Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/31/17 PUBLIC HEARING January 31, 2017 Present: Jillian Ryan Chairman Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Brent McFall County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Oliver 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: Commissioner Updates Commissioner McQueeney shared information from the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCOG)meeting she attended. The NWCOG approved nine loans in 2016 with the requirement that the small businesses generated jobs. She wanted people to be aware that these loans were available and there was more money to lend. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that last week she attended Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI)and Eagle County was able to get an appointment as Vice Chair of the Tourism Recreation and Economic Development Committee as well as the CDOT Public Lands Traveling Committee. Chairman Ryan spoke about a story in the Vail Daily that had to do with I-70 infrastructure. The 1-70 mountain corridor and 1-25 made President Trump's top 50 projects for infrastructure improvement money. CDOT was excited and she was thought this might be a great way to get some of the needs met to continue the efforts of reducing the congestion on I-70. Consent Agenda 1. Second Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Can Pro Rodeo Tanya Dahlseid,Fair and Rodeo 2. First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services between Eagle County and Community Health Services,Inc. for Family Planning Services Jennie Wahrer,Public Health and Environment 3. Colorado Department of Transportation; Eagle County Signature Sheet for Highway User Tax Fund for Mileage Revenue Certification Nicole Trujillo and John Harris,Road&Bridge 4. Approval of the Minutes of the Board of County Commissioner Meeting for November 1, November 10 and November 15 Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder 5. Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources for Cooperative Wildfire Protection Barry Smith,Emergency Management 1 01/31/2017 6. Animal Shelter and Services Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)with the Town of Eagle Nathan Lehnert,Animal Shelter and Services Ms.Dahlseid spoke about Item 1,the agreement between Eagle County and Can Pro Rodeo. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda for January 31, 2017, as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Ryan opened and closed citizen input,as there was none. Business Item Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Housing and Development Authority 7. AIA Form B 108-2009 Standard Form of Agreement between Architect and Owner between Lake Creek Village LLC and Tab Associates,Inc. for Lake Creek Village Apartments Improvements Jill Klosterman,Housing Ms.Klosterman explained that the agreement was simply a replacement to an agreement they did in March of 2016 with Tab Associates, a local architect that helped with design work for replacing the exterior siding, adding insulation, and replacing windows. Lake Creek Village was applying to Housing and Urban Development(HUD) for additional funding to complete the work and HUD required a specific form. The contract had not changed and the project would commence in the spring. Chairman Ryan explained that the county owned the apartments and took over management a couple years ago. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered how many more projects were needed at Lake Creek Apartments. Ms.Klosterman stated that they would continue replacing boilers and such but this was the last of the major improvements. The buildings would be different colors so people could identify the separate units. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the agreement between Lake Creek Village LLC and Tab Associates, Inc. for Lake Creek Village Apartments improvements. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Brent McFall Retirement Celebration Chairman Ryan spoke about the celebration for Brent McFall's retirement. In 2017,Mr. McFall started his 42°a year in public service. She spoke about his work in local government. Since coming to Eagle County,he had 2 01/31/2017 made certain that there was an actionable strategic plan and promoted process improvements. She thanked Mr. McFall for spending his last two years with Eagle County and wished him all the time in the world to play golf,ride his bike, and enjoy his family. Commissioner McQueeney added her thanks and appreciation for the work Mr.McFall had done for Eagle County. The Strategic Plan was a key component. He had lead by example in terms of customer service. Commissioner Chandler-Henry added her thanks and pointed out the work he'd done with the municipalities. Aric Otzelberger spoke about his relationship with Brent McFall over the years and his 42 years of dedication to public service and professionalism in local government management. He set a powerful example for everyone. Mr. McFall thanked everyone for the recognition.He was drawn into public service because it felt like a challenge and there were exciting opportunities. He got hooked on the notion of making a difference in people's lives. He'd had the opportunity over the years to work with thousands of dedicated professional staff and dedicated community citizens who took the time and interest to be involved. It had been a thrill. He looked forward to the next phase in his life. Chairman Ryan presented him with a gift on behalf of the county and wished him the best. Planning Files 8. PDP-4986 The Tree Farm PUD **TABLING TO 2/21** Scot Hunn,Planning Commissioner McQueeney moved to table file PDP-4986,Tree Farm PUD until February 21, 2017. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. 9. PDA-5941 Frost Creek Salt Creek PUD Amendment Kris Valdez, Community Development FILE NO./PROCESS: PDA-5941,Amendment of a Planned Unit Development PROJECT NAME: Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD Amendment LOCATION: Brush Creek Road OWNER: BCP-ARR, LLC APPLICANT: BCP-ARR, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group STAFF PLANNER: Kris Valdez, MURP,AICP STAFF ENGINEER: Taylor Ryan,PE STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: "Eagle County is a Great Place to Live for All"and"Eagle County Protects the Natural Environment" POLICY ISSUE: The policy question is whether or not the Eagle County Permit Authority should approve this application. I. Project Update Since December 13,2016 Hearing: Please be aware this is the update memo documenting changes proposed by the Applicant since the December 13,2016 hearing with the Board of County Commissioners. For the full report,please see the staff memo from the December 13,2016 hearing. Update and Revisions by the Applicant 3 01/31/2017 The Adams Rib Planned Unit Development(PUD),proposed to be named Frost Creek and Salt Creek PUD, currently allows for 97 dwelling units (not including the Salt Creek portion of the ranch), 25 accessory dwelling units, and 5 cabins which is equivalent to 127 units. In December,the proposal before the Board of County Commissioners would have allowed 142 dwelling units, with 15 accessory dwelling units, and 20 cabins (including the 5 already constructed next to the clubhouse)which is equivalent to 177 units or 45 new dwelling units. The Update and Revisions submitted on January 13, 2017, included a reduction in the requested density as discussed in December 2016. The new proposal is to allow for 137 dwelling units,removing the 25 accessory dwelling units currently allowed in the PUD,and reducing the number of requested guest cabins down to 8 cabins which means a total of 13 guest cabins with the 5 cabins already constructed.This would mean a total of 150 units or 23 new dwelling units which is an 18%increase in overall density. In summary,the proposed density in the Squires Lane area is being eliminated,the number of proposed cabins is being reduced from 20 to 13 and accessory dwelling units are being eliminated completely. With this reduction in density,the Affordable Housing Guidelines obligation created by the amendment is reduced to 10 local resident housing units which is 25%of the proposed new dwelling units. The previous proposal was for 12 local resident housing units. The Housing Department has reviewed this new calculation and agrees with the amount of affordable units being proposed. Brush Creek Road The Applicant is proposing the following improvements to Brush Creek Road: 1. Roadway Striping: The roadway today contains only a center stripe dividing the two lanes. One of the safety related concerns on this roadway is the lack of lane edge striping on both sides of the roadway. The lack of the side stripe is most notable at night when it becomes very difficult to see the edge of the roadway on this largely unlighted roadway. The Applicant proposes to complete or fund the initial striping of the lane edge in both directions from Sylvan Lane Road to the second entrance into Frost Creek. This is about 13.5 miles of striping. We believe this alone will have a significant impact on roadway safety and also act to reduce the speeds of vehicles on the roadway by making the roadway appear or feel more narrow. Narrowing lane widths has proven to reduce vehicle speed. It's been documented that the level of speed, nearly 10 mph beyond the posted speed limit,is high on this roadway. 2. Vehicular Pullouts: One of the safety complaints of this roadway is the inability for a slow moving vehicle to move off of the road safely to allow others to pass. You see these types of pullouts throughout the State and especially in areas where there are vehicles pulling trailers on their way to a State Park or Federal Lands(campers). The Applicant is proposing to construct two pullout areas (one in each direction) within 3 years of obtaining PUD approval. The pullout areas would be located approximately 1,000' east of Hardscrabble property on land owned by the Applicant. The pullouts are generally 350' in length each per AASHTO requirements. The pullout areas would be paved to County standards(8"base and 4" asphalt). The Applicant would dedicate the right-of-way for these pull-outs immediately as there is currently no right-of-way along this portion of Brush Creek Road. 3. Advance Warning Signs: It's notable along this roadway the lack of signs warning motorists of the presence of bicyclists or sharp curves. The Applicant is proposing$6,000 towards the purchase and installation of approximately 6 advance warning signs. II. Staff Analysis of Revised Proposal Revised Traffic Study: Following the hearing on December 13, 2016, staff and the Applicant held a series of meetings and discussions, focused on reaching an agreement on the assumptions and methodology for the project's traffic study. Along with 4 01/31/2017 the project updates, a revised Traffic Impact Study was also received based on the agreed upon methodology. At the time of the writing of this staff report update,discussions continue between staff and the Applicant regarding the findings of the revised study to ensure we have a full understanding. The revised study did not re-analyze the results of the original study with respect to the impact to intersections within the Town of Eagle but focused on the impacts to Brush Creek Road. As described in the December hearing, a number of the intersections within the Town will deteriorate as growth proceeds over the next 20 years to the point at which improvements will be necessary. It is staff's goal to highlight that both the Town and the County should consider and plan for these improvements especially when considering developments which will add traffic to the roadway system within the Town of Eagle. With the revised traffic study,we are gaining a better picture of the impacts to Brush Creek Road. One aspect which remains unchanged is that the Level of Service for Brush Creek Road will not deteriorate below a level of B by the year 2035. Also of note is that the trip generation from this project remains almost unchanged despite the reduction in density due to the changes in the methodology. The trip generation in the original analysis was 243 vehicles per day,and in the revised study,the trip generation is 234 vehicles per day(a difference of 9 vehicles). The ongoing discussion is focused on gaining a complete understanding of the actual impact to Brush Creek Road from this development. Adequacy of Brush Creek Road: Also unchanged from the information presented in the December hearing is the staff finding that Brush Creek Road does not meet the standards to be deemed adequate for either the current traffic or the anticipated traffic in the future. The concern regarding Brush Creek Road arises from the existing condition and the current traffic load. The roadway as exists does not meet the applicable standards for a Rural Major Collector which is the classification of Brush Creek Road as defined by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Looking at the forecasted traffic in 20 years,the traffic on Brush Creek is anticipated to exceed all roadway standards as defined in the Land Use Regulations. In the letter provided with the Update and Revisions,the Applicant proposed three(3)improvements to Brush Creek Road as previously described. It is staff's opinion that the proposed improvements do not adequately address the concerns related to the adequacy of the roadway; however the proposed items may be an improvement over the existing condition. The items proposed appear to respond to some of the key concerns expressed during review of this application by staff as well as by the public. The proposal to add edge lines along Brush Creek Road from the intersection with Sylvan Lake Road to the second entrance to Frost Creek was originally suggested by the Applicant in hearings as a method to provide traffic calming in response to concerns raised about speeding. This is a generally accepted method for trying to reduce speeds although it is unclear how much of a reduction this would accomplish. The Applicant also suggests that the edge lines will help to identify the edge of the roadway especially at night, and one could infer that this would help to prevent accidents caused by people driving off the roadway. Staff has the following concerns with this proposal. The first is that any roadway striping requires ongoing maintenance. The current maintenance schedule by the County requires re-striping once or twice per year. As proposed,the cost of maintenance would fall to the County after the initial striping. The striping proposal would also narrow the already narrow travel lanes. If adding edge lines,one goal would be to maintain the appearance of a consistent lane width. Due to the varying width of the roadway and without an effort to add width,this would mean bringing the striping in a short distance from the edge of the asphalt thus narrowing the lanes. This would have the effect of either pushing vehicles closer to the center of the roadway and oncoming traffic or traffic would travel on the lines negating the benefit and increasing maintenance. Finally, it is not certain that this would significantly improve the visibility of the edge of the roadway. While one might expect increased visibility,that would not be the case if the lines are obscured by debris or snow. Various people have stated that vehicles running off the road is an issue especially in the winter due to the lack of shoulders and the edge of the road being obscured by snow. White edge lines would do little to rectify this concern. 5 01/31/2017 The second proposal is to add two (2)vehicular pullouts on Brush Creek Road to provide room for slow-moving vehicles to pullover allowing traffic to pass. The pullouts are proposed to be on both sides of Brush Creek Road at a location about 2-miles from town. The Applicant owns the property on both sides of the road in this location and is committing to dedicate the right-of-way necessary for the pullouts. The pullouts will be designed and constructed to meet the applicable County and national standards. The main benefit of the vehicular pullouts is to provide space for slower vehicles such as recreational vehicles or vehicles pulling trailers to pull over allowing for following traffic to continue along the roadway unimpeded. While adding width to the roadway at the location of the pullouts,this proposal does not address the concerns raised about the narrowness of Brush Creek Road. It is also not clear that this is a beneficial location for this improvement. Vehicle pullouts are generally recommended on roads with a significant number of trucks or recreational vehicles and with difficult, steep terrain. This area of Brush Creek Road does not exhibit steep grades, and slow-moving vehicles have not been discussed as a significant concern. Considering the cyclists known to use Brush Creek Road,vehicular pullouts could also create additional car/cyclists conflicts in those locations. The final roadway enhancement proposed by the Applicant is to contribute$6,000 towards the purchase and installation of additional signage along Brush Creek Road. The proposal cites a lack of signage along the roadway for advance warning of cyclists or sharp curves. Installation of advanced warning can be beneficial for roadway users and further review is necessary to determine if additional signage is warranted along Brush Creek Road. When considering installation of signage along a roadway, it is important to consider the existing signage and review that proposed locations meet warrants for installation of a new signage. Installing excess signs or signs in locations where it is not warranted reduces the efficacy of the signage along a roadway. At this time, a review has not been completed to determine if additional signage is warranted. Conclusion: As discussed in the hearing on December 13th,nearly all of the standards for a PUD Amendment are satisfied with this proposal except for the standards relating to the adequacy of infrastructure because of concerns regarding the adequacy of Brush Creek Road. Largely due to the existing condition of Brush Creek Road not meeting standards staff recommended denial of this application. Staff determined that Brush Creek Road does not meet the applicable standards for the current traffic load, and the traffic is expected to more than double as Frost Creek continues to build out under the current approval and as background traffic increases. With that in mind, staff was not able to recommend approval of this application which will add additional traffic to the roadway. In the interim following the December hearing, staff and the Applicant continued to discuss the project and the traffic study to reach an agreement about the project's impact. Following those discussions,the update to the plan proposed measures intended to decrease the impact from the application through reducing the requested units and by providing improvements to Brush Creek Road. While the update does decrease the scope of the request,this proposal will still increase the traffic generated by Frost Creek beyond what can be expected under the current approval. From the revised traffic study provided by the Applicant,the anticipated traffic is an additional 234 vehicle trips per day, and the total traffic load on Brush Creek Road in 20 years was calculated to be about 4,000 trips per day(current traffic is about 1,300 trips per day). The Applicant also proposed three improvements to address some of the concerns raised about Brush Creek Road. Those improvements are edge line striping,vehicular pullouts, and additional signage. If properly implemented, the improvements could improve the existing condition of the roadway; however,the roadway would remain substandard according to the County Regulations and national standards. DISCUSSION: Ms.Valdez summarized the revised request. The applicant was requesting an additional 40 single family residential lots, 8 quest cabins, a reduction in lot sizes on Red Bluffs Way from 3-acres to 0.75 acres, and reduced lot sizes on Hunters Way from 3-acres to .40 acres. Staff supported the smaller home sizes and the increased safety measures incorporating the comments of the Great Eagle Fire Protection District. 6 01/31/2017 Mr.Narracci spoke about the 1041 Permit. At the end of the last meeting in December there were two issues out of 32 standards. The first was that the State Water Engineer could not confirm that the water to be served by the Town of Eagle would not injure the water rights of others. Since that time the applicant had succeeded in getting a letter from the State Engineer indicating that water rights would not be damaged. The remaining item was the state of Brush Creek Road. Garett Simon spoke about the time spent on the application and explained that they were trying to mirror what was happing in resort community demographics. They worked hard on bridging the gap between staff's concerns and the concerns expressed by the Board. Dominic Mauriello stated that the applicant had made significant changes and worked closely with staff on the traffic study. They reduced cabins and eliminated all the density on Squires Lane. The applicant offered a reasonable amount of improvements to the road for all users which included 13 miles of striping that would result in slower speeds,pullout areas to prevent unsafe passing, and$6000 for safety signage. If the PUD were approved, a bike path easement would go into place.The applicant would give$125,000 to the Town of Eagle for future construction of the bike path. Other benefits included a 40-acre open space parcel. The applicant proposed a real estate transfer fee with the money going towards wildlife habitat. The applicant was proposing 12 local residents dwelling units or credits to be purchased. The applicant put in stringent wildfire and fire safety measures. There was a new traffic impact fee proposed. There was a water plant investment fee proposed to the town as part of the water agreement; $613,000 would go to the Town of Eagle in order to develop a water plant, 60%paid upfront upon approval of the PUD. The only issue at this point was Brush Creek Road. The applicant believed that the level of road improvements that they were proposing along with the traffic impact fees was in balance with what they were proposing Ty Ryan, Eagle County Engineer, discussed staff's review of the proposed improvements. The edge line striping would be about a four inch white line delineating edge of road for Sylvan Lake Road. The striping would narrow the travel lanes and could be obscured by debris or snow. It was not clear how much the speed would be reduced. The vehicular pullouts located about two miles from the town would allow for slow moving vehicles to pull over and provide additional right of way for construction. The improvement would not address overall concerns and were typically used in areas with steep terrain. The warning signs would warn of possible hazards but may be ignored if there were too many signs.An analysis would be useful. He spoke about the traffic study and the trip generation. The daily trip generation was originally calculated at 243 vehicle trips.The impacts to the town would be minimal. Many intersections would deteriorate and require improvements. Growth was anticipated at 3%per year. Traffic by 2035 could be as over 4,200 trips per day. Staff believed that Brush Creek Road could not accommodate the additional traffic. Traffic impacts to the Town of Eagle had not been reconciled.The future improvements still need to be addressed. Ms.Valdez reviewed the PUD amendment standards and preliminary plan standards. Staff believed the project was compatible with surrounding uses. Common open space was satisfactory. The applicant complied with landscaping, signage, off street parking and loading. She presented the boards options. Commissioner Chandler-Henry clarified that any amendment had to comply with the original PUD guidelines. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the trail maintenance. Mr.Mauriello stated that the applicant would maintain the trial and the language was build into the PUD guide. Commissioner McQueeney asked for an explanation of the affordable housing calculation. Mr.Mauriello stated that under the current regulations the residential use of the property generated the higher requirement. Tori Frank with the Eagle County Housing Department explained that if the guest cabins were converted to residential units the applicant would owe an additional two affordable housing units. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked the applicant to explain the guiding principal behind the proposal. Mr. Simon stated that a significant portion of Frost Creek users were non-residential members which had driven the demand for the cabin component. From a financial standpoint,they needed a variety of product to be successful and needed to offer a wider array of opportunities to a greater number of people. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the total increased density and wondered how people would live in the Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs). Mr.Mauriello explained the concept behind the(ADUs). Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked when the affordable housing when would be built. Mr. Simon stated that they would comply with the affordable housing guidelines. 7 01/31/2017 Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered if the clubhouse traffic was included in the traffic numbers. Mr.Ryan stated that the numbers did include clubhouse trips. Kari Schroeder stated that their numbers were based on weekday traffic. They figured in 40 single family homes at a weekday rate of 9.52,which equaled 381. They removed 25 ADUs,which subtracted 147 trips per day and then added 8 rental cabins at the rate of 5.86 trips per day, adding 47, equaled a total of 281. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if the water service agreement with the Town of Eagle was executed. Mr.Mauriello confirmed that the agreement was fully executed.The agreement was contingent upon the PUD being approved. Mr. Garrett stated that if the application was not approved then the agreement would expire. Chairman Pro-Chandler-Henry opened public comment. Jeff Brausch,Frost Creek member and regular user of Brush Creek Road, expressed support for the proposal and supported the road improvements. Aubrey Carson spoke. Her main concern was the condition of Brush Creek Road. There were safety issues with the road and the community would be losing safety. Frank Trevor spoke. He used the road frequently. He supported the road improvements. Frost Creek members don't drive up and down the road,rather they stay for a few days. He supported the proposal. Chris Adams expressed concerns for the road and traffic. The road was not safe. He showed pictures of the road in its current state. He wondered if the 400 club members were included in the total numbers. Just recently there were cars run off the road. He showed measurements of the road and the emergency vehicles. The roads were to narrow and the cost to improve the road would be in the millions. He asked the board to deny the request. Shirley Zupancic spoke. She lived on Brush Creek and believed there was no way to make the road safe for more traffic. The proposed improvements were a waste of time and money. She wasn't necessarily opposed to the Frost Creek PUD amendment but was concerned with the traffic on Brush Creek in the event of emergencies. Mick Daly spoke. He believed that Frost Creek wasn't what Adam's Rib was for the elite. He believed that the success of Frost Creek was for everyone. The smaller lots and smaller homes meant increased diversity. He supported the PUD amendment and the construction of homes, and asked the board to approve the request. John Shipp spoke. He supported the changes at Frost Creek and believed it was a positive change. As a resident,population growth was inevitable. The future and proper growth of Eagle and Eagle County relied on good development and people like Frost Creek. Kent Meyers spoke. He endorsed the fact that road striping worked and had made positive improvements to the roads in Cordillera. James Gilbert,Moser Lane resident spoke. He believed Brush Creek Road was a problem. Amy Cassidy spoke. She rides her road bike on Brush Creek Road. She believed that some of the safety issues were exaggerated. The changes being proposed by the applicant would make the road safer for everyone. She encouraged the board to approve the proposal and encouraged that more cabins be added back in. Michael Bradshaw spoke. He had no financial interest in Frost Creek but supported environmental friendly housing. He believed there was poor planning on the county roads. He believed the road was already unsafe; any temporary improvement would be helpful. The review of this application only exposed an underlining problem that Eagle County was not owning up to their responsibilities. Rick Beverage spoke. He supported the applicant's proposal. This was a good opportunity to acquire an easement for a bike path. He believed the change in the PUD would have minimal impact. The summer traffic was due to tourism. He believed that safe public roads were the responsibility of the town and county. He supported the success of Frost Creek. Kim Bradly,member of Frost Creek and local realtor spoke. She represented two developments now. Their active inventory now was at an all-time low. She supported the proposal. Brett Donaldson with Cycle Affect spoke. He supported the road improvements. Jeff Lutz spoke. He was pro development but Brush Creek Road was dangerous and had always been substandard. Rosie Shearwood spoke. She believed that Frost Creek was doing well. The road was the main issue. She expected that logging would be gearing up in the next few years. She appreciated the efforts on Frost Creek's part but safety should be considered. 8 01/31/2017 Scott Turnipseed spoke about the water agreement. The proposal had a lot of great financial implications to the town.The Town of Eagle could see$350,000 in upfront water tap fees. The bike path was a huge benefit. Joette Gilbert spoke. The road did not meet adequate traffic safety. The safety of the residents and guests of Eagle County should be the board's primary goal. Jack Cornell,Moser Lane resident spoke. He suggested that shoulders be added to Brush Creek Road rather than building a bike path. Scott Turnipseed also spoke about the benefits of the 0.2 real estate transfer fee. Chairman Pro-Chandler-Henry closed public input. Randy Cohen, Greater Eagle Fire Marshal spoke. Up to this point they had not had any issues with the road. There was potential and risk but it was difficult to say at this point. Doug Cupp, Greater Eagle Fire Chief stated that the Fire Marshal had worked closely with the developer. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked how the PUD amendment may or may not affect the level of service. Kari Schroeder stated that Brush Creek Road was a level of service"A". In 2035 the level of service could be at a level of service`B". Level of service was determined based on lane width, shoulder width,number of access points and travel speeds. The capacity of Brush Creek Road was in the range of 7200-7500 trips per day. Mr. Ryan believed the road may be acceptable in 2035 but the infrastructure was in adequate. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about buildout and phasing. Mr. Simon stated that build out at Frost Creek was unknown but their goal was to accelerate the growth.He believed buildout was going to be years down the road. Commissioner McQueeney when the bike path would be built. Mr. Simon stated that the bike path easement would be granted with the final approval of the PUD.The road improvements and dedication of the right of way would be immediate and the pull outs would be constructed within three years. The Town of Eagle was constructing the bike path.Mr. Simon reiterated that their analysis of traffic was conservative. It assumed that every home built at Frost Creek was a full time resident. Frost Creek provided a lot of services in house. As businesses owners and homeowners,they understood the concerns of the neighbors on Brush Creek. Mr. Ryan stated that staff's concern remained with Brush Creek Road. Ray Merry,Eagle County Environmental Health Director spoke about the 1041 permit. The water service agreement and water plan were intact. It was important to take action on the 1041 permit first. There was also a extensive water monitoring mitigation plan that existed at Frost Creek. Commissioner McQueeney stated that the public comments were important but the board had to weigh their decision on where the proposal met the standards. There were 90 units still to be built without the approval so there was still going to be significant changes to the traffic. Adding 23 more additional homes,was very incremental and so were the proposed improvements to the road. Commissioner Chandler-Henry liked the environmental protection efforts. Brush Creek was a compromised road and the incremental growth probably won't affect it very much and there may be a slight improvement from the proposed improvements. Commissioner McQueeney reminded everyone that the county would end up with 10 units of affordable housing whether on or off the property. The only way to chip away at the road improvement would be to collect road improvement fees. Mr.Merry stated that there was a provision in the Land Use Regulations that addressed the need for a Special Use Permit in the event there was not a 1040. As a matter of routine nature,the applicant requested a waiver of the Special Use Permit. Ms. Valdez stated that there were 10 conditions of approval. The 1041 had the standard condition. Ms. Oliver stated that the resolution would be on the agenda in a couple weeks. At that time the conditions could be reviewed if there any questions. Commissioner McQueeney moved that the Eagle County Permit Authority approve File No. 1041-5943, waiving the requirement for Special Use Review Permit in accordance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations 3- 310 (I.), and incorporating the following condition: 1. That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this permit application, correspondence, and at all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval,unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 9 01/31/2017 Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve File No.PDA-5941, incorporating staff's findings and staff's conditions,because the applicant, as conditioned,meets all of the standards for approval of an amendment to a planned unit development. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. 10. 1041-5943 Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development 1041 Permit Bob Narracci,Planning BCP-ARR,LLC,Applicant Dominic Mauriello,Representative Note: Tabled from July 26,August 2,August 23,October 16,and December 13,2016 Action: This 1041 Permit, in support of the companion PUD Amendment application, proposes to amend the water service agreements with the town to shift more water taps from the Upper and Lower Ranch properties to the Frost Creek property. If the town approves this shift of water taps,then the total EQR remaining on the Upper and Lower Ranch property will be 64 EQR. Location: Brush Creek Road, Eagle area FILE NO.: 1041-5943 TITLE: Frost Creek Planned Unit Development 1041 Permit LOCATION: Seven(7)miles southeast of the Town of Eagle on Brush Creek Road APPLICANT: BCP-ARR,LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group STAFF CONTACT: Bob Narracci,Community Development Director Ray Merry,Director of Environmental Health REQUEST: 1041 Permit to allow RECOMMENDATION: Denial 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing Adam's Rib Frost Creek& Salt Creek Planned Unit Development and 1041 approvals allow 98 single- family residences, 26 accessory dwelling units, 5 guest cabins including a golf course,clubhouse and ancillary support facilities. On the Salt Creek portion of the property, equestrian facilities and one single family residence are presently approved. Through the companion Planned Unit Development Amendment application(PDA-5941)the applicant is seeking approval to add 45 additional single-family residential lots to the 98 already allowed. The proposal also includes increasing the number of allowable guest cabins by 15 cabins,thereby bringing the total from five that are presently allowed and existing,to a total of 20. The applicant is proposing restrictions on maximum residence size throughout the PUD; and most restrictive on the 45 newly proposed lots. The proposed 15 new guest cabins are to be 2,500 square feet each. The existing, approved guest cabins are limited to 1,000 square feet each per the existing PUD. Wastewater is provided through on-site wastewater treatment systems(OWTS)designed to accomplish nitrogen removal with the responsibility of installation,monitoring repair or replacement bestowed upon the HOA,as specified in the PUD Guide for residential uses with a state-approved central wastewater treatment system serving 10 01/31/2017 the clubhouse and existing guest cabins. No changes are proposed to the current program involving wastewater treatment systems except for the technology being used to accomplish nitrogen removal. Water service to the Frost Creek and Salt Creek property is provided by the Town of Eagle. The Town is to also provide water service to additional property in the Brush Creek Valley owned by the applicant, and commonly known as the Adam's Rib Upper and Lower Ranch properties. There are two separate agreements with the Town, one for the Upper and Lower Ranch property and another for the Frost Creek/Salt Creek properties. In 2004, when the PUD was amended to shift residential density from Salt Creek to Frost Creek to accommodate increases to the overall allowable density on the Frost Creek property,the owner of the subject property at the time(Kummer Development)and the Town amended the current agreements. The result of the water service agreements in 2004 was that the Frost Creek property, excluding Salt Creek,was entitled to 121 EQR(Equivalent Residential Units)to be utilized on 97 single family residential lots(97 EQR), 5 guest cabins(4 EQR), and 25 accessory dwelling units(20 EQR). The Upper and Lower Ranch properties, including Salt Creek,will consist of a total of 114 EQR served by the Town. The agreement contains a provision that the Upper and Lower Ranch properties can be annexed into the Town and developed at that density. Through this proposed 1041 Permit, in support of the companion PUD Amendment application,the Applicant proposes to amend the water service agreements with the Town to shift more water taps from the Upper and Lower Ranch properties to the Frost Creek property. If the Town approves this shift of water taps,then the total EQR remaining on the Upper and Lower Ranch property will be 64 EQR. Since the water service agreement is solely between the Town and the Applicant, the agreement could be modified at any time in the future to award additional water service taps to the Upper and Lower Ranch Properties, including Salt Creek and as such, voiding an argument that no new density is being created via the companion PUD Amendment application by shifting water taps from one area in the Brush Creek Valley to another. It is important to note that when this report was originally prepared, the water service agreement between the Town and the Applicant had not been been agreed upon by either the Town or the Developer, thereby making it inappropriate and unusual to satisfy the associated 1041 Permit approval criteria. As such, this was one of the reasons Staff could not support approval of this application. A copy of the agreed upon, but not yet ratified by the Town, amended water service agreement was received by County Staff on Friday, December 2nd at approximately 12:00 p.m. Receipt of this information necessitated immediate update of the staff reports, in order to achieve the deadline for the paperless, BoCC Agenda system; which was the same day. We did not have time available to re- refer the Water Service Agreement back to the State Engineer for determination of injury to property(water)rights. The Eagle County Permit Authority may use whatever evidence it has received during the public hearing process to render approval criterion satisfied or not. As stated in Chapter 6, Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest, Section 6.04.01 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, "If a project does not comply with any one or more of the approval criteria, the permit shall be denied or approved with conditions." It is inappropriate to condition an approval criterion without sufficient supporting evidence having been received by the Permit Authority to make the approval criterion positive. 2. CHRONOLOGY 2003: The original Adam's Rib Frost Creek& Salt Creek PUD was approved, allowing a gated, 18-hole, residential golf course community with 60 single family lots and up to 30 ADU's on approximately 1,106.97 acre Frost Creek property and 21 additional single family residential lots on the 520.348 acre Salt Creek property. 2005: The Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment of the PUD Guided to: 1) Transfer of 20 out of the 21 previously approved Salt Creek Single-Family Residential Lots to the Frost Creek property; 2)Added 16 additional Single-Family Residential Lots for total of 97 Lots; 3) Encompassed an existing home and property, located at 6902 Brush Creek Road,within the PUD boundary; 4) Utilized five of the previously approved 30 Accessory Dwelling Units as 'Guest Cottages'located near the clubhouse; 5) Added one Accessory Dwelling Unit 11 01/31/2017 to the Single-Family Residential Lot on the Salt Creek property; 6) Allowed Equestrian Facilities, Shooting Club and Training Center on the Salt Creek property. 2008: Special Use Permit was approved,to memorialize the Salt Creek equestrian facilities and associated residences. December 2015: Application for this proposed 1041 Permit received by Eagle County. Applicant notified that absent the approved water service agreement it is unworkable to satisfy the 1041 Permit criteria. April 2016: Letter dated April 19,2016(attached)received from Garfield&Hecht, legal counsel for the Town of Eagle, indicating that the Water Service Agreements will not be done until the later part of May or into June,but to not hold up the land use application review and hearing process because of this. July 2016: Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the PUD Amendment application. 3. REFERRAL RESPONSES This 1041 Permit application was referred to the following departments and agencies with request for comment: • Eagle County Engineering Department • Eagle County Attorney's Office • Eagle County Planning Commission • Eagle County Sheriff's Office • Colorado State Department of Environmental Health(Air Quality and Water Quality Divisions) • Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Colorado Geological Survey • Colorado Historical Society • Colorado Division of Water Resources • Colorado River District • Colorado Water Conservation Board • United States Forest Service • Army Corps of Engineers • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Northwest Colorado Council of Governments • Roaring Fork Transportation Authority • Town of Eagle As of this writing,the following responses have been received: Engineering Department: Please reference the attached letter dated May 4,2016,which sets forth all Engineering comments regarding the entire Project proposal; both the PUD Amendment and the 1041 Permit. The Engineering focus is primarily on the PUD Amendment; however includes comments pertaining to the 1041 Permit as well; namely potential impacts upon riparian/wetland areas due to road/drive crossings. Town of Eagle: In the attached letter dated February 19, 2016,the Town set forth the following concerns: 1. The preparation of an Amended Frost Creek Water Service Contract to serve this additional density and perhaps more density in the future-the Town is currently working on drafts but has not even entered into negotiations with the Applicant at this time. Therefore,there currently is no agreement in place for potable water service for the proposed additional units; 2. Improvements required to the Town's current water system infrastructure serving the Frost Creek PUD to serve the additional density. The Town has engaged a consultant to provide an analysis of what may be required to ensure adequate pressure and water service for this increased density but has not yet received this report and,related to item 1 above, cannot finalize an amended water service agreement without it; 3. Bike path connection to the Town of Eagle; 12 01/31/2017 4. Traffic Impacts -the only access to this PUD is through the Town and on its roads. 5. The Town does not object to the commencement of public review of this application provided that no final action of approval is provided by Eagle County until the Town and the Applicant have executed a Second Amendment to the Frost Creek Water Service Agreement. Town of Eagle: In the attached letter dated April 19,2016 from Garfield&Hecht,P.C., legal counsel for the Town,prepared by Mary Elizabeth Geiger,"This office represents the Town of Eagle for water matters. As you are aware,the Town is the domestic water service provider for the Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD pursuant to various agreements with BCP-ARR's predecessors (which were then acquired by BCP-ARR). BCP-ARR approached the Town with regard to its application to the County to amend the PUD to increase density, and we have been working closely with the representatives of BCP-ARR,LLC with regard to the amendments to the Town's Water Service Agreements to provide domestic water service for the amended Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD and adjacent property. However, since the Town can only negotiate and act through the Town Board, and since we are amending and restating the existing Water Service Agreements because many provisions are no longer applicable,these negotiations will likely not be completed and new agreements signed until the later part of May or into June. Therefore,rather than hold up the land use application review process for BCP-ARR,the Town would support the County commencing its review and processing of this PUD Amendment application while these water service negotiations are ongoing, and then condition any County approval thereof upon the successful execution of an Amended and Restated Water Service Agreement to serve the amended Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD". Town of Eagle: In the attached letter dated December 1,2016 from Garfield&Hecht,P.C., legal counsel for the Town,prepared by Mary Elizabeth Geiger,"This office represents the Town of Eagle for water matters. As you are aware,the Town is the domestic water service provider for the Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD pursuant to various agreements with BCP-ARR's predecessors (which were then acquired by BCP-ARR). It is my understanding that the above applications will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners("BOCC") on December 13, 2016. BCP-ARR and the Town have been working together for nearly a year to amend the existing Water Service Agreement by which the Town provides domestic water service to the Frost Creek/Salt Creek PUD in order to allow for the Town to provide service to the proposed amended PUD. The Town and BCP-ARR have reached an agreement which has been fully executed and will be ratified by the Town at its meeting on December 13, 2016 (the Board of Trustees had previously authorized the Mayor to execute this agreement on behalf of the Town). A copy of this agreement is attached hereto for your review." Eagle River Watershed Council: The following comments have been provided for consideration during the review process: "Generally,the Watershed Council staff found no concerns with the application. The Applicant references the existing water quality monitoring network and sampling and analysis plan implemented annually in the PUD in coordination with Eagle County. The Watershed Council appreciates the Applicant's continued commitment to assessing the impact of development activities on local surface and groundwater quality. Nonetheless,the County should work with the Applicant to revisit specific details of the water quality monitoring program to ensure that the sampling locations,parameter lists, and sampling frequency are sufficient and likely to capture any water quality changes associated with the amended development plan. Eagle River Watershed Council is available to work with County staff and the Applicant in this regard. While limited development at this location has not previously indicated significant impact to downstream water quality,the Watershed Council suggest that ongoing development and redevelopment activities adjacent to streams and rivers throughout the County can contribute to the incremental degradation of downstream water quality. Therefore,the Watershed Council believes that the Frost/Salt Creek water quality monitoring program represents an important model for future PUD approval processes. Such monitoring programs can greatly assist the County in understanding how certain patterns of development may assist or obstruct meeting environmental stewardship goals. 13 01/31/2017 As water conservation is a growing concern,Eagle River Watershed Council also sees an opportunity for the County to work with the Applicant to incorporate conservation measures into the plan. This would support Eagle County's objective to `protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity'. Eagle River Watershed Council appreciates the opportunity to provide Eagle County with comments on this proposal and hopes to remain involved in the process to ensure that proposed activities do not negatively impact the character, condition, or function of local waterways." Colorado Division of Water Resources: In the attached letter dated February 19,2016,the State Engineer indicated that, "Water use estimates were not provided. A water service agreement was made between the developer(Kummer Development), and the Town in 2002 for the Brush Creek properties also referred to as Salt Creek,Upper Ranch and Lower Ranch and Ridgeway properties. A second water service agreement was made in 2004 for the Frost Creek property and the agreements were amended in 2004 to transfer 21 EQR's from the Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek. The 2004 agreements currently allow for 121 EQR's in the Frost Creek development which translates to 97 single family dwellings, 5 guest cabins and 25 ADU's,based on 1 EQR per single family dwelling an 0.8 EQR per both a guest cabin and an ADU. The applicant indicated that they are pursuing an amendment to the agreements with the Town to reduce the number of EQR's for the Brush Creek properties from 114 to 55 and transfer the 59 EQR's to Frost Creek to allow for the increase in single family dwellings and guest cabins. As of the date of this referral,it does not appear that the amended agreements have been signed. Furthermore,pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included. See the Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports(online at http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/memo subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary information. In addition, since this proposal also depends on the transfer of EQR's from Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek,the report should also include the number of lots(if any)that are currently being served in the Brush Creek properties as well as any future commitments for platted lots within these properties. Since insufficient information was provided,we cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II). If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for assistance". Colorado Parks and Wildlife: In the attached letter dated February 16, 2016,offered the following comments: "The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife(CPW)appreciate the opportunity to review and provide recommendations and comments on this proposal. The proposal requests an increase in density of homes from 98 to 142, a 44%increase and guest cabins from 5 to 20, a 300%increase. This increase in numbers of units will have a direct, on ground impact with increased disturbance to wildlife habitat. More impactful disturbances to wildlife will occur with the associated increase in human habitation and activity on the PUD and adjacent federal lands with the increase in homes and cabins being proposed,the indirect impacts. The application offers few management or mitigation strategies to offset or minimize disturbance to wildlife or wildlife habitat from either the direct or indirect influences. This proposal is designated to occur partially within and adjacent to deer and elk winter range. The area also encompasses wetlands and riparian area habitat types. This habitat type supports a greater diversity and number of wildlife species than any other habitat type found in Colorado. Both deer and elk use the native hillsides adjacent to the area designated for increased density. Hillsides and low bench areas adjacent to the proposal are recommended to be left in a native vegetative state. The deer and elk use the hillside for feeding,resting and thermal cover. These hillsides also are areas that produce large mast crops, berries and acorns that black bears will use and seek out. 14 01/31/2017 The protection and enhancement of the existing riparian/wetland areas will provide for a diversity of wildlife species including birds, small mammals,reptiles and amphibians. The existing fishery would also benefit from this type of management. The creation of more designated open space in and around this habitat type may or may not be beneficial to wildlife. This will depend on how the open space is managed and what uses are or are not allowed. Open space that receives high human use has a relatively low value to wildlife. Current PUD guidelines, setbacks from riparian and wetland areas,and designations by other regulatory agencies already protect this habitat, so the mitigation of more open space in and along riparian and wetlands areas that is being offered already probably exists. The Project does not appear to completely meet the intent of Eagle County's Comprehensive Plan: 3.73. Development Impacts Policies: a. Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that impacts to wildlife from development and human activity cannot always be fully mitigated. Existing critical wildlife habitats in Eagle County should be identified and preserved, and residential,commercial and recreational development that removes critical habitat,or diminished the use by wildlife of these habitats, should not be allowed. While the direct impacts from this proposed density increase are fairly limited the indirect impacts are substantially increased. The proposal fails to offer mitigation strategies to address these impacts. Strategies that would help offset the increase in human activity and loss of habitat in the area include: Seasonal use restriction in and around sensitive habitats need to be implemented. The use of important seasonal habitats by humans can create a negative impact to wildlife. Areas that require seasonal closures to human activity include wither range,migration corridors,production areas,nesting areas or other critical habitats. Regulating or restricting access to the adjacent federal lands becomes paramount during critical time periods,winter. Active signage and enforcement of these closures is critical and must be assumed by the HOA. • Winter range closures should be closed to human activity from December 1 until April 30th. • Riparian and wetland areas should be closed to human activity from March 1 to July 1 for the breeding, nesting, and rearing of the wildlife species associated with this habitat. In addition,new management of the PUD has an opportunity to implement a mitigation strategy that will provide for enhancement projects in perpetuity. A Wildlife Mitigation Fund could be established and managed on a cooperative basis by the developers,the HOA, interested homeowners and the CPW. This fund would then be managed,with money staying under the developer's control and being stipulated specifically for wildlife projects. These projects could be diverse including projects for improving upland habitat,riparian and wetlands, or the fishery. Current models exist with Eagle Ranch being the prototype that has generated over$1 million dollars and has reinvested this money into wildlife projects and enhancement for the PUD. Originally, mitigation monies around$13,000 were paid for the treatment of adjacent habitat on federal lands for mitigation for the proposed direct impacts,actual acreage impacted. This amount was determined from an accepted formula based on habitat. This money was only enough for a single treatment. The impacts from the original PUD and this project will continue into perpetuity. Negative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat have not been fully mitigated and a mitigation strategy has not been proposed. Eagle County's Comprehensive Plan designates that full mitigation of potential impacts be addressed. The proposal with increase in density of homes and the associated human activity will exacerbate these impacts. The potential exists for this proposal to benefit local wildlife and wildlife habitat with new management strategies. Without the creation and adoption of new strategies to offset impacts,local wildlife populations will be impacted by this proposal." 15 01/31/2017 (The applicant is proposing to implement a real estate transfer fee on the sale of lots within Frost and Salt Creek for the purpose of providing wildlife habitat improvements within the PUD, in perpetuity. At the Eagle County Planning Commission hearing, Craig Wescoatt, with CPW, testified in support of the proposed real estate transfer fee as long as it is in perpetuity and includes resales as well- i.e.: an ongoing funding stream for wildlife and wildlife habitat improvement both in the Frost Creek PUD and adjacent federal lands.) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: In the attached email dated February 3, 2016,the CDPHE notes that land development construction activities(earth moving)that are greater than 25 acres or more than six months in duration require an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice(APEN) from the Air Pollution Control Division and may be required to obtain an air permit depending on estimated emissions. In addition, a start-up notice must be submitted thirty days prior to beginning a land development project. Also,CDPHE recommends that the applicant comply with all state and federal environmental rules and regulations. This may require obtaining a permit for certain regulated activities before emitting or discharging a pollutant into the air or water, dispose of hazardous waste or engaging in certain regulated activities. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers: In the attached email dated March 14, 2016,the following was provided,"The Corps of Engineers'jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to,rivers,perennial or intermittent streams, lakes,ponds,wetlands,vernal pools,marshes,wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site,the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation, in accordance with the"Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations"on our website at the address below, and submit it to this office for verification. A list of consultants that prepare wetland delineations and permit application documents is also available on our website at the same location. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternative to filling waters of the United States,mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation". (Watershed Environmental Consultants, Inc. conducted a wetland delineation of the four development areas (Southern Parcels, Red Bluffs Way, Hunters Way, Squires Lane) in accordance with the USACE standards. All impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States have been avoided with one potential exception for a single driveway access in the Hunters Way area (between proposed Lots 42 and 43). No engineered details for this driveway access are available at this time for review. If the driveway can be accommodated without impacting wetlands, such as in the case of a span, no 404 permit is required for the project. If impacts to wetlands are anticipated, a 404 permit will be obtained prior to construction.) Eagle County Planning Commission: Following the public hearing before the Eagle County Planning Commission for the companion PUD Amendment application on July 6,2016,the Eagle County Planning Commissioners indicated that: • The proposal is inconsistent with the Master Plan; • Land use patterns in Brush Creek should not be changing, • No current or future sector of the local economy would be significantly degraded as a result of the project; • The project will have additional traffic impacts compromising access to public recreational areas accessed via Brush Creek Road. • The proposal does reflect principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling/reuse. • The proposed project's impacts would be no greater than any other similar project; however,will introduce more traffic and smaller homes will impact the local economy less. • This is leapfrog development; it's not meeting demand, it is creating it. • The Golf Course is visual open space. 16 01/31/2017 • Overall this 1041 Permit application is not ripe because there is no formalized water service agreement. • ECPC's concerns are primarily with the companion PUD Amendment proposal to increase density. 4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Chapter VI,Section 6.04.01,Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest, and as more specifically described in the application materials,the following analysis is provided. The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold font. A summary response is provided with the recommendation indicated in the findings box. A Permit to conduct a designated activity of state interest or to engage in development in a designated area of state interest shall be approved if the Project complies with the following general criteria and any additional applicable criteria in Sections 6.04.02 or 6.04.03. If the Project does not comply with any one or more of these criteria,the Permit shall be denied or approved with conditions. In determining whether the Project complies with these criteria, or if conditions should be imposed,the Permit Authority may utilize the considerations set forth in Chapter VI,Appendix `A' of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights,permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion,defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights,permits and approvals are obtained. Per the application, "All permits and approvals will be obtained by final plat for the amendment areas including the following to implement the proposed amendments." Federal Permits: • Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit as necessary for two minor ditch crossings. State Permits and Approvals: • Stormwater Discharge Permit Eagle County Permits and Approvals: • Approval of this 1041 Permit application. • Approval of the companion PUD Amendment application. • Final Plat approval. • Grading Permit(s). • Building Permit(s). Town of Eagle: • Approved, executed Water Service Agreement allotting the additional water service taps to serve the proposed additional development density. Staff concurs that the above itemized list of permits and approvals are required prior to site disturbance. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others. Per the application: "The project will not impair the property rights held by others as all property being amended is within the control of the owners or the Homeowner's Association. The replatting is occurring within current platted lots held in the same ownership. The proposed changes have no 17 01/31/2017 impact upon the water rights held by the applicant. All new units will be served by the Town of Eagle for water,which taps or EQR are already held by the applicant. The Water Service Agreement includes copies of all water rights and agreements for water service. Any ditches that convey water to other parties are not being altered by the proposal." The Town and the Developer have come to agreement regarding the Water Service Agreement. This Agreement is scheduled to be formalized(ratified) by the Town on December 13, 2016. However,per the State Engineer's original referral response, the Town of Eagle has not filed a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights; therefore it is not feasible for Staff to make a determination that the proposed development can occur without causing injury to existing property (water)rights. (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. Per the application: "A complete review of the project's compliance with applicable land use plans is provided in the PUD submittal. The project is consistent with the relevant provisions of the applicable land use and water quality plans as follows: Eagle River Watershed Plan Water Quantity Goal: Streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs in the watershed are managed and cared for in a manner that insures adequate amounts of water for domestic, agricultural, recreational and ecological needs at all times of the year. Objective 2.1: Manage water storage, water diversions and water releases within the Eagle River Watershed in a manner that sustains or enhances stream health and recreational uses. Applicant's Response-The project has adequate water rights commensurate with the amended PUD development proposed to ensure that Brush Creek is managed in a manner consistent with demands for domestic, irrigation and other needs created by the development. Municipal water is provided for through an existing agreement with the Town of Eagle; depletions to Brush Creek were contemplated as part of that agreement and legal adjudication. Objective 2.2: Minimize and/or mitigate adverse impacts to aquatic habitat and stream health from existing development and future growth. Water Quality Goal: Water in the Eagle River and its tributary streams is of the highest quality, providing excellent drinking source water and supporting healthy and self-sustaining trout populations as indicators of a healthy watershed. Land Use Goal: Land uses in Eagle County are located, designed, occupied and operated in a manner that minimizes impacts to water quality and quantity in the Eagle River and its tributary streams. Applicant's Response: The project does not propose new development within the floodplain,and the only new impact to wetlands or waters of the US includes a single driveway in the Hunters Way area. No other impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. are proposed. Wetlands monitoring was included as part of the Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan approved with the original PUD project. No new development is proposed within the existing riparian area setback,which in most cases is more restrictive than the 50-foot wetlands setback. Additionally, approximately 88%of Brush Creek riparian habitat and 75%of Frost Creek riparian habitat is within designated open space,thereby ensuring development resulting from approval of the PUD Amendment minimizes impacts to both tributary streams. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan 18 01/31/2017 3.6 Water Resources Goal: Source water in Eagle County is protected, and contributors of surface and groundwater pollution are identified and eliminated to the fullest extent possible. 3.6.2.Water Quantity Policies: a. The long-term viability of both ground and surface water sources should be protected. b. Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented. Applicant's Response-As a result of concerns regarding potential water quality impacts to surface and groundwater, a Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan for the Frost Creek PUD was developed by Wright Water Engineers. The Plan addresses water quality monitoring pre,during and post construction phases of the project. As detailed in the Environmental Impact Summary Report, approval of the PUD Amendment will continue to be subject to the periodic monitoring, and potential amendments to the Plan might include additional sampling locations to reflect the four new development areas to ensure that water resources remain protected. 2012 Regional Water Quality Management Plan(the 208 Plan) Policy 1: Protect and Enhance Water Quality. The surface and groundwaters of the region shall be protected to minimize degradation of existing water quality and maintain existing and designated uses of those waters; waters not currently supporting designated uses shall be restored as soon as possible. Policy 2: Water Use and Development. The project developer shall mitigate the impacts to water quality and the aquatic environment caused by water supply projects. Policy 3: Land Use and Disturbance. Water quality, including wetlands,floodplains, shorelines and riparian areas must be protected from impacts of land use and development so that significant degradation of water quality is prevented. Policy 4: Domestic, Municipal and Industrial Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Decisions to locate water supplies, wastewater treatment systems and other water and wastewater facilities shall be made in a manner that protects water quality and the aquatic environment. Where growth and development requires the need for additional facilities capacity, existing facilities should be expanded instead of developing new facilities, unless expansion is not feasible because of technical, legal or political reasons. Applicant's Response-As outlined herein,the project will continue to protect water quality of Brush Creek through the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan and implementation of water quality best management practices to ensure that existing designated uses are not affected. Wetlands and floodplains have been identified and will be delineated in the field with fencing prior to any construction in order to protect these areas from development impacts so that significant degradation of water quality is prevented. Water supply is already provided for by the Town of Eagle so that no duplication of services will be required. On-site wastewater treatment systems will be located and designed to County permitting standards to ensure that the highest level of treatment is required for any additional development resulting from this proposal." Staff concurs that the project addresses a preponderance of master plan goals,policies, objectives and implementing strategies, while adhering to Future Land Use Map designations and prescribed uses. Staff also concurs with the 208 Plan analysis. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. 19 01/31/2017 Per the application: "The Town of Eagle has the financial capability to operate the water system and the consultants hired to manage the OWTS onsite are qualified to operate and maintain these systems. The consultants overseeing the operation and maintenance of the OWTS are licensed engineers and who carry the proper certifications to manage these facilities. The HOA funds the oversight and activities of the OWTS facilities gaining these funds through charges to homeowners up-front during construction and annually in the form of dues to ensure continuous inspection and maintenance. Changes in management and oversight may occur from time to time but the qualifications of the consultants will remain those that are licensed engineers who hold proper certifications. OWTS systems are designed with the oversight of the HOA's consultant all the way through final inspection. The homeowner pays for the design and installation and the HOA is responsible for long term operation and maintenance. All new common infrastructure such as roadway extensions and water mains will be funded entirely by the developer." Inasmuch as the applicant comments on the Town of Eagle's financial capabilities, staff concurs that the applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. Per the application: "There is additional capacity in the Town's water system and therefore the project is technically and financially feasible. An amended water service agreement has been submitted with this application. Each OWTS is being funded by the homeowner and maintained by the HOA with funding through fees and dues." A copy of the agreed upon, but not yet ratified by the Town, amended water service agreement was received by County Staff on Friday, December 2nd at approximately 12:00 p.m. Receipt of this information necessitated immediate update of the staff reports, in order to achieve the deadline for the paperless, BoCC Agenda system; which was the same day. We did not have time available to re-refer the Water Service Agreement back to the State Engineer for determination of injury to property (water) rights. The Colorado Division of Water Resources initial referral response states that, "We have reviewed the above referenced proposed amendment to the Frost Creek (formerly known as Adam's Rib) and Salt Creek PUD to develop a total of 142 single family dwellings, 26 accessory dwelling units(ADU), and 20 guest cabins.With this proposed amendment, in Frost Creek,the number of single family dwellings will increase from 97 to 141 and the number of guest cabins will increase from 5 to 20. There appears to be no changes to the number of ADUs in Frost Creek and to the number of structures for Salt Creek(1 single family dwelling and 1 ADU).The water supply is to be provided through the Town of Eagle(Town)and sewage disposal is to be through individual systems. Water use estimates were not provided. A water service agreement was made between the developer(Kummer Development), and the Town in 2002 for the Brush Creek properties also referred to as Salt Creek, Upper Ranch and Lower Ranch and Ridgeway properties. A second water service agreement was made in 2004 for the Frost Creek property and the agreements were amended in 2004 to transfer 21 EQRs from the Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek. The 2004 agreements currently allow for 121 EQRs in the Frost Creek development which translates to 97 single family dwellings, 5 guest cabins and 25 ADUs,based on 1 EQR per single family dwelling and 0.8 EQR per both a guest cabin and an ADU.The applicant indicated that they are pursuing an amendment to the agreements with the Town to reduce the number of EQRs for the Brush Creek properties from 114 to 55 and transfer the 59 EQRs to Frost Creek to allow for the increase in single family dwellings and guest cabins. As of the date of this referral, it does not appear that the amended agreements have been signed. Furthermore,pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi- municipality is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer 20 01/31/2017 documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included. See the Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports(online at http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/memo_subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary information. In addition, since this proposal also depends on the transfer of EQRs from Brush Creek properties to Frost Creek,the report should also include the number of lots(if any)that are currently being served in the Brush Creek properties as well as any future commitments for platted lots within those properties. Since insufficient information was provided,we cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II). If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter,please contact me for assistance". The Town and the Developer have reached agreement on the provisions of the Water Service Agreement, and this Agreement is to be executed by the Town on December 13, 2016. However; per the State Engineer, the Town of Eagle has not filed a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing property (water)rights. As such, it is not feasible for Staff to make a determination that the proposed development can occur without causing injury to existing property(water)rights, in turn, the Project may also be technically infeasible. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. Per the application: "As provided in the original development application,Frost Creek is underlain by the Eagle Valley evaporite formation,which can be soluble under the correct hydrologic conditions. As the original Geologic Site Assessment prepared by HP Geotech states: `The potential sinkhole hazard on this parcel does not appear to be any greater than that present in the Town of Eagle, or most parts of Eagle County where the Eagle Valley evaporite is present. Additionally, since the OWTS are all located below grade they are generally protected from most hazards. All improvements lie outside of the 100 year floodplain and therefore are protected from a 100 year flood event'. The applicant has agreed to additional measures recommended to address fire and wildfire. New homes have square footage triggers established to make them more fire resistant. These standards are included in the PUD Guide and the Design Guidelines. Both the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and the County Wildfire Mitigation Manager have been satisfied with the proposed amendments." Staff concurs with the Applicant's assessment. The Colorado Geological Survey did not respond to the referral for this application or the companion PUD Amendment application; however, the property is not located in any geologic hazard areas as delineated within the Eagle County Geologic Hazard Maps and based on a preliminary analysis for planning purposes there are no geologic conditions that would preclude development of the proposed PUD area. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. Per the application: "The proposed increase in density is to occur within already platted lots within the subdivision. The development potential(residential square footage)of the lots has been decreased over what was previously allowed. Additional open space parcels have been created from what was previously residentially platted lands. The general pattern of development will remain unchanged but the number of structures will increase in number while decreasing in overall mass. As a result,the project will not have an adverse effect on land use patterns." Staff concurs that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The Eagle County Planning Commission indicated that the proposal is leapfrog development in that it is not meeting demand, it is creating it. 21 01/31/2017 (8) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services,or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. Per the application: "The project is within an already developed subdivision,with existing homes nearby. The project will not adversely affect the capability of local governments to provide services as the project still remains very low density. Further,the Town of Eagle and the Greater Eagle FPD are provided with significant revenues to help offset the expense of providing services. As evidenced by the traffic report provided,there is very limited new traffic generated by the amendment. All traffic generated by Frost Creek is less than 2%of the traffic on Brush Creek Road at buildout. Further,the original developer made roadway improvements an overlaid 6-miles of the roadway after major development work was completed. This extended the life of this roadway significantly and in the 10 years since,there has been little traffic from Frost Creek impacting the roadway. Additionally, each home developed is required to pay road impact fees. Impact fees offset the financial impacts to the government and the community. Additional density typically generates the need for more County services such as law enforcement,health and human services, and school impacts. Certainly there will be some impact but these services are generally offset by taxes paid by the owners. In the case of this project and given the likely composition of homeowners being second homeowners,the impact on these types of local government services will be very low and the property tax rates will be relatively high,thus resulting in an overall positive impact(i.e.paying for services not being used)" Staff concurs that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide most services. The capacity of Brush Creek Road; however, will be exceeded. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. Per the application: "There is no financial burden being placed on the residents for this project as the water facilities are already in place and no debt is being sought to fund improvements. Additionally, Plant Improvement Fees and connection charges will be collected from each lot owner. These fees are a type of impact fee that ensures the cost to the community is being offset with up front fees. The OWTS systems create no burden for the community at large and due to the state of the art technology being employed and the monitoring of ground and surface water,there is no downstream impact to the community at large. The purchasers of these lots will fund the OWTS facilities themselves through upfront payments and dues paid to the HOA. No existing or future residents of the County,outside of the project limits,will have any financial burden to serve the development." Staff concurs that the Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. Per the application: "There is no financial burden being placed on the residents of this project and no debt is being sought to fund such improvements. The changes will help to improve the local economy with additional revenues in the form of taxes and spending by owners and members." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. The Eagle County Planning Commission indicated that this criterion is debatable, without providing explanation of the debate. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. Per the application: "The PUD will have little impact on the overall recreational opportunities within the immediate area or within Eagle County. The proposed PUD Amendment is located entirely within existing platted developable lots,with no impact on existing open space and recreational tracts. There are significant,high quality recreational opportunities being provided 22 01/31/2017 onsite for owners and members including trails, open space areas,the golf course, fitness facilities, tennis courts, and a community swimming pool. Other recreational activities include fishing and paddle boarding. This PUD includes more recreational opportunities than most residential projects in the region and with the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities borne entirely by the private sector." Staff concurs that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. The Eagle County Planning Commission believes that the additional traffic impacts upon Brush Creek Road, as a result of the proposed project will indeed compromise public access to public lands accessed via Brush Creek Road. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principles of resource conservation,energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Per the application: "Best management practices will be implemented in the construction and operations of the project and will be reflected on construction plans,including but not limited to dust suppression, erosion control,runoff mitigation and protection of vegetation impacts through practices outlined in the Environmental Impact Report summary. The project uses raw water for its irrigation on the residential lots, golf course and open spaces. The use of raw water is limited by agreement with the Town as documented in the Water Service Agreement. Additionally,the design guidelines limit the amount of irrigation area on each lot to 7,500 square feet and does not allow irrigation of native areas. The project will adhere to the Town's Water Conservation Plan as required by the Water Service Agreement. The Town has a tiered rate for water usage and provides standards for low flow devices. The project does not provide a drop point for recycled materials but homeowners are provided with the opportunity to recycle like other developments in Eagle County. The commercial facilities adhere to a recycling program that insures recycled materials are appropriately eliminated from the waste stream. The project will comply with all Eagle County regulations for resource conservation, energy efficiency, and recycling or reuse." Staff concurs that the planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. Per the application: "In context of the new proposal adding 47 new dwelling units,project-related emissions are not anticipated to cause violation of ambient air quality standards or be in violation of air quality related regulations. During construction there will be minor impacts to air quality however, all home development and infrastructure installation will use dust suppression and the stormwater runoff BMP's. Project activities are not anticipated to lead to or cause visibility problems for the nearby wilderness areas and views of distant mountains." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. Per the application: "The design and landscape standards associated with the Frost Creek development area incorporate the highest visual quality standards. The proposed amended Frost Creek PUD will only include development in areas already designated for development and will follow the established design standards for the Frost Creek PUD. No ridgeline development is proposed with this amended submittal." Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that the Project will not significantly degrade visual quality. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. 23 01/31/2017 Per the application: "Impacts to surface water are not anticipated as a result of the new development. However,the protocol outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan(WQMMP) and associated documents have provided for advanced mitigation measures and will allow the determination of whether development of the amended PUD using BMP's adversely affects surface water quality and if so provides for responses to activation of applicable triggers to be enacted. Documents associated with the WQMMP which have been reviewed include: • Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2006), • Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2009), • Addendum to the April 2009 Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2012) The primary potential impacts to surface water from the Frost Creek PUD have been mitigated by adherence to local(Eagle County), state(Colorado),and federal permitting requirements, established guidelines, and high standards of design,construction and maintenance. Mitigation measures include: • Strict adherence to site-specific Stormwater Management Plans(SWMP's),a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)Construction Dewatering Discharge Permit, and a site-specific Spill Prevention, Control,and Countermeasures Plan(SPCC). The Developer will monitor the BMP's within the SWMP throughout the construction process. Changes to the BMP's will be made to accommodate any problems that may cause impacts to surface water. • Roadway runoff for the Frost Creek PUD was mitigated by adherence to the October 29,2004 Final Drainage Analysis prepared by Johnson Kunkel&Associates,Inc. Stormwater drainage or overland sheet flow is treated in grass-lined swales. Stormwater is directed from the grass-lined swales to sedimentation ponds, lakes, and protected wetlands and riparian buffer zones prior to discharge into Brush Creek. • Potential impacts from pesticide and fertilizer use at the golf course in the Frost Creek PUD are currently mitigated by adherence to the Integrated Pest Management and Operating Procedures. • The homeowner's association through their Codes,Covenants, and Regulations will mitigate potential impacts from activities at individual home sites in the Frost Creek PUD. • Potential impacts from the Frost Creek PUD golf course maintenance facility may include vehicle wash water and small quantity chemical discharges. These potential impacts are currently mitigated by: a)routing all vehicle wash water to floor drains,which are discharged to a grass- lined swale for treatment,and b)a chemical fertilizer and storage area which has been created with appropriate spill containment separate from the maintenance facility to prevent impacts from chemical discharge. • Potential impacts from the swimming pool at the Frost Creek PUD golf course clubhouse are mitigated by discharging pool overflow and drain water only after dechlorination to a grass-lined swale in small quantities with no discharge to surface water. The Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan has established trigger limits, a measurable limit on monitored surface water quality parameters including Total Suspended Solids(TSS),Total Dissolved Solids(TDS),total phosphorous, and total nitrogen whose exceedances will cause mitigation measures to be enacted. Three assessment methods are used conjunctively as trigger limits for TSS,TDS, or total phosphorous. The three assessment methods include: 1)Detections of concentrations of the parameters in excess of the 85th percentile historic concentration for the given parameter, and 2) Comparison between upstream and downstream concentrations, and 3)Graphical analysis to assess temporal changes in the parameters will consist of visual examination of time series graphs,which may show general long-term changes in parameter concentrations. The trigger limit for TSS,TDS, or total phosphorous will be activated only when all three of the assessment tools show abnormal results or rises in concentrations. 24 01/31/2017 Not enough historical data regarding total nitrogen is available to establish a trigger limit as described above. Therefore,the established water quality standard for nitrate,a component of total nitrogen of 10 mg/L is used instead. If the downstream concentration of total nitrogen exceeds 10 mg/L, and is greater that the upstream concentration,then the trigger has been activated. Bio assessment triggers will be activated if the bio assessment indicates that there is a significant decline in any of the applicable bioassessment metrics at either of the downstream stations from one sampling activity to the next, and that the decline may be attributable to contamination of surface water or other aspects of the development. Responses to activation of applicable triggers have been clearly outlined. If any of the triggers listed above are activated,the following steps will occur: • (Step 1)Confirmation of sample collection. • (Step 2)Assuming that the confirmation sample shows that trigger was activated, inform the Environmental Health Department and schedule a meeting to take place after steps three and four occur. • (Step 3)Inspection of suspected pollutant sources. • (Step 4)Inspection of relevant BMP's,to assure that they are properly functioning. • (Step 5)Meet with the Environmental Health Department. Review available data and results of the inspections. The responsible party will propose an action plan for review and approval by the Environmental Health Department. • (Step 6)Implement action plan. • (Step 7)Conduct follow-up monitoring to determine if actions are effective." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. Per the application: Per the application: "Impacts to groundwater are not anticipated as a result of the new development. However,the protocol outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan(WQMMP)and associated documents have provided for advanced mitigation measures and will allow the determination of whether development of the amended PUD using BMP's adversely affects groundwater quality and if so provides for responses to activation of applicable triggers to be enacted. Documents associated with the WQMMP which have been reviewed include: • Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2006), • Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2009), • Addendum to the April 2009 Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(2012) The primary potential impacts to groundwater from the Frost Creek PUD have been mitigated by established guidelines, and high standards of design, construction and maintenance. Mitigation measures include: • All onsite wastewater treatment systems at the clubhouse, golf course maintenance facility, individual home sites will be designed by a licensed professional engineer and shall include denitrification at a minimum. The licensed professional engineer will design the wastewater treatment systems to minimize their potential to impact groundwater. • Potential impacts from pesticide and fertilizer use at the golf course in the Frost Creek PUD are currently mitigated by adherence to the Integrated Pest Management and Operating Procedures. • The homeowner's association through their Codes, Covenants, and Regulations will mitigate potential impacts from activities at individual home sites in the Frost Creek PUD. 25 01/31/2017 • Potential impacts from the Frost Creek PUD golf course maintenance facility may include vehicle wash water and small quantity chemical discharges. These potential impacts are currently mitigated by: a)routing all vehicle wash water to floor drains,which are discharged to a grass- lined swale for treatment, and b)a,chemical fertilizer and storage area which has been created with appropriate spill containment separate from the maintenance facility to prevent impacts from chemical discharge. • Potential impacts from the swimming pool at the Frost Creek PUD golf course clubhouse are mitigated by discharging pool overflow and drain water only after dechlorination to a grass-lined swale in small quantities with no discharge to surface water. The Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan has established trigger limits, a measurable limit on monitored groundwater quality parameters including total phosphorous,total nitrogen,and the target pesticide whose exceedances will cause mitigation measures to be enacted. Three assessment methods are used conjunctively as trigger limits for total phosphorous. The three assessment methods include: 1) Detections of concentrations of the parameters in excess of the 85th percentile historic concentration for total phosphorous, and 2) Comparison between upgradient and downgradient background groundwater monitoring wells, and 3)Graphical analysis to assess temporal changes in the parameters will consist of visual examination of time series graphs,which may show general long- term changes in parameter concentrations. The trigger limit for total nitrogen is 10 mg/L. If the downgradient concentration of total nitrogen exceeds 10 mg/L, and is greater that the upgradient concentration,then the trigger has been activated. Any detection of the target pesticide at a concentration in excess of the applicable water quality standard(if available)for that chemical will activate the trigger limit. Responses to activation of applicable triggers have been clearly outlined. If any of the triggers listed above are activated,the following steps will occur: • (Step 1)Confirmation of sample collection. • (Step 2)Assuming that the confirmation sample shows that trigger was activated, inform the Environmental Health Department and schedule a meeting to take place after steps three and four occur. • (Step 3)Inspection of suspected pollutant sources. • (Step 4)Inspection of relevant BMP's,to assure that they are properly functioning. • (Step 5)Meet with the Environmental Health Department. Review available data and results of the inspections. The responsible party will propose an action plan for review and approval by the Environmental Health Department. • (Step 6)Implement action plan. • (Step 7)Conduct follow-up monitoring to determine if actions are effective." ." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas. Per the application: "The original lot configuration in the three amended areas contain delineated wetland and riparian areas(i.e., actual wetlands and riparian areas on lots in private ownership). The proposed amendments resolve this conflict except in a couple very limited areas where access to two lots must cross a ditch,which is the existing condition today, as well. The new open space areas were created to pull wetlands and riparian areas into HOA controlled tracts to further enhance their protection. The proposal will adhere to the 50-foot setback in three of the new development areas (Hunters Way,Red Bluffs Way and Squires Lane)with limited disturbance in the Hunters Way area for driveway access in two locations where a ditch crossing may be required. Water quality impacts to wetlands are not anticipated as a result of the new development. However,the protocol outlined in the WQMMP will allow the determination of whether development of the amended PUD using BMP's adversely affects wetlands and if so provides for mitigation measures to be enacted." 26 01/31/2017 • Staff concurs that with the reconfigured access to the reduced number of lots in the Hunters Way area the Project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. Per the application: "The proposal will not result in any significantly differing impacts beyond increased human activity due to higher density residential uses,which will only take place in areas already identified for development as part of the original Frost Creek PUD. A Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan was adopted for the Frost Creek PUD in order to avoid or minimize impacts to the extent practicable and mitigate unavoidable impacts to wildlife. Colorado Parks and Wildlife comments include the request for seasonal closures of open space areas and that a mitigation fund be developed to mitigate for wildlife impacts. The current PUD Guide already provides for seasonal closures which CPW staff has acknowledged and the applicant is proposing a 0.2%transfer fee of the sale of any lot that will be used by the HOA for wildlife habitat enhancing activities. Staff concurs that with the proposed wildlife mitigation real estate transfer fee approach in perpetuity, the Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. Per the application: "All of the proposed site improvements are on areas identified as dry meadows, which previously supported upland irrigated pasture prior to the establishment of the Frost Creek development. The most sensitive vegetative habitat includes riparian habitats,no new impact are proposed to these areas." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat and that the previously mapped riparian/wetland areas will be preserved, as well the additional 50 foot setback from the outer edge of mapped wetland areas. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. Per the application: "Extensive geologic site assessments for the original Frost Creek PUD were conducted. The development areas of the original PUD took into account geologic constraints and produced a plan following specific recommendations for pavement design, roadway alignments, drainage, site grading,maintenance, and bridge design. No new areas are being contemplated for development with the proposal; the four development areas for review in the amended Frost Creek PUD only include changes in density,not areas affected. However,because compressible soils may still exist on any lot, geologic conditions should be evaluated on a lot specific basis prior to building." The Colorado Geological Survey did not respond to the referral for this application; however, staff does concur that the subject property was extensively evaluated at the time of the original PUD approval, and during subsequent improvement of the golf course, infrastructure and existing vertical development on the site. A site specific geologic assessment is to occur prior to issuance of any building permits for permanent structures. (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. Per the application: "Minimal nuisance factors will be encountered and dealt with during the construction phase of the project. Factors that are common during the construction of new homes, including noise,dust and construction traffic will be the most noticeable." Staff concurs that upon completion of the construction phase, the Project will not cause a nuisance. 27 01/31/2017 (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological,historic,or archaeological importance. Per the application: "A cultural resource study was performed by Western Cultural Resource that found only one historic structure,which was preserved as part of the original PUD approval. The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological,historic, or archeological importance." Staff concurs that the Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. Per the application: "The project will not result in an unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. The project will have normal construction activities and will use the approved methods of disposing of any construction materials so as not to cause a release of hazardous materials. These amendments to the PUD have no impact upon the location, storage, containment procedures, spill countermeasures plan with regard to fertilizers,pesticides,herbicides,lubricants,and fuel. There are no changes proposed to the previous plans to address these issues. Fueling of golf course equipment will be from fueling pumps developed at the maintenance facility. All golf related storage of potentially hazardous materials is within the Golf Maintenance Facility which has containment facilities built-in. All potential spill runoff is funneled to a catch basin on the north side of the structure, if a spill is not addressed and contained within the facility first by staff. Therefore all spills will be prevented from entering the environment, surface waters, or groundwater. Onsite fuel pumps have spill well containment. Pesticides and herbicides are also stored in the golf maintenance facility." Staff concurs that the Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural,agricultural,recreational,grazing,commercial or industrial resources within the County,or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. Per the application: "All proposed development to occur as a result of the proposed PUD amendment occurs within existing platted developable area,with no loss of natural, agricultural,recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within Eagle County." Staff concurs that the benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. B. 6.04.02 Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Projects. In addition to the general criteria set forth in Section 6.04.01,the following additional criteria apply to municipal and industrial water projects: 1. The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water,including the recycling,reuse and conservation of water. Per the application: "The project provides efficiency and conservation by utilizing senior water rights decreed for irrigation that have been historically used on the Frost Creek lands. The lands projected to be irrigated in the Frost Creek PUD will be irrigated with these senior water rights through a raw water irrigation system consistent with the approvals for the PUD and the Water Service Agreement-Frost Creek, dated February 26, 2002, as amended September 7,2004(Holland&Hart,LLP, 7/15/05). The water being used on the project is very near the point of diversion. As part of the 2002 Water Service Agreement and a contribution to the Brush Creek Management Plan, an Irrigation Management Plan was drafted to help maintain streamflow levels immediately downstream of the Town's point of diversion,the installation and operation of a streamflow gage station just downstream on Brush Creek 28 01/31/2017 and certain limits on the amount of water the project diverts from various Brush Creek diversion structures were all agreed to. The lowered diversions are less than historic diversion, and are made possible by increased irrigation efficiencies associated with the golf course and residential development as planned. Best management practices will be implemented in the construction and operation of the project and will be reflected on construction plans, including but not limited to dust suppression, erosion control, runoff mitigation and protection of vegetation impacts through practices outlined in the EIR summary. The project uses raw water for its irrigation on the residential lots, golf course,and open spaces. The use of raw water is limited by agreement with the Town as documented in the Water Service Agreement. Additionally,the design guidelines limit the amount of irrigation area on each lot to 7,500 square feet and does not allow irrigation of native areas. The project will adhere to the Town's Water Conservation Plan as required by the Water Service Agreement. The Town has a tiered rate for water usage and provides standards for low flow devices. The project does not provide a drop point for recycled materials but homeowners are provided with the opportunity to recycle curbside like other developments in Eagle County. The commercial facilities adhere to a recycling program that insures recycled materials are appropriately eliminated from the waste stream. The project will comply with all Eagle County regulations for resource conservation, energy efficiency, and recycling or reuse." Staff concurs that the Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. It is important to note that the amended water service agreement provided on December 2, 2016, did not include the Exhibits referenced in the water service agreement. As such, it is not feasible to determine whether or not the above discussed water service agreement provisions related to irrigation have changed, or remain the same. 2. The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. Per the application: "The project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The Town of Eagle will provide domestic water for the project. The project will redistribute EQR density per Water Service Agreements from lower Brush Creek properties to an area with existing approved density and significant infrastructure. The Town has the current capacity to serve the project. While there is some chance that a future Town Board could choose to allow more EQR's, or taps, in the future on the Brush Creek properties,under the terms of the amended Annexation and Water Service Agreement,the density of these properties is being restricted to reflect the transfer of EQR's(taps). Said differently,the number of total EQR's available to all of these properties,Frost Creek and the Brush Creek properties does not change as a result of this amendment. So addressing this criterion No. 2,there is no excess capacity of water or wastewater facilities being proposed. Senior agricultural water rights from Frost Creek(Adam's Rib)were transferred to the Town of Eagle prior to the dedication of the EQR's for Frost Creek and associated properties. The transfer provided for municipal diversion that meet or exceed the anticipated demands and historic monthly consumptive water uses. Water depletions associated with the Adam's Rib projects have been augmented. Engineering reports by Resource Engineering,Inc. and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. determined that a sufficient and reliable source of supply to irrigate the lands designated for irrigation in the Frost Creek portion of the PUD. Wastewater will be serviced through Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems(OWTS). Each OWTS system must have denitrification capabilities,equipped with an(centralized)alarm system and inspected every two years(by the HOA)." Staff concurs that the Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. 29 01/31/2017 3. The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. Per the application: "According to the Colorado State Demographer estimates,the population of Eagle County was 43,288 in the year 2000; 47,278 by the year 2005, and projected to be 53,303 in the year 2015. By 2020,the Colorado State Demographer projects Eagle County's population to increase to 57,226. The Colorado State Demographer estimates the 2014 Town of Eagle population to be 6,750, and the 2014 unincorporated area of Eagle County to be 23,395. In 2010,the Town of Eagle and Eagle County adopted the Eagle Area Community Plan,which indicated that the population of Eagle County will double by the year 2030,with much of that growth anticipated to occur in communities and towns in western Eagle County, like Eagle and Gypsum. The project is necessary to meet community development and population demands." Staff concurs that the Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. The Eagle County Housing Department has indicated its support of the Affordable Housing Plan, as submitted. 4. Urban development,population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. Per the application: "The surrounding privately owned property has generally been subdivided into five to ten acre lots. The proposed development is compatible with this pattern of urban development, population density, and site layout. Additionally, as specifically outlined in the Environmental Impact Summary Report provided in the Compendium of Technical Reports,a Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan(WQMMP) was developed for the Frost Creek PUD in order to establish baseline(predevelopment)water quality information and ensure that the development would not adversely affect water quality of aquatic life,or pollution of aquifer recharge areas." Staff concurs that urban development,population densities, site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. C. 6.04.03 Additional Criteria Applicable to Major New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems and Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems. In addition to the general criteria set forth in section 6.04.01,the following additional criteria apply to any development of major new domestic water and wastewater treatment systems or major extensions of existing domestic water and wastewater treatment systems: 1. The Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project,or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. Per the application: "The PUD Amendment adds new density to the Frost Creek PUD. No changes are proposed to the water treatment facilities to accommodate the proposed density especially given that the new density in Frost Creek is simply a transfer of density already contracted for in the Brush Creek valley. There is new demand for OWTS generated by the new lots proposed in Frost Creek. There is a direct relationship between the new density and the proposed number of OWTS,thus meeting the demands for wastewater treatment which reflects the new population in Frost Creek. Therefore,the project(water and wastewater facilities)are reasonably necessary to meet the specific development and population demand being created by the PUD Amendment." Staff concurs that the Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. 30 01/31/2017 (2) To the extent feasible,wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. Per the application: "The project's water facilities are owned and operated by the Town of Eagle and the OWTS are managed by a single entity, a consolidated approach to management and operations." Staff concurs that to the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities are being and will continue to be managed by the appropriate entities. No further-opportunity for consolidation exists. (3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. Per the application: "The water system is utilizing the existing Town of Eagle's Water Treatment Plant and ties into the Town of Eagle's Water System. The Town of Eagle is the only water provider in this location. Wastewater is being treated on each lot with an OWTS of the strictest standards." Staff concurs that no new domestic water and sewage treatment systems are proposed as part of this Project. (4) The Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. Per the application: "The water treatment facilities already exist in the area and serve the entire Town of Eagle. The additional density and growth being proposed with the amendments will be within the environmental capacity of the area given the attention to ground and surface water quality built into the PUD. The proposed changes will not generate new growth in the region as new water and wastewater treatment capacities are not being created. The Town of Eagle's Water Treatment Plant is located adjacent to the Frost Creek property(on land dedicated by the original developer for its construction), and the other utilities are located near the project." Staff concurs that the Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter II,Article 3, Section 3.310.I.2, Waiver Provision, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations,the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant showing that: 3.310.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. 3.310.2.b. Compliance with the Special Use Review Permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Review Permit requirements as such application would be redundant with this 1041 Permit process and would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. 31 01/31/2017 o There being no further bus• = . f??�,'- ,? :oard,the meeting was adjournedruary 7,2017. Attest:_ _ IAi_ Of R' Allif1611' C -r�(4 the Board C ir .n 32 01/31/2017