interstate -70. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan and site specific development plans to ensure that residential development, not mixed -use development, be adequately buffered from the impacts of commercial land uses. • "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". The proposed mixed use PUD zoning will allow approximately 135,000 square feet of additional commercial uses in unincorporated Eagle County. The proposed commercial uses are intended to serve the needs of the proposed future local population as well as those traveling to the site from outside the community. Service and "Convenience" commercial uses, as well as office uses have been primarily concentrated within and around a planned village core area with access to regional mass transit. 31 12/13/2011 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Perform a detailed market analysis prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. • "Encourage live -work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed -use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation" The project does not specifically include live -work arrangements; however such uses may be practicable within the mixed -use village core portion of the PUD. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space. Similar to proposed affordable and resident occupied housing, the applicant may gain credits for meeting the Eagle County Affordable Housing and Resident Housing requirements by introducing commercial and/or live -work space within the development that is deed restricted to attract local buyers and entrepreneurs. (3) Housing • "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers" This proposal is to create, from scratch, an entirely new unincorporated community which includes future workforce housing near a future job center. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to explore potential public - private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock; • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, within or adjacent to the village core, and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop. • "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing': The property is currently zoned Resource (R), allowing for one primary dwelling unit and one accessory dwelling unit per 35 acres as a use "by right" The subject property also includes an 8.45 acre parcel of Commercial Limited zoning situated on the northeast quadrant of Interstate -70 and Bellyache Ridge Road. The proposal represents a substantial up- zoning of the subject property based on the plan to construct a total of 679 residential dwelling units and 135,000 square feet of commercial and municipal uses. The applicant fully intends to comply with the minimum standards of the Housing Guidelines. At this juncture, the only incentive provided to the developer is possible approval of the Planned Unit Development request (as proposed) Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 32 12/13/2011 • Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate more deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to explore potential public - private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock. • Development of a Phasing Plan to allow flexibility in the design, construction and marketing of commercial, office and residential real estate offerings — timed to respond appropriately to potentially unpredictable market conditions in the future. • Revise the land plan and environmental design of the site and buildings to achieve a higher percentage of on -site, alternative energy production and to increase the efficiency of individual buildings and units to reduce the cost of operation over time. Work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to quantify actual savings to residents of the development through energy efficiency and on -site energy production measures. The County Housing and Development Department is willing to work with the applicant to quantify such real. (actual) savings in order to allow the purchase price for some of the required deed restricted units to be raised (higher return to the developer with long term savings passed back to residents). • "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines" The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. In addition, the Applicant has committed to meeting the required housing mitigation, and to continue working with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • See above Housing comments. • "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications." The project is designed, in part, to provide "attainable workforce housing ". The applicant will be required to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department during any Preliminary Plan application process and will be required to meet the minimum requirements of the Housing Guidelines. • "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications" See above comments. (4) Infrastructure and Services • "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub". The subject property is presently served by adequate public roads commensurate with the present needs of the area; however, the proposed development entails construction of all necessary infrastructures to create an entirely new unincorporated community. The proposed development will provide new planned regional mass - transit stops. In addition, the project incorporates a regional trail connection through the property and close proximity to the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 33 12/13/2011 • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, on the valley floor within and adjacent to the proposed village core and within walking distance (1/4 mile) of planned regional bus stops. • "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development': If this PUD proposal is ultimately approved, via the Final Platting process(es), Subdivision Improvements Agreements and collateral will be required to ensure that all necessary infrastructure improvements are installed correctly in a timely manner in pace with distinct project phases. • "Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements' This is the primary purpose of subdivision improvement agreements. • "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". The applicant has met several times with Eagle County Engineering Department and ECO Transit representatives to specifically discuss potential impacts of the development on existing transportation and transit systems. Both entities have identified several issues related to future improvements and capital expenditures that will be required to support a development of this size and scope, and both entities have expressed concern regarding the need to create a sustainable, reliable funding source that will be applied toward future (ongoing) road and transit system improvements needed to support this and any other future development in the Wolcott area. Of critical importance is the issue of creating a funding source or mechanism that will support the regional transit needs generated by this new unincorporated community while also funding new local feeder systems in the Wolcott area. Definition of such funding sources for future transportation improvements and transit provision will need to result in the identification of actual, implementable solutions with the Preliminary Plan application. • "Encourage transit oriented development': The proposed project offers the unique opportunity to master plan a true multi- modal, transit oriented unincorporated community situated in the geographic center of Eagle County at the crossroads of Interstate -70 and Highway 131. Concentrating mixed -use development in close proximity to a regional mass transit route will create the core of the applicant's transit oriented vision. Concentrating additional residential density in development pods throughout the subject property may aid in supporting the mechanics of a true transit oriented development; however, seemingly work against, adding critical mass within walking distance of the transit stop. Integration of a transit hub and park- and -ride facility (per discussions with ECO Transit) may warrant further discussion as a means to provide additional public benefits to the larger community while adding to the vibrancy of the development. • "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking': The land plan incorporates commercial /mixed -use development patterns in the proposed village core area. The `core' of Wolcott is proposed to be pedestrian oriented and does provide pedestrian mall and shopping area. The village area will allow for "support retail" operations and residential uses oriented around a pedestrian "mall" area. • "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure' 34 12/13/2011 The development plan provides active recreational amenities as well as preservation of significant open space lands interlinked with pedestrian connections through the property. The trail system proposed anticipates tying into and complementing the existing Eagle Valley Core Trail system. • "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". The development plans show the provision of new local and regional trail segments generally running east to west in a parallel manner to the Eagle River and running north to south connecting proposed development pods located south of Interstate -70 through the proposed core village area. • "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls': Conceptual plans appear to meet this particular objective. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide a higher level of details showing typical streetscape sections as well as details demonstrating the relationship between building and store fronts and the pedestrian realm. Detailed plans for landscaping, plaza areas, cross walks and traffic calming designs will be required with application for PUD Preliminary Plan. • "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design" This is a PUD Sketch Plan application. As such, the applicant has taken advantage of flexibility in the layout, design and densities proposed. • "Promote live -work arrangements where appropriate". The sketch plan does accommodate live -work arrangements in the village core area. • "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". This mixed use project integrates neighborhood convenience commercial and municipal opportunities in close proximity to proposed residential uses to serve the daily needs of residents and to reduce personal vehicle trips. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Perform a detailed market analysis prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal to determine the appropriate mix of uses. • "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards" Any future "variations to improvement standards" will be required to be requested with any Preliminary Plan submittal and will need to be integrated and reviewed in close coordination with the Eagle County Engineering Department, CDOT and all emergency service providers such as the Eagle River Fire Protection District and Greater Eagle Fire Protection District. • "Assure adequate access for emergency responders': The subject property covers such a broad area that the service areas of the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District bisect the property. Portions of the subject property 35 12/13/2011 are not located within any emergency service provider's district. It is anticipated that the property will be served by the Western Eagle County Ambulance District. Adequate emergency services must be demonstrated as part of this PUD Sketch Plan proposal. • "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services" The Eagle River Fire Protection District has requested that a site be provided on the subject property to accommodate construction of a joint fire station for the Eagle River FPD and the Greater Eagle FPD. The Eagle River FPD believes that the proposed development will make funding of fire services in the greater Wolcott area economically realistic; enabling service to Bellyache Ridge and Red Sky Ranch. • "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity': At this level of review, specific service commercial uses have not been defined. . Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce; • "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants' 1041 Permitting is required concurrent with Preliminary Plan application submittal and review. • "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development': This proposal entails creation of new public water and sewer system infrastructure where presently these facilities are non - existent. Installation of this new infrastructure must occur commensurate with the needs of phased development. The Subdivision Improvements Agreements that will accompany each Final Plat will ensure proper timing of infrastructure installation and collateralization. • "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval': The applicant has provided traffic analysis for the Sketch Plan review. Such analysis indicates that approximately 22,113 additional vehicles per day will be added to local roads. A detailed analysis will be required with any Preliminary Plan submittal. • "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county': The proposal seeks to provide a mix of free - market, deed restricted and resident occupied housing options of varying sizes, types, locations and price points throughout the development. (5) Water Resources • "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development': In its response dated November 3, 2010, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District sets forth procedures to obtain water and sewer service to the subject property. "The District is the regional water and wastewater provider for much of the Wolcott area. No District water or wastewater infrastructure currently exists in Wolcott, development in Wolcott will require a new standalone service area. The District has constructed a 400,000 gallon treated water storage tank, which will not be placed into service until there is 36 12/13/2011 demand for this infrastructure. Prior to providing water and sewer service to these properties, a number of conditions will be required to be met by the developer, including: Inclusion of the properties to be served into the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District; dedication of adequate water rights and/or payment of cash in lieu of water rights dedication; development of water and sewer infrastructure (e.g. water and sewer mains, additional water storage tanks), which requires plan approval and construction acceptance by the District; payment of applicable fees ". Please reference the attached letter from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. • "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development" It is not clear that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District requires a standard of extended drought conditions in determining the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development. As such, the applicant should provide this information to the county. Ideally, this information will be provided as part of this PUD Sketch Plan process. This information is required with the future 1041 Permit application. • "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews' See above comments. • "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination" During site construction, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. In the attached response from the Eagle River Watershed Council dated January 2, 2011, six prudent recommendations are provided; each aimed at protecting wetland and riparian areas, controlled river access, stormwater management and the overall impact of the proposed development on water regimes along this stretch of the Eagle River, particularly as it might affect low flow periods and in consideration of the requisite water and sanitation facility that is required to serve this development. • "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible". The application does not preclude the use of impervious surfaces. Such materials and construction techniques should be incorporated where practical within the project in addition to other efforts to reduce the amount of storm water runoff from the site to greatest extent practicable. • "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources" See above comments. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revise the land plan to further cluster development and reduce the amount of paved areas (roadways, individual driveways) to reduce the total amount of building footprint and/or impervious surfaces — to increase or preserve groundwater recharge capabilities within the site. Such revisions may require "variations" to improvement standards. • Provide ground water monitoring stations within the PUD boundaries. • Consider building designs that incorporate "green roofs" and water re- capture /treatment within roof design and materials. • Commit to utilizing impervious surfaces in the built environment to the greatest degree practicable. 37 12/13/2011 • "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods': At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. Landscape plans must incorporate xeric landscape principles and design. • "Evaluate efficiencies of non potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". At the time of PUD Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. It is recommended that non - potable water be utilized for all outdoor irrigation of landscaping in public areas, common areas, individual residential lots and water features. • "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application does not address water reuse at this time. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Integrate water reuse and recycling components into the building, landscape and irrigation plans. • "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. Further, the required 1041 Permit process evaluates water efficient utilization of water and conservation measures. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Incorporate specific limits and/or controls regarding the maximum areas per lot to be irrigated within PUD Guide documents and/or within protective covenants. • Delineate commitment to incorporate mandatory water conservation measures. • "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application" The application does include a legal and physical water rights analysis prepared by BBA Water Consultants. The total project estimated annual water requirement is 1,088.3 acre -feet, of which 276.5 acre -feet is consumptive use. the total project cash in lieu cost is estimated to be $3,399,500 (to the ERW &SD), prior to accounting for water rights dedications. After accounting for the dedication of water rights appurtenant to the subject property, the cash in lieu payment is estimated to be $695,000. • "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts" Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Partner with local educational and not - for - profit organizations to provide ongoing water quality and riparian restoration monitoring. • Commit to maintaining any existing wells on the property for the purpose of ongoing groundwater monitoring. • "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan': 38 12/13/2011 Best Management Practices for on -site storm water management are required. • "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan': In the attached response from the Eagle River Watershed Council dated January 2, 2011, six prudent recommendations are provided; each aimed at protecting wetland and riparian areas, controlled river access, stormwater management and the overall impact of the proposed development on water regimes along this stretch of the Eagle River, particularly as it might affect low flow periods and in consideration of the requisite water and sanitation facility that is required to serve this development. • "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non point sources of pollution". Best Management Practices will be required with regard to storm water management and grading activities. • "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development" The application did provide concept level details regarding drainage and detention of water on -site. A detailed water quality management plan will be required with any Preliminary Plan application. • "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals" Best Management Practices will be required with all final construction documents and plans. • "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways': With the exception of limited areas of wetland disturbance, the plan seeks to avoid disturbance of wetlands and natural drainage ways. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Adhere to the recommendations set forth in the Eagle River Watershed Council response dated January 2, 2011 • "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems" The development seeks to cluster development into pods surrounded by open space; to preserve large portions of the site generally in their original state. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revise the land plan to further cluster development to the extent possible and reduce the amount of paved areas (roadways, individual driveways) to reduce the total amount of building footprint and/or impervious surfaces — to increase or preserve groundwater recharge capabilities within the site. Such revisions may require "variations" to improvement standards. • Integrate pervious paving where practical within development. • Consider building designs that incorporate "green roofs" and water re- capture /treatment within roof design and materials. • Commit to utilizing impervious surfaces in the built environment to the greatest degree practicable. 39 12/13/2011 (6) Wildlife Resources • "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing human -made barriers to wildlife migration' • "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". Reference the attached response from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated December 2nd 2010 and June 15 2011. CDOW indicates that the entirety of the subject property has designated critical habitats for mule deer, elk or other sensitive species. Part of the subject property is already in the wildlife mitigation plan for the expansion of the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park and the surrounding Bureau of Land Management lands are already being managed and treated to improve wildlife habitat to offset other developments. The ability to receive approval for additional mitigation on public lands to offset impacts on private lands is becoming more difficult to obtain. CDOW's main concern is the direct and indirect loss of critical wildlife habitat which is not sufficiently addressed in the application. Appropriate mitigation is possible on site but the design needs to be altered to accommodate the appropriate mitigation strategy. Offsite mitigation should be used as a tool when on site mitigation is not possible, not as a convenience to allow larger scale development. When offsite mitigation is used the preferred method is to mitigate adjacent to the impacted site, within the same drainage and the same Game Management Unit. In the six page CDOW response, it is made clear that the very design of this proposal with integrated paths connecting development through open space areas actually introduces more constant human impact upon wildlife and affecting a larger area of the wildlife habitat than just within the proposal boundaries. Even though the proposal includes 37% open space, it is probably of very little use to wildlife. CDOW is opposed to relocating the alignment of US Highway 6 and believes that the current alignment actually provides greater protection for the riparian habitat and Eagle River. CDOW is also opposed to the proposed BLM land exchange which would have significant wildlife impacts such that mitigation and/or replacement of those values within Eagle County would be very questionable. The CDOW identifies mule deer migration corridor, winter range, severe winter range and winter concentration areas within the subject property. Also, elk winter range, severe winter range, winter concentration areas. Sage Grouse and lynx activity were also identified. The applicant must work with the CDOW to revise the plan in a manner that will address how non -point source runoff will be handled to maintain or improve the water quality of the Eagle River and how water quantity (stream flows) in the Eagle River will be impacted from reduced flows in between the drinking water intake and the sewage outflow. Development plans for the area located south of Interstate -70 must be modified to address connectivity of existing wildlife movement corridors that have been platted in Red Sky Ranch and other small acreage developments on Bellyache Ridge. A wildlife corridor needs to be provided to allow the east — west movement of wildlife through the project area. A standard has been set and applied in other PUDs adjacent to or near this project with corridor widths of 1000 feet in width minimum or under special circumstances and approved by the CDOW if vegetative or topographic features are present which would provide wildlife with a sense of security. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Work closely with the CDOW in revising the development plans; 40 12/13/2011 • Complete avoidance of critical wildlife habitat on the southside of Interstate -70. • "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers': The use of Best Management Practices for on -site, four season storm water management is required. • "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat': See above comments. • "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". Please refer to the attached Colorado Division of Wildlife comments dated June 15th, 2011. • "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments" Please refer to the attached Colorado Division of Wildlife comments dated June 15th, 2011. • "Encourage high - density development within existing community centers': The village core portion of the project is proposed as a high- intensity commercial and mixed use community center for Wolcott. • "Minimize site disturbance during construction". A construction management plan, dust suppression plan and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required as part of any development approvals. • `If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife': This issue should be addressed in sufficient detail with application for PUD Preliminary Plan. • "Require wildlife proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions': The application is required to adhere to the ECLUR standards for wildlife refuse containment. (7) Sensitive Lands • "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". The attached Colorado Geological Survey responses dated December 6, 2010, June 22 2011 and email dated September 13 2011 notes that the three areas being considered for development are: 1) south of Interstate -70; 2) the area between Interstate -70 and the Eagle River; and 3) the area south of the Landfill Road and Ute Creek Road. Each area has distinct geologic issues that will pose development constraints and require further investigation. Additional evaluation and investigation will be required with application for PUD Preliminary Plan. "The South Area is located on a large landslide complex with multiple scarp areas and seeps. Upslope of the proposed development area is a golf course, including pond areas. The landslide complex extends upslope beyond the boundaries of the site. CGS generally does not recommend development on landslide - prone areas without extensive investigation, modeling, and mitigative strategy development. The Ground Engineering report gives some preliminary data regarding the landslides, but a more detailed investigation is warranted." Please reference the attached CGS response dated December 6, 2010 for more specific cautionary recommendations regarding development within landslide areas. 41 12/13/2011 "The Village Area is largely agricultural land on river terrace deposits. Portions of the site are included in the 100 -year floodplain for the Eagle River. A more detailed floodplain analysis should be considered given that the FEMA maps were done at a 1:24,000 scale and are not accurate at a site - specific scale. Groundwater was encountered 5 to 20 feet below ground surface, and can be expected to fluctuate seasonally. The soils may be sensitive to water infiltration, but likely not to the point that typical mitigative measures would not be affective. The Ground Engineering report provides good general strategies and recommendations for development in this area. These concerns can be addressed as the entitlement process proceeds." In summary, "It is our opinion that further investigation and data is needed prior to approval for this development. Development plans should take into account the geologic conditions at each site and, to the extent feasible, avoid development in landslide areas and drainages. Again, the sketch plan proposes substantial development, including residential and school sites, in landslide -prone areas." All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey have been made conditions of approval. (Please refer to attached CGS letter and follow -up letter from the applicant regarding further geologic investigation and exploration that is proposed prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan submittal). • "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible' See above comments. • "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification': r further site-specific CGS recommendations encouraging furthe site specific investigations and studies have been incorporated as conditions of approval. • "Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". The Colorado Geological Survey is a standard referral review agency. • "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans" All CGS recommendations encouraging further site - specific investigations and studies have been incorporated as conditions of approval. • "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process': See above comments. Also, neither the Eagle County Historical Society or the Colorado Historical Society responded to this application referral. • "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". The proposed development plan calls for preservation and/or creation of open space totaling approximately 37% of the overall 337 acre site. Such open space is proposed to include passive and active (recreational) uses, pedestrian trail network and limited fishing access to the Eagle River. (8) Environmental Quality 42 12/13/2011 • "Assure access to multi -modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors' The proposed project offers the unique opportunity to master plan a true multi - modal, transit oriented unincorporated community situated in the geographic center of Eagle County at the crossroads of Interstate -70 and Highway 131. Concentrating mixed -use development in close proximity to a regional mass transit route will create the core of the applicant's transit oriented vision. Concentrating additional residential density in development pods throughout the subject property may aid in supporting the mechanics of a true transit oriented development; however, seemingly work against, adding critical mass within walking distance of the transit stop. Integration of a transit hub and park- and -ride facility (per discussions with ECO Transit) may warrant further discussion as a means to provide additional public benefits to the larger community while adding to the vibrancy of the development. • "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips' See previous comments regarding affordable housing and the transit oriented development (TOD) nature of this project. • "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting': The Housing Plan provided in the application states that "the Wolcott community will be an inclusive community; it will have a mixture of various affordability levels including a high percentage, of units that are defined as affordable in Eagle County. The community is designed and intended for full -time residents living and working in Eagle County. The inclusive nature of the community creates a vibrancy within the public spaces that is missing in many exclusive communities in Eagle County. The balanced mixture of housing types and price points creates opportunities for a wide variety of residents, while at the same time ensuring a long term economic structure to support the community as a whole. Residents will have the opportunity to live, work, and play within the community, thereby reducing the need to commute long distances and all the environmental and social damage attributed to commuting. For residents that must, or prefer to, work outside Wolcott, the entire community has easy access to public transit and Interstate 70 and the communities that it connects ". • "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". Site - specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes and with each building permit. • "Require periodic watering and track -out control devices at all construction site access points" Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. • "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting': Detailed lighting standards will be reviewed with any Preliminary Plan submittal for conformance with ECLUR's and applicable master plan goals and policies. • "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees" No uses have yet been identified that would generate unsafe noise levels. 43 12/13/2011 "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses • for all new development proposals ". No uses have yet been identified that would generate unsafe noise levels. • "Promote transit - oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles'. See previous comments regarding the project design and TOD. • "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling ". See previous comments regarding TOD, energy efficiency and on -site alternative energy production. In addition, all new construction is required to meet EcoBuild and Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) regulations. Staff encourages the applicant to work with "sustainable design" experts to integrate specific design and construction strategies within the land plan, site design and building designs during design development of Preliminary Plans. • Implement energy efficiency guidelines. See previous comment regarding the design of the project. • Implement energy saving techniques. See previous comment regarding the design of the project. Additional ideas: 1. Community -based agriculture and composting on -site for yard and kitchen waste; 2. Community -based recycling program and facilities on -site. Future Land Use Map Designation The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Wolcott Area Community Plan regarding recommended "future land uses ". Please reference the detailed evaluation of conformance with the Wolcott Area Community Plan below. The Wolcott Area Community Plan provides two alternative Future Land Use Maps for the region defined as the Valley Floor Character Area. One of the alternatives is the `Wolcott Residential Community FLUM'; the other alternative is the `Wolcott Rural Center FLUM'. The development proposed somewhat complies with the `Wolcott Residential Community FLUM' but will require substantive modification to avoid defined `Quality Viewshed Areas'. The proposal is completely inconsistent with the `Wolcott Rural Center FLUM' which anticipates little to no new development. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance with the Future Land Use Map and associated comprehensive plan goals and policies include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, on the valley floor, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of the future Wolcott community and within walking distance (2000 feet) of the planned regional bus stop. • Work closely with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to develop a new plan which satisfies the CDOW concerns and recommendations. • Work closely with the Colorado Geological Survey to develop a new plan which satisfies the CGS concerns and recommendations. 44 12/13/2011 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN t a �. a r> 3 i x I i + " '"� r 'N Y A w rx ;43n~a 44215 t t'f t x I " ara � �Cs�" # �� Fk» "£ a i ""� + � '� `� < � y Sa aid §: tp s µ g,.� >f, $s d f ,f? io y .a `CI € a :. ` ' c t y £ s x nor" it a a Ss h, ass i'. w~ yV `t s: {#',{ e wu t "f(' f t ` {P r a� ",vY'' :a s ` Y *` a , rv�.. ti a 3 "" ; 0 N8',,,: t q f t ,r, R a y S y w ' F 46 ,1 S y :30 S "�., it*ECkx "'8 A *4 Ea y t R t a stciZ, v e a "iG a {;,..! r ;, " a`t s r £. f° r: kA R t S vi i , N : s, ' s h i s € ti 1 $ a t � x , t R f a . f i t x t t F ,tx (f 4� �#P t y � rs#� ssttlk x „ � � i aE ,k € � R� a r' � { � ! � t kt a Fl s .£ Fa � s" `d:: y t( %i k � 4s a i!� i �.. N k t t , ,. a v n s; ,� ! t(i rtk"T "t t x t .� :. y3 e t { x,0 1 1 a % , , e A t ip t :1 ! t i tr t Uri i i k„ ; .I v Rr k r t - a 4 e *... I � � ': t it u ,.�. y , r y � ,£. � £'t�ai �Ei+�r ., :� s f ra b s t! a y : t i,, *t+ ce �t� ., r : t a 'z; r m& P ' s 4. l a uax ,t 3 t x .. t E 'i -aj t i k� ✓ fit + x ' � i£ {'4 x s y v's 5t 4% "``.� 4 s 'r. y k ` � � .✓> -e kf' x £i 1 { } r 1 '( ki♦" r y' ,.. r{ t k . v'\•.. >. ..:x.,.,Y i �„ , . , .. ,-;.f : � , t "C a, £ w k 7 :! m � w W99Y4 4. X X X j ke rib s4 t ai t x5 x x 7 fa lae Z::;•ai a X 4 ^' d Abe 9t pae :i: Sg a y r t.fki* t. r . ; t , y i.r >-4 s - t'i.t,sd;i (1) The applicant has met with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado Geological Survey. (2) The project provides open space and recreation land within the PUD well in excess of the minimum recommended and required open space pursuant to the ECLURs. (3) The Plan defines Unique Land Forms as "Lands having unique or outstanding characteristics. The subject property does not encompass unique land forms as delineated in the Open Space Plan. (4) Per the Visual Quality Map in the Open Space Plan, the Valley Floor is designated as `Highly Constrained' and the area south of Interstate -70 is designated both `Moderately Constrained' and `Prohibited'. (5) The proposal is for an entirely new community and therefore does not focus development within and around existing community centers. The proposal does; however provide 60% open space. (6) The Colorado Geological Survey responses dated December 6, 2010 and June 22 2011 delineate substantial hazardous geological concerns. (7) The Colorado Division of Wildlife responses dated December 2, 2010 and June 15 2011 delineate substantial wildlife impacts and concerns. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS WOLCOTT AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: Please refer to the Plan document for exact wording of specific strategies. Valley Floor 45 12/13/2011 EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN: Water Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Quantity Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority X X X X of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate XI Recommendations Not Applicable (1) Water Quantity Although the application does not necessarily propose or commit to any specific water conservation methods, measures such as reuse or recycling of "gray water" on site and requiring the use of xeriscape landscape design and planting methods will be encouraged throughout the design development of the project to reduce the overall amount of domestic (central) water demand for the project. As well, throughout the process, the applicant will be required to demonstrate the provision of "wet" water (2) Water Quality Proposed installation of groundwater monitoring wells on the property by the applicant, when combined with future requirements to utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) during and after construction of the project, will serve to incorporate two objectives of this goal. Further, protection of wetlands on the property, reduction of impervious surfaces and integration of "Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies" will add to conformance with water quality goals. Forming strategic partnerships with entities such as the Eagle River Watershed Council and the Gore Range Natural Science School for the purpose of ongoing education and monitoring of river and riparian habitat restoration will also increase conformance. (3) Wildlife To the extent the development does not hinder, harm or preclude river and riparian habitat restoration projects, the project meets the objectives of the Plan. Specifically, the development will preserve significant amounts of aquatic and riparian habitats. Measures should be taken to minimize the impact of proposed trail placement and direct access points in close proximity to the Eagle River. In addition, the applicant may be required to implement seasonal closures in wetland and riparian areas of the property. (4) Recreation To the extent new access points along the Eagle River are created in consideration of the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan, the objectives for improving and providing additional public access can be met. (5) Land Use The development follows the recommendation of the Plan by limiting building activity to those areas outside the floodplain while protecting riparian areas. As well, the provision of trails and park areas as well as the preservation of open spaces in perpetuity meet the objectives of the Plan. The plan also lists open space and recreational uses are listed as "appropriate" uses in proximity to rivers and streams. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (11)] — The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing Plan Provided? Yes X No 53 12/13/2011 The developer has provided conceptual phasing information. Due to the complex nature of the proposed mixed use development, the intensity of uses and the potential impacts generated from the development on County services and local infrastructure, a detailed phasing plan will be required with the submittal of any Preliminary Plan for the property. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X 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 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 Comprehensive Plan. (b) Areas that 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 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 covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (0 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. Total Subject Land Area, 337 acres 16,247,880 square feet Recommended 25% of Total Land. Area as 84ac. = 25% 3,659,040 square feet Usable .Open Space Additional Amount. of .. Space 84 +18 =102 689 DU x 2.63 persons /1000 population = 1,812 new residents x 10 acres /1000 population = 18 acres = Required Per 1000 Persons =='' acres 784,080 square feet 102 acres Total Open space Required and Provided 138 acres provided (per ECLUR's) Public, ...public or Private? Public and Quasi Wetlands and Floodplain; parkland; Q Public Describe: trails and River Access Restrictions on' Open Space: TBD Describe: 54 12/13/2011 The overall amount of open space exceeds the requirements in the ECLURs. As such, the plan should respond appropriately to the amount of usable open space provided to ensure the actual daily needs (active and passive recreation, community gardens, etc.) are met while providing for conservation and environmental goals and objectives of applicable master plans. X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS I STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (13)] — The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by analysis documents, as well as the recommendations o referral the applicable an .f f Y PP Y agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. �� `� rya.. �� u� j 1:::1,-.4: : . ..:.: ,, ,, , .,: „. !, ,,, ..x . N. , 11 .,,, : ., ps:' , 7 ,,,,,,, :; , !: , :: , ....;: . . ,,, ,::ii:, , 501 , : , ' . . , :: , ;.,....,:4..mil.,:;: - .y.:1,•;i:18iiii,:',' , .!;...' , ..: ! ... , '!..:::deati:...;:aili.4:':'Ai'::',.'.,':::.:,k , ,.: , ;i'l.....,-:::;',4 i. xc� "1 . UR R �ir : 0,t.,4:fies E C t uir m y , oes O � y't U l�� D t X N ©t App1i4:4(044:4; L �ui r at' (1) The comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey's responses dated December 6 2010 and June 22n 2011 must be adhered to prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. (2) Development of the site must comply with all applicable ECLUR wildfire regulations as well as any future recommendations of the Eagle River Fire Protection District and Greater Eagle Fire Protection District. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCH/PRELIMINARY PLAN: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5- 240.F.2.a. (15): 15. (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. needs and market analyses); No specific analyses were provided for this PUD Sketch Plan. Detailed needs and market analyses will be required prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. Such analyses should inform the creation of detailed phasing plans. 55 12/13/2011 (b) Proposed schedule of development phasing; the proposal includes conceptual information regarding phasing. A detailed phasing plan will be required for any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. (c) Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; The RE -1 School District has not responded as of this writing; nevertheless, pursuant to the ECLUR's, the total amount of school land dedication required for this development is 1.18 acres. The fee -in -lieu amount will be determined based upon a summary appraisal report at the time of Final Plat application. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; While the applicant has provided initial information related to the amount of infrastructure (capital) improvements that will be necessary to adequately serve the development at full build -out, no actual statement of estimated demands on County services has been declared at this time. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be require to provide detailed analyses of such impacts or demands on ALL applicable County services. (e) Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue; the applicant has provided a general statement of tax revenues based on current mill levies. (f) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; A conceptual site plan, landscape plans, circulation plans, and architectural renderings have been provided. At the time of Preliminary Plan application greater detail and typical renderings of site and architectural design, mass and bulk will be required. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; The development will be served by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. (h) Employee housing plan. The applicant has submitted a housing plan; however the applicant and County Staff have discussed alternate means to meet the minimum standard of the Guidelines. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: 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 PLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use 56 12/13/2011 Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 3 g : i i ek'; 4,, a �' r k x. s t." k s- �1h s k ` r s��` <x 4 r ^1" r ; 'y � xkJY �� Eli : . � i�� " ? i f ik �„ > ,., ," i' i rr i fW * s z tk <'�'Er ttz M� Y�Y �rt€�tY tY�.,�, x P .��"� �} ,^':` ��. h*� �� K '�.� xiii 3 y t. a i ;, a fi ' tr "'" r k IP s ,r x {r . k1 z '` ,�f; +� n ,v '` s z s { "�i"k 4 ? ' - :,gto j ' , ,,mNo p A s m mxg v ',� r ,� t x 3 1 `R `x" E s ki € c i� i tb t iii . a x k k e :d k % yr s a,i, R - u � ; { z t ' a k' f z 4 s rP; ` krzs �. rk 6 �t i � x .� S a i y i 2e � � � i ! ,- ^" X "�# �. �k �€i�' ,,�u �� ` � . �� ifs q u,4 @k d i �' +�i' x �t e ro aJi�a ail ^. p `x P 1 k , E i M s' 5s � cO k � .0;,, ki .. i t s m t kkk ci= 4 a . k io N t �'a i r 4M a ,: r +., k iv t ti ° ax '+t k i a S�'+ j c i ke� S , 1. ° s EA:" z 4 , + NAM i '.gy i -� r tf ��." y ' t� :� `n isx $'" ,-,1 i. i m 7' 4 s C 3 6r , i u S Sx d a9€ d t e a i,s a r y 3 . :. y 5� t " r iN> 1 ,6 m Sm ;i ^`�.`.. l tt ,ca �,r ya ti t � � x er :EiE i t .: E tmii s e La �� a ift�mf�l�h �f 3 8 av� � ?a'�Ti�, � 9 y ,� "5'�s � �, �r 7' 4 li ', v A >`: a 3 "' Jm G 4 r .r ^~g z 4 i z i t } 4 ; tlti i i, . a.kr r3 i i� i 1 i t s }ya s ' ^z k a't 1 i a kt a x iz^ i t k ? E m t`" r s i P x r i i kF EE k k i i m - t = �w,, r' b �' !� #Y`t � �ir i , y Fg uk tEp � ,�^l 1 § x.. �,� �"as > i �% lit b �rv'k u . r,� i;? y n �. �; z i[o-s i , s A€GEnz x C `k1 ,,� �. 1 . , ; �0Aa x o r tai irk ,, : } m.13z a A 1, e t. t k "ik9 ! ,4 { is m A ;! t=� e 4 r y ' s � i c i :;„ v k e t r 3 i t lxa 3 iE ; „.5, a pi r. Va i s a `, 'm '� r ';"y"ko N 3 W E F � . Y i t k l � �. r �t ,3 k � !r r: r ? , m s y .; P k § >,. � i u�' i a >*'t � i w e ° a q'f S� �� n, � '^ ph 4 k � i ep �,. y y a k S i "k � � .,� 5 h r' I i., ia.,k.rtS. °r` ,. ..,.s,`..caa„ , . .yii Ri .ten3 4a" z� ....il . >.. kr� s lsi�',.r s;„ "e:....�w^k ��-` .wnsLm'"`u.,,. a,,..hk. c,n,.> 27 ;r t-"�ci.<k._.'S{..rm- X Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4 -1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4 -2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4 -410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420) 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 Commercial 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) 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) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4 -660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4 -670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4 -680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4 -690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4 -7) Applicable (1) Refer to attached letters from the Colorado Geological Survey and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (3)] B 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. 57 12/13/2011 (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (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 proposal is for the creation of an entirely new unincorporated community situated between Edwards, the most populous community in Eagle County to the east and the Town of Eagle located 10 miles to the west. Presently there are no public services, other than a post office, or infrastructure on the land area subject to this PUD Sketch Plan review. In order for this application to ultimately be approved, utilities and road improvements will need to be designed to serve the ultimate population and be coordinated such that the entire range of facilities will be provided commensurate with development phasing. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e B Th property proposed .f 4 P [ (4)] P P t1' osed to be P P subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human -made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Natural hazards have been identified at this level of review that may preclude successful development of the subject property as proposed unless suitable mitigation efforts are identified and employed to the satisfaction of the Colorado Geological Survey. Please reference the Colorado Geological Survey Responses dated December 6, 2010 and June 22 2011. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please refer to the Compatibility discussion above. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The following aspects, at a minimum, should be considered in the review of this Sketch Plan: 1. Traffic and transportation issues, including a discussion regarding the relocation of Highway 6. 2. Conflicts with the development of the Southern hillside with respect to wildlife impacts, natural hazards and compatibility with existing land uses. 58 12/13/2011 3. Impacts to the Eagle River. 4. The appropriateness and disadvantages of development outside of the Valley Floor area 5. Non - conforming remnant parcels which will be created as a result of this PUD Proposal. 6. Timing of development phasing, "triggers" and the need for detailed phasing plans. 7. The need and economic feasibility of the entire project. 8. Riparian area and wetlands delineation/restoration planning (working with the Eagle River Watershed Council) and future revisions to the proposed PUD layout. 9. Eagle County Local- Resident Housing Guidelines and the dispersion of affordable /deed restricted housing throughout the PUD. 10. Open space, trails, public parking, river access and ongoing maintenance of open space tracts. D. Board of County Commissioners Options: 4. Approve the [PDS -2714] 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). 5. Deny the (PDS -2714] 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). 6. Table the [PDS -2714] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 7. Approve the [PDS -2714] 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). E. Summary of Conditions of Approval for the Wolcott Sketch Plan PUD Standard Condition: A. Except as otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations made by the applicant in this application shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. The PUD Preliminary Plan application shall be in substantial conformance with the Wolcott PUD Sketch Plan Presentation Summary dated October 19 2011. Eagle County Engineering: B. Comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department response dated June 22n 2011, listed below, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 1. Appendix 9: Civil Engineering Design Report Section 3. Roadway Cross Sections show 4'detached sidewalks. ECLUR Section 4 -630 requires 6' detached sidewalks. 2. Applicant confirms compliance with ECLUR Section 4 -650 Drainage standards including but not limited to: a. Detailed calculations to ensure historical flow 59 12/13/2011 b. Detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan In addition to the above Engineering Department requirements, the Eagle County Planning Commission requests the following additional engineering - related conditions: 3. Pursuant to the Wolcott Area Community Plan, roundabouts be installed at the bottom of the Interstate 70 interchange ramps. CDOT and Eagle County Engineering Department, must determine the appropriateness of roundabouts located at the bottom of the interchange ramps prior to application for Preliminary Plan, as well as, the timing for installation relative to the overall project phasing plan. 4. Concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application information must be provided specifically addressing ongoing maintenance of all stormwater management appurtenances, as well as, information about how the ongoing maintenance and operation is to be accomplished by an entity such as a metropolitan district. The stormwater management plans shall incorporate Best Management Practices, to ensure that sedimentation due to stormwater runoff and snow storage /snow melt are captured to prevent discharge into the Eagle River. Additionally, a management, maintenance and monitoring plan for the stormwater appurtenances is necessary. ECO Transit: C. With application for Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of ECO Transit set forth in their correspondence dated October 14 2011. The one plan alteration requested by ECO Transit which remains to be incorporated into the plan is a request that the applicant establish one transit bus stop in proximity to the town center; within 1/2 mile walking distance from residences and businesses located on the valley floor. The proposed Transit Center on the south side of Interstate -70 shall integrate with the existing CDOT Park and Ride location by providing convenient pedestrian access for use by ECO Transit patrons. In addition to the above ECO Transit requests, the Eagle County Planning Commission appended the following additional transit- related conditions: 1. The applicant establish two transit bus and/or private shuttle stops in within a maximum 2000 foot walking distance from residences and businesses located on the valley floor. The 2000 foot walkability circle from transit stop locations is endorsed by the Wolcott Area Community Plan. Colorado Geologic Survey: D. Comments set forth in the Colorado Geologic Survey response dated September 13, 2011 shall be adequately addressed concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. Specific comments as below: 1. Additional geologic and geotechnical investigation studies are required prior to or concurrent with application for PUD Preliminary Plan including additional test borings /open trench investigations and analyses for the proposed Timbermill and Pioneer Park neighborhoods on the south side of Interstate - 70. 2. Existing inclinometer readings prepared for Vail Resorts for Red Sky Ranch shall be provided if available concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. Colorado Division of Wildlife: E. Prior to or concurrent with application for Preliminary Plan for PUD the applicant shall include a Wildlife Mitigation Strategy Plan. In addition to the CDOW recommendations which have already been incorporated into the Sketch Plan application; pursuant to discussion with CDOW through the Sketch Plan process, any combination of the four following mitigation strategies shall be employed: 60 12/13/2011 1. Establish a Wolcott Wildlife Mitigation Trust funded by a Real Estate transfer fee to be applied within the Wolcott PUD, or; 2. Focus mitigation on open lands within the PUD, or; 3. Explore mitigation opportunities in conjunction with the CDOW within game management units 35, 36 and 44, or; 4. Explore mitigation opportunities in conjunction with the BLM and CDOW on private or public lands. 5. The Eagle County Planning Commission favors avoidance of critical wildlife habitat versus mitigation of wildlife impacts elsewhere within the PUD boundary and especially off -site. The Wolcott Area Community Plan recommends that wildlife mitigation not occur on public lands. ECOTrails: F. The preferred alignment alternative of the Eagle County Planning Commission for the ECO Trail, core trail alignment shall be as depicted in Alternative `D' proposed by the applicant (attached) provided that the applicant: 1) Procures a signed easement commitment and ditch improvement agreement from the Jouflas Families to provide ECO Trails with an easement for purposes of core trail construction east of the east end of the Wolcott PUD (reference Exhibit `C', attached). 2) Locates the core trail with a minimum 30 foot separation from the edge of US Hwy 6 asphalt, as realigned. 3) Provides Spur Trail connections from the core trail to the activity centers within the PUD. 4) Extends the core trail to the west from the west end of the PUD to the Highway 131 Bridge utilizing CDOT right -of -way and /or private land as may be required. The exact method of connecting with the Highway 131 Bridge is to be determined but a highway crossing to the Hamlet should be incorporated into the design and construction of this connection. The Planning commission acknowledges that this property is not within the PUD boundary and not controlled by the applicant therefore approval of the PUD shall not be withheld on the basis of this condition (reference Exhibit `C', attached). In the event that the applicant is not able to satisfy the above conditions, EITHER the core trail shall be constructed in the alignment depicted in the Eagle Valley Trail Plan and Wolcott Area Community Plan OR the applicant constructs the core trail segment from the east end of the PUD boundary to the west side of the Interstate -70 Bridges over US Hwy 6, on the river side of US Hwy 6. The ECO Trail core trail shall be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the PUD. Affordable Housing: G. The current Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines are under review, and will be amended; the applicant shall either abide by the new Housing Mitigation Guidelines or abide by the current Housing Guidelines to incorporate appropriate Affordable Housing or Public Benefit into the plan. Affordable Housing stock provided within the PUD, if any, should be integrated throughout the PUD and not segregated in one area. Utilities: H. Concurrent with application for 1041 Permit and/or PUD Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall address all comments and conditions set forth in the "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, dated November 3, 2010. 61 12/13/2011 Emergency Services: I. Prior to our concurrent with application for Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall coordinate any and all future development design for the PUD with the Eagle River Fire Protection District, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, and the Eagle County Health Services District. The emergency responders have indicated that the proposed PUD Sketch Plan satisfies their concerns at the Sketch Plan level of detail. Exorbitant costs should not be borne by the first residents and commercial uses constructed within the PUD. Eagle River Watershed Council: J. Comments and recommendations set forth in the Eagle River Watershed Council letter dated January 2, 2011 shall be incorporated into any future development design of the PUD and shall otherwise be adequately addressed concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application specifically including information regarding ongoing maintenance of all stormwater management appurtenances, as well as, information about how the ongoing maintenance and operation is to be accomplished by an entity such as a metropolitan district. Planning and installation of stormwater management systems inclusive of regular adequate maintenance, oversight and water quality sampling is necessary. Controlled river access and a river access management plan should likewise be required with application for PUD Preliminary Plan. Wolcott Area Community Plan Conformance: K. With application for Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall address the PUD proposal's conformance with the Wolcott Area Community Plan and justify all deviations from the Plan's intents and purposes so as to warrant exceptions to the Plan. Additional Conditions: L. Concurrent with application for Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall work with the G. Jouflas Family to create a conservation easement for the G. Jouflas property west of Preservation Park. M. The applicant shall incorporate appropriate square footage limitations for the South Meadow Ranch Accessory Dwelling Units concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. N. The applicant agrees to adhere to a minimum 75' setback, or more as may be necessary to protect the riparian zone, for the South Meadow Ranches from the high water mark of the Eagle River, or the northern edge of the existing US Hwy 6 right -of -way; whichever is more restrictive. For Ranch Lot 1 a 150' setback from the high water mark of the Eagle River to the southeast corner of the building envelope shall be maintained. O. The applicant shall enter into discussions with the United States Postal Service (USPS) regarding relocation of the Wolcott Post Office into the future Village core area. The applicant agrees to provide an alternate entry location to the existing post office facility during the construction realignment of US Hwy 6. If the USPS does not agree to relocate, then the applicant shall provide a new permanent access to the existing Wolcott Post Office site. Any new permanent access to the existing Wolcott Post Office site shall be evaluated with the Preliminary Plan application to ensure that the intents of the PUD will be maintained and not compromised. P. The applicant agrees to create a conservation easement(s) on the river side of the South Meadow ranches and the open meadow portion of the South Meadow Ranch property. The restrictions and uses allowed within the conservation easements will be developed concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan 62 12/13/2011 application. Detailed maps and language describing how the lands to be preserved will be maintained and controlled, as well as, what entity will be responsible for the ongoing monitoring and implementation of the conservation easement. Q. Prior to or concurrent with application for Preliminary Plan; the proposal shall demonstrate in detail how the project addresses the Sustainable Community Index incorporating the applicant's representations made through the Sketch Plan application and as included in the staff report dated August 17, 2011. For each SCI point category, the planning, design and implementation details, including how they will be incorporated into the design, operation and maintenance of the future community, shall be provided. The PUD Preliminary Plan and/or PUD Guide shall be amended accordingly, and where practicable, to increase the project's adherence to the county's definition of Sustainable Community. The intent is to create a community which fosters economic opportunity and social capital while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend. R. With application for Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall provide a comprehensive map depicting all wetland and riparian habitats and how the development may impact those areas. If impacts are identified, then the applicant shall address how those impacts will be mitigated. S. With application for Preliminary Plan, a draft Conservation Easement document shall be provided which incorporates detailed maps and language describing how the lands to be preserved will be maintained and controlled, as well as, what entity will be responsible for the ongoing monitoring and implementation of the Conservation Easement. T. Several adjacent and proximate non - conforming properties owned by the Jouflas families either already exist or will be severed off of larger parcels of land if the proposed PUD is approved. This outcome is inconsistent with the intent of the Wolcott Area Community Plan to comprehensively plan the entire valley floor area at one time via one Planned Unit Development. The concern is that these remnant valley floor parcels will potentially be developed in a piecemeal fashion and not be unified with the proposed PUD. With application for Preliminary Plan the applicant shall address the future use of these parcels of land which are outside of the proposed PUD boundary. U. With application for Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall provide more definitive, updated viewshed and architectural analyses of the proposed development from various perspectives including from the south side of Interstate 70 looking north, from the existing US Hwy 6 looking south, east and west from I -70, within the proposed development looking toward the proposed development on the southern hillside and across the Valley Floor. V. With application for Preliminary Plan, a well- screened community recycling collection area facility shall be integrated into the plan. DISCUSSION: Chairman Stavney explained that this was the first hearing for the board of county commissioners. He expected that the file would be presented in a series of hearings so the board may or may not open the floor for public comment today. Mr. Hanagan provided a vicinity map and provided a brief history of the Wolcott area beginning in 1850. He read the vision statement taken out of the new community plan and summarized the public desires. The project proposed a new unincorporated community; it included 679 residential dwelling units, 135,000 square feet of mixed use commercial, community church sites, community park building, and transit center. Realignment of Hwy 6 was 63 12/13/2011 a major component of the project. Based on the Master Plan there were some conflicts in terms of development in view shed areas. The Planning Commission voted to approve the file by a margin of 5 to 2. There was a detailed list of concerns brought up during the Planning Commission meetings in the staff report. Some of the concerns addressed community plan conformance, on -site wildlife habitat mitigation, geologic concerns, core trail alignment and non - conforming remnant parcels outside the PUD boundary, which would result if this PUD were approved. Mr. Narracci explained that the PUD boundary was smaller than the ownership of the Jouflas families. Some parcels would be split and pieces of them would be included in the PUD. Mr. Hanagan highlighted comments from the Engineering Department, which focused on the realignment of Hwy 6. The Colorado Geologic Survey provided a letter that indicated that there would be a need to some investigation and analysis on a couple of the hillside neighborhoods. Colorado Parks and Wildlife expressed concerns with the "critical wildlife habitat" and that federal lands should not be expected to pay the bill for private development. The Town of Avon expressed concern with the commercial layout. The Town of Eagle had similar concerns for commercial and expressed concern for incorporation and the additional economic burden for Eagle County. Pitkin County was concerned with traffic and transit and had some market/demand concerns. Mr. Narracci explained that Pitkin County was in the resort region and therefore was asked to respond with feedback. Chairman Stavney asked if any of the towns talked about the nature of the commercial being neighborhood commercial and not regional commercial. Mr. Narracci stated that they both touched on the idea but it was his understanding that they did not believe the proposal was a fit. However, since those letters were written the commercial had been reduced from 175,000 down to 135,000. Linn Brooks, representing the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District spoke about the history of the infrastructure in the valley and district boundaries. The district board had been getting ready to serve Wolcott for over a decade. The idea was to design a system that would serve the area from the beginning. In 1992, the Planning Commission adopted the Wolcott area community plan and soon thereafter, the board of directors directed staff to start looking into the potential of having regional plans to serve a future Wolcott. In 1995, an engineering report located a wastewater treatment plant on a site below the trestle at the west end of Wolcott that could serve all of the valley floor. Following the approval for the Vines at Vail PUD in 2008, they obtained a 1041 permit and moved forward with constructing a tank. The tank had never been connected to anything because the Vines at Vail was never built. In 2010, the district decreed a junior water right and Water Diversion Augmentation plan for full build out of Wolcott. Therefore, they are ready and have the water to serve the development but the developer would have to pay a fee to get access to the water. Commissioner Runyon wondered how full build out was determined. Ms. Brooks stated that they looked at the update of the county's Wolcott area community plan and chose the larger number. They called everyone that had property in Wolcott and asked them if they wanted to be in or out, included the properties of those that opted in, held an election and got a 100% approval. There were 15 -20 properties. She explained how they foresaw providing infrastructure. There would need to be a water plant, wastewater plant, water and sewer mains and a water storage tank. They modeled what the tap fees would be at various levels of build out. The modeling was done prior to the recession so they numbers may need to be remodeled moving forward. What they found was anything below 500 units made for costly tap fees. The first thing the district would do would be to create a Wolcott sub district. The revenues to pay the debt service on the bonds would come from tap fee revenues. They would require guaranteed tap fees from the developer at a rate that would pay the debt service until the tap fees could take over. The number of tap fees that would to be collected to pay the debt service was about 20 -40 per year. Chairman Stavney asked about Red Sky Ranch. He wondered if there was any discussion about tying into their plant. Ms. Brooks stated that there might be some advantages to tying the systems together. The water tank they constructed could serve everything on the valley floor and probably up the hillside. At some point, another tank would need to be built. Rick Pylman, Land Planner, Community Concepts, Inc. stated that they had been involved in the project for some time and were excited to have the opportunity to present the proposal to the board. He hoped to give the board a basic understanding of the project. Rick Hermes spoke about the history of the company's involvement in communities throughout Colorado and the country. He stated that the design was based on the shift in the market. They hoped to create a community that would cater to a spirit of "we" over "me ". The development was designed to respond too many of the 64 12/13/2011 identified challenges of marketing in the new era. His firm believed that now was the time to develop a plan and be poised to meet the consumer demand in coming years. The long -term prospects for Eagle County still suggested sustained growth and continued attractiveness to the market. The development included the Village (commercial /residential), South Meadow Ranches, Pioneer Park, Timber mill (where Lazy J Ranch is today). Phase 1 would include the relocation of Hwy 6 and the initial process of infrastructure. The regional trail would run along the river and through the development. They identified the need for a caretaker and maintenance facility that would maintain areas placed in the conservation easement. He spoke about a nature center that would also be a part of the plan. He explained the architecture and design of the Village area. The promenade was the amenity and the interaction between the residential and commercial created the interactive space. The brownstones would be simple, town and country type style. There would be brick detailing and farmhouse styling on commercial, brownstones and in the residential homes. The South Meadow Ranch area would include 7 ranches, one existed today. Chairman Stavney supported the view sheds and the importance of preserving the river view. He liked the idea of open space and preserving the river corridor. Chairman Fisher asked if the ranches would allow for livestock or horses. Mr. Hermes stated that they'd like to see some ranching heritage maintained in the area and would allow fencing. They would also allow each one of the ranches to have up to 3 units, a primary and two secondary units. There would be a square footage limitation. The ADU's would need to look like outbuildings. The Ranch design would preserve 4,370 feet of the Eagle River riparian corridor in perpetuity through the conservation easement and a longer south meadow view shed. Chairman Stavney asked about the future of Lazy J Ranch. Mr. Hermes stated that the use would go away. Commissioner Runyon asked about the number of lot in the Pioneer area. Mr. Hermes stated that there were 106 units and some were duplex units. The Promenade would be a socially interactive park and a key element. It would feature a community pool, community center, club and canoe and kayak club. Jeff Townsend spoke about the open space and buffer areas within the community. The open space would include public parks and neighborhood parks. Their goal was to reduce density on the edges of the development as it went into the BLM property. Chairman Stavney wondered about the maintenance costs for all the amenities. Mr. Townsend stated that the amenities were low impact amenities and the cost to maintain them would be low. Mr. Hermes believed they had some ideas on the tax bases that may allow the amenities to be kept up in total. Mr. Townsend spoke about Preservation Park, an area outside of a large wetland area, which made for a good opportunity to include an educational component and trail. The Wolcott Environmental Trust would help maintain and oversee these types of components. Russell Park was a neighborhood park that ran parallel to the promenade; it was the buffer zone between the brownstone units and the start of the single - family homes. Timber mill and Pioneer Park were neighborhood parks meant to serve the residents of the particular neighborhood. Mr. Hermes stated that the idea behind the Environmental Trust was to create an organization/group of people that had a common interest to protect the area They would build the Nature Center and they would care for this amenity. Commissioner Runyon asked to see some of the empty lots with a home on them in the future site plan. He also thought it would be helpful to see where the adjacent popery lines fit in. Commissioner Stavney believed it would be useful trrsee overlays of other developments to compare the density. Chairman Fisher asked about the schools for the community. Mr. Hermes stated that they discussed this with the school district and they did not express an interest in putting any schools in the Wolcott area. They had a section about schools but would discuss it at a later date. He spoke about the reason for planning the development at this time. They believed by doing the plan now added permanence to the vision that was created by the community plan. They did not plan to build anything vertical until 2014 -2015. The infrastructure and vertical expansion would be completed in multiple phases depending on market demand. They acknowledged the need for economic diversification. Chairman Stavney wondered if a medical facility was needed in the Wolcott area. 65 12/13/2011 Mr. Hermes believed there were accidents that occurred on the road and homes out on highway 131that were in need of emergency services. He believed that a gas /convenience store, grocery store, transportation and community based commercial were needed now. The development proposed 679 dwelling units, 135,000 square feet of commercial, retail and service commercial and 138 acres of open space. They estimated that when the commercial was operational there would be about 850 employees. He spoke about the letters of support and the most notable were those from the residents at Red Sky Ranch and Bellyache Ridge. Chairman Fisher found it challenging to assume that there was an existing need. She knew people that chose to live there because of its separation from the rest of the valley. She also found it difficult to see the development as a pedestrian friendly community as there were no schools proposed. Chairman Stavney questioned whether there was the critical mass to support a grocery store. Commissioner Runyon believed there were still opportunities for other developments to alter their business plan and go after the same demographic. This project was nice, but would be adding to the total number of dwelling units, which had implications to traffic, and quality of life throughout the county. Mr. Hermes stated that they studied the residential needs analysis. It was based on the 2009 build out analysis. Mr. Townsend stated that the focus of the Wolcott plan was single - family units. The brownstones were not a like product to what was currently approved. Mr. Hermes explained that Eagle Ranch was a competitive market to them. Commissioner Runyon believed the proposal filled a market niche but there was the question of affordability. Mr. Hermes believed they needed input from the board. They felt they had identified the target market. They trying to create an inclusive place. They were very sensitive to disrupting market activity in Eagle, Y were rY g P Gypsum, and other areas that had market absorption in a certain range. He hoped to get some feedback moving forward. Commissioner Stavney believed there was a lot more to discuss. Commissioner Fisher suggested that the next couple of meetings be afternoon meetings. Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. PDS -2714 Wolcott PUD until the January 10, 2012. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjou til - = •• er 20, 2011. tit rip Attest: _ i 'at f' erk to the Board * * " Chairman 66 12/13/2011