HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/21/2023 PUBLIC HEARING
February 21, 2023
Present: Kathy Chandler-Henry Chairman
Matt Scherr Commissioner
Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner
Jeff Shroll County Manager
Matt Peterson Assistant 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:
Constituent Input
Chairman Chandler-Henry opened and closed constituent input,as there was none.
Commissioner Updates
Commissioner McQueeney spoke about her lunch in Beaver Creek following the ski with the elected
officials day last week. There was only one more event left and it would be held in Vail on March 31. You don't
have to ski and can just join for lunch at noon.
Commissioner Scherr mentioned Project Funway put on by the Education Foundation of Eagle County.
The event would be held Saturday,April 1,2023 at Dobson Arena in Vail.
Chairman Chandler-Henry provided an update on the National Association of Counties that all three
commissioners attended last week in Washington D.C. They met with federal policy makers and heads of agencies
to discuss federal issues that related to Eagle County. It was a worthwhile event to attend.
County Manager Updates
Jeff Shroll stated that he recently received an email showing all the statistics about all the mental health
visits that Eagle Valley Behavioral Health had been able to host in the past month and it continues to show the
numbers of need for behavioral health was still strong in the valley. The long winter months can affect mental
health so encouraged everyone to check in with friends and family and if any needed those services to reach out to
Eagle Valley Behavioral Health or any other provider to get help.
Consent Agenda
1. Agreement Between State of Colorado CDPHE and Eagle County Public Health Agency Task Order
-HB222-1326 to Increase the Availability of Overdose Prevention Tools
Maria Gonzalez,Public Health&Environment
1
02/21/2023
2. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Impact Assistance Grant Application
Mark Chapin, Assessor's Office
3. Second Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Cervi Champion Rodeo
Tanya Dahlseid,Fair&Rodeo
4. Approval of the Minutes for the Board of County Commissioner Meetings for November 1,November 15,
November 29,and November 30,2022
Kathy Scriver, Clerk&Recorder's Office
Commissioner Scherr moved to approve the Consent Agenda for February 21,2023 as presented.
Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Business Item
1. Resolution 2023-013 Concerning a Reappointment to the Eagle Cemetery District Board-Ida Kostka
Dani Moore,Administration
Executive Summary: This resolution will be reappointing Ida Kostka White to the Eagle Cemetery District
board. Her term will end on September 30th,2028.
Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that the board received a letter from Sally Metcalf, president of the
Eagle Cemetery District,recommending that Ida Kostka-White be reappointed to a new secure term to the Eagle
Cemetery District. The term began on September 30,2022 and would end on September 30,2028.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the resolutions concerning a reappointment to the Eagle
Cemetery District Board-Ida Kostka.
Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and
reconvene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority.
Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
Eagle County Housing and Development Authority
1. Preconstruction Services Agreement for the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority West Eagle
Affordable Housing Development
Tori Franks,Resiliency
Executive Summary: This contract is between Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and RA
Nelson, for pre construction services for the West Eagle Affordable Housing Development
Ms. Franks introduced Jason Morly, Preconsruction Manager with RA Nelson. The Housing Authority
issued an RFP in November of last year and received three responses. They elected to go with RA Nelson to
assist in the next phase of the planning and development at West Eagle. The agreement was for pre-construction
services. The total cost was around$75,000. The property was about 9.5 acres that Eagle County Government
2
02/21/2023
and the Housing Authority owned together. It was an infill parcel between Bull Run and Grand Ave. On the lands
that the county entities own,they were planning about 115 units from a one bedroom condo up to a duplex. They
were about 50%through design development and moving along. The development was in the Town of Eagle so
the application would go through the Town of Eagle's land use approval annexation process. They were
envisioning the development as all price capped, for sale units, similar to the Miller Ranch type product. There
was also an adjacent Forest Service parcel that was 2.5 acres the county was interested in purchasing when the
Forest Service was ready to sell.
Commissioner Scherr moved to approve the Preconstruction Services Agreement for the Eagle County
Housing and Development Authority-West Eagle Affordable Housing Development.
Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner McQueeney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority
and reconvene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
Work Session(s) - Eagle County Room
1. Front Country Ranger Program Updates
Marcia Gilles, Open Space and Natural Resources
2. Changes to Public Assistance Benefits and Related Strategies
Megan Burch,Human Services
Planning File - Mt Sopris Room, El Jebel
1. The Fields: Combined Sketch and Preliminary Subdivision Plan, SSP-9165-2021, Zone Change,
ZC-9136-2021,Variation from Improvement Standards,VIS-9169,Areas and Activities of State Interest 1041
Permit, 1041-9137
Vince Hooper, Community Development
Executive Summary: This is a continuation of the hearing started on August 17, 2022,which was subsequently
tabled on August 29,2922, again on October 11,2022,December 20,2022, and January 31,2023 for consideration
of Applications for a residential development with a mix of housing types providing up to 135 residential units. The
Applicant requests approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map ("Zone Change") from Rural
Residential (RR)to Residential Multi-family(RMF). The Applicant requests approval of a combined
Sketch/Preliminary Plat Application,a Zone Change Application, a Variation from Improvement Standards, and a
1041 Permit(collectively the "Application') for a 19.39 acre parcel located north of and adjacent to Valley Road,
west of El Jebel Road, and south of Highway 82.
Chairman Chandler-Henry opened the meeting. There would be a presentation from staff followed by a
presentation by the applicant then the floor would be opened to public comment.
Vince Hooper, Eagle County Staff Planner,provided a brief introduction. This was a continuation of the
January 31,2023 hearing which was tabled. The board would be considering new information provided by the
applicant on December 30th. He noted that the original staff report was presented on August 17,2022. The first
addendum was provided December 20th which addressed the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission
hearing of November 10, additional referral comments that focused on ditches,the board's questions from the
3
02/21/2023
August 17th hearing. and the applicant's supplemental information. He also noted that the addendums were
intended to be a supplement to the original staff report and were not a replacement of that information at that time.
On page 9 of the first addendum, it stated that further evaluation of conformance with applicable approval standards
related to the new comment and/or additional information provided by the applicant was provided by staff below
was not intended to address all of the issues identified by the August 17 staff report. Page 9 addressed the ditch
referrals specifically. The second addendum,presented at this hearing, included consideration of the December
30th supplemental information and focused on new information.
Jon Fredericks,planner for The Fields,presented a slide presentation. At the last hearing,they discussed
two potential options for the offsite pedestrian connection. They provided a plan for the Forest Service property
alignment which would be a 10 ft. wide multi-use trail. This continued to be their primary preference for the offsite
pedestrian connection. If for some reason this option proved to be infeasible,the secondary option would be to
construct a sidewalk along the northside of Valley Road. Either way,the applicant was committed to creating one
of the two options.
Evan Schreiber,partner for The Fields,reviewed the affordable housing program. In the current proposal
they had 54 deed restricted units,but in addition to that, they were open to discussing with the county ways in
which more market rate units could potentially be bought and deed restricted. He spoke about the efforts at the
state level to try to solve the housing issue. He shared a video into the record where newly elected Governor Polis
spoke about his priority to create housing. It was evident that housing continued to be one of the most critical
issues in the state.
Mr. Hooper presented additional information with regards to the concerns over the design feasibility of the
pedestrian connection. The applicant was no longer proposing the cash-in-lue option for the pedestrian connection.
Staff reviewed the zone change standards and found that the application was in conformance with the
comprehensive plan. Staff found that the applicant's information demonstrated that the proposed connection could
be constructed to meet the county's design standards and complied with the sidewalk standards, including the
proposed 6 ft. width with the addition of condition#2. Staff found that the application was consistent with the
Combined Sketch Preliminary Plan requirements for land use regulations with the addition of conditions#3. The
applicant had proposed some modifications to this condition and was suggesting that the applicant not be required
to provide the long term maintenance of the trail;the applicant felt that the HOA or other public entity should be
required to provide this long term maintenance for a period of 5-years. With regards to the condition for completion
of the trail,they requested that the completion be tied to certificates of occupancy for dwelling units and not just
any building permit on the property.
Commissioner Scherr asked if the trail would be a sidewalk,not a trail.
Mr. Fredericks stated that this was the reason they requested a terminology change in the condition. One
would be a trail,the other would be considered a sidewalk based on Article 4 Standards. The option along the north
side of Valley Road would be a curb and gutter and then a 6 ft. sidewalk.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the right-of-way for the sidewalk.
Mr. Fredericks stated that they had some survey data showing the right-of-way. In general terms, from the
edge of the pavement, they had about 10 ft. to work within.
Chairman Chandler-Henry opened public comment.
Alexander Clayden, attorney with the law firm Johnston Van Arsdale Martin, spoke. He represented a
non-profit organization called Save Mid Valley. The organization's goal was to insure that land use decisions in
Eagle County and the Mid Valley were made according to the regulations that apply and that the community
involvement was promoted and considered. They had submitted written comments and appreciated the board's
careful consideration of those. Based on his review of the public comments, Save Mid Valley's position was in
alignment with the vast majority of what had been submitted which opposed The Fields development for a number
of reasons. The purpose of the current zone district,Rural Residential,was to serve as a transition area between the
denser development found in towns and lower density found in the ag and resource areas of the county. The
multi-family density that the applicant was seeking was a massive requested zone change and would upend decades
of existing residents and property owners expectations on the nature of their property and how their surrounding
4
02/21/2023
properties would be used. Per the land use regulations, a zone change could not be approved unless the change was
justified and the advantages of the use substantially outweighed the disadvantages to the county and neighboring
lands. Here there were some substantial disadvantages based on the traffic impact,the car-served nature of the
development, and taxing need for public services to this development. They echoed the comments made by the
Town of Basalt with regards to the development being outside of the urban growth boundary. Under Eagle
County's IGA with the Town of Basalt,Eagle County committed to permitting development within the urban
growth boundary unless there was a substantial benefit. The area was not suitable for high density development.
They also pointed out that unless a unit was deed restricted, it would not end up affordably priced. What's being
proposed was a leap frog development that wasn't appropriate under the subdivision rule, and it would place a high
density development in a transitory zone. The FLUM for this property called the area moderate density residential.
The applicant is proposing 8.8 dwelling units per acre which was higher than allowed under the FLUM. The
sidewalk was not safe, and regardless of the scenario,this was not a walkable neighborhood. The sustainable index
for developments under Article 4, must be walkable. The walk score for this development was 12 out of 100. This
was a car-dependent neighborhood where all errands required a usable car. The current neighborhood that was
within Arlian Ranch had covenants; those covenants prohibited anything other than single family residences.
Existing homeowners had a reasonable right to rely on their property zoning. He requested, on behalf of his clients,
that the board deny the application.
Bob Smith spoke. He asked if the trail would be built first. He believed there was no room on the left side
to put in a sidewalk. Per the Town of Basalt rules, sidewalks must be cleaned within 24 hours. He wondered who
would be cleaning them. He expressed concern for the traffic. He'd lived in the area for 25 years, and the traffic
continued to get worse. If there were problems on Hwy 82,the traffic deferred to the side roads,which created
additional traffic. He believed the file should be tabled until the sidewalks were built and all the traffic issues were
resolved.
Nicolette Toussaint spoke on behalf of her friends Kim and Peter Bock who had lived at 90 Arlian Road for
30 years. Ms. Bock believed The Fields project had been allowed to be submitted as a consolidated review process.
A proposal of this magnitude at this location would have huge impacts to the road system and other public
infrastructure. The application should have been reviewed per Section 5-280.b of the LURs. The board had
violated its own land use requirements by considering this project outside the code requirements. The LUR
mandated a complete two step process. Since this had not happened, the project must be denied.
Scott Thompson, Fire Chief with the Roaring Fork Fire Rescue spoke. He asked that the board consider the
public benefit as the developer had entered into a letter of intent with the Fire Authority for four,2-bedroom units.
The purchase price was without developer profit.
Todd Grange spoke. He did not believe The Fields development offered a public benefit to the community
as defined by Eagle County LURs. Therefore, a zone change should not be allowed. He believed the zone change
must be denied as the insufficient advantages in no way outweighed the disadvantages to the county and the
neighboring lands. The Fields project needed to be denied. There were no advantages that this project brought to
the neighborhood or environment.
Susie Hessel spoke. She resided at 304 Arlian Ranch Road. The Fields property was bordered by the
Summit Vista Subdivision to the East which had an average of 2.5 units per acre. Summit Vista was zoned
residential suburban medium density. The Arlian Ranch property bordering the west of The Fields development
had one home on 1 to 2 acres parcels and was zoned rural residential. These subdivisions were established and
built out in the 1980's. and there had been no change in surrounding properties since that time. There was no
evidence of a change in surrounding property uses to justify the zone change. The Fields application should be
denied as proposed.
Bernard Grauer spoke. Eagle County residents had been showing up and speaking out against the project in
public hearings by an 8 to 1 majority. The commissioners should end the speculation by holding a referendum
election or a scientific opinion survey on levels of growth, and let democracy into the process. The commissioners
should deny the application then they can amend the flawed Mid Valley Community Plan which promoted urban
sprawl not smart growth. Most residents supported low growth emphasizing affordable housing. Public trust in the
process has weakened when the approval depended on a one shot finding of an ill defined public benefit. If
approved, The Fields would set a bad precedent that could bind Eagle County into approving every Fields clone
5
02/21/2023
because denying similar density would invite developer lawsuits. There were indicators that the process was slanted
in favor of excessive density.
Peter Delany,resident of Blue Lake spoke. Like Kim Bock,he was on the Roaring Fork Planning
Commision for a number of years. He agreed with a lot of her comments. The idea of lack of housing and the need
for affordable housing gets overblown. Yes, this development had an affordable housing component but he asked
that the board consider the broad affordable picture valley wide. There had been talk about improvements to Valley
Road due to traffic. The sidewalk would take up every inch of what was left in the right-of-way so there would be
no widening of the road if the sidewalk was built.
Bruce Stolbach read a letter from Tim Whitsitt. He read three covenants from Arlian Ranch. He believed
the covenants ran with the applicant's land and didn't understand why the board was wasting its time and tax
payer's dollars to review an application that could not legally be built. It was crucial that the board understood that
the subject property was a subdivided lot, lot 5 of the Arlian Ranch Subdivision. Arlian Ranch was established in
1980 as a highly desirable rural area.
Susy Ellison spoke. She agreed with much of what had been said. She lived in Garfield County, and none
of her concerns had been addressed. She lived above the Kathrine Store and commented on traffic along the
frontage road. She expressed concern for the traffic gridlock and unsafe intersections. She believed an upzoning
was irresponsible and encouraged the board to say no.
Shea Ross spoke. She'd been in the area for over 43 years and believed she had a right to say"no." The
local residents relied on the board to enforce the rules. She expressed concern for the proposed development and
she was upset about this type of growth. She was very upset about this and did not believe the growth was
necessary.
Chelsea Teske,not a local resident, spoke in support of the project. She believed that the group had gone
above and beyond to meet or exceed the county standards and create an opportunity for someone like her to
potentially buy a house and have a future here in the valley. She wanted the ability to spend more time with her
family instead of commuting.
Emily Ransford of Missouri Heights spoke. She expressed concern for the impact to traffic in the area.
The Kathrine Store intersection was not safe or a great alternative. In the last four years there were 16 accidents
there. The Blue Lake intersection at El Jebel had 11 accidents in the last four years. The development would
increase the traffic significantly.
Barry Vaughan, a resident of Blue Lake spoke. He understood that there had been a lot of transition in the
planning staff over the last few years,but one thing that had been consistent was staff seeming to think that its
mandate is to help developers cram high density housing into every little nook and cranny of what's left of vacant
land in this stretch of Eagle County. He believed the mindset of planning staff was inappropriate because they were
not accountable to the people here in this valley. Most of the housing in this project was nothing near affordable
and would not solve the statewide problem of affordable housing. The board should not approve the file until
traffic lights were installed at JW Drive.
Raul Gaurys,resident of Eagle County since 1983, spoke. He spoke about the housing calculations
submitted by the applicant and believed they were misleading and failed to meet the requirements of the code. He
spoke about the proposed open space areas and wondered if the open space would be open to the public. The
applicant failed to meet code because the final plat did not meet many of the items on the checklist.
Kathryn Brock spoke. She was a fourth generation Eagle County resident and a teacher of 12 years. She
spoke in favor of the project. There was an educator shortage and a lack of affordable housing. The change in
circumstances was that there was an educator shortage.
Jeanne Napolitano stated that she wanted to address the inadequate infrastructures. One of the standards
that must be met for a zone change was adequate infrastructure. There was not adequate infrastructure to support
the proposed development and it would violate the county's level of service requirement for level of service"D"or
better. She believed the methods for calculating the level of service were manipulated in order to give the applicant
an advantage when considering the standard of adequate infrastructure. At a previous hearing,the staff engineer
claimed that Eagle County routinely approved subdivisions that violated the Eagle County traffic and level of
service requirements. The county attorney said that the board could make reasonable exceptions to the standards.
She believed The Fields application should be denied.
6
02/21/2023
Keith Harron spoke. He recently moved from Iowa and supported the project. He was living in a camper
and hoped the project would support low income working families.
Jody Wilson spoke. Her home sat on Valley Road. She did not believe there was enough space on Valley
Road to build a trail. There was no guarantee that a trail could be built to connect the development to the Roaring
Fork Transit Authority. The upzoning did not provide a benefit to the current residents of the area.
Travis Tupa, a local contractor, spoke. There were existing road issues, and he believed this was a failure
on the side of the county and the state.
Vern Brock spoke. He spoke about the competency of the Eagle County staff. He had never seen a project
that epitomized the definition of infill. He believed it was a walkable project and thought that this project was
exactly what the Governor would want.
John Putnam spoke. He spoke about the variance request for parking. He believed that if the developer
built fewer units,they would need less parking and a variance would not be needed. He did not believe that Eagle
County should not modify a long standing methodology and make exceptions to standards that Eagle County
created.
Maria Blake spoke. She was a runner and ran on Valley Road frequently. She believed there was no room
for a sidewalk.
Bryce Halverson spoke. He lived in Blue Lake and had been a resident of the area his entire life. He
understood the need for affordable housing but did not believe this development would provide any. The area was
already overpopulated. He was opposed to the project and felt the development would create more traffic and
accidents.
Ken Ransford resident of Missouri Heights spoke. He appreciated that the developer increased the
affordable housing units from 17 to 34 but it would take 23 units just to house the workers who built and
maintained the subdivision. Due to the size of the units,the development would provide housing for single
individuals to drive up to Aspen and would not be providing affordable housing for families. This was a family
neighborhood, and this development was incompatible with the existing neighborhood.
Tom O'Keefe spoke. He's been a resident of the Mid Valley since 1983 and lived about a half mile from the
proposed development. He believed The Fields proposal should be denied because it violated the standard which
required safe and convenient traffic circulation. He believed the traffic study used by the developer and staff was
flawed. The developer and staff did not understand the traffic issues of the Roaring Fork Valley. Any increase in
density was irresponsible and endangered lives. The Fields application should be denied.
Mark Fortunato spoke. He believed that The Fields project did not meet the mandated standard of transit
orientation. It violated the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. The recommendations and reports submitted by the
county staff were flawed, invalid, nor supported by factual data. The development compromised safety. He asked
that the board deny the file.
Todd Hartley spoke about the quality of life due to over building. The property was zoned rural residential
and the zoning should remain in place. The only way to address affordable housing was to buy existing inventory
and convert it to affordable housing. To allow tons of free market units in exchange for a handful of affordable
units was unsustainable and ruining the valley.
Gavin Brook, Carbondale resident, spoke. He spoke in support of The Fields project. Traffic impacts were
paid by development and governments. You don't get improvements without development. This project would
provide an infusion of traffic impact fees and would improve the very intersections that people were concerned
about.
Gail Schrwartz spoke. She spoke to raise the issue of affordable housing. She believed housing needed to
be built to meet the needs of the community. Development needed to be for the people that lived and worked in the
community.
Dana High spoke. She was the vice president of the Summit Vista HOA and had been a valley resident for
over 50 years. She did not believe The Fields project conformed with the Mid Valley Area Community Plan's
vision statement or policies. The density was not appropriate for the area. The zone change should not be granted.
She believed that The Fields application should be denied. She mentioned that the supermarket shelves were bare.
The area was overpopulated, and the traffic was outrageous.
7
02/21/2023
Robert Taylor spoke. His property would be most impacted by the proposed sidewalk/trail. He understood
the need for affordable housing,but the free market units would not be unaffordable. He asked the board to listen
to the people who lived in the area. There was a great majority who were saying"no"to this development.
Jen Mueller spoke. She lived adjacent to The Fields property and opposed The Fields application as it
failed to meet Eagle County LUR 5-230 which stated that it must be compatible with surrounding uses. The density
was not compatible as the existing structures surrounding the property were single family homes and the character
of the surrounding neighbor had a rural residential character.
Rick Balentine spoke. He lived at 793 Valley Road. He was an expert on safety and did not believe that
the developer had developed a safe plan. He expressed concern for the animals on the road. He would like to see a
safer way to get people to Crown Mountain Park.
Mr. Hooper stated that there were additional public comments received and loaded into Boarddocs.
Chairman Chandler-Henry closed public comment.
Mr. Fredricks stated that there were a few factual items that the applicant wanted to comment on. With
regards to the rezoning of the property,he reviewed the zoning dimensional limitations. The property was currently
zoned RR, two acre minimum lot size. He spoke about the other zone districts in the county and did not believe
they were jumping from the bottom to the top of the spectrum. He also touched on the review process and the LUR
intent to encourage the efficient processing of applications. The applicant believed the county was within its
authority in reviewing this consolidated application. He addressed the comments made with regards to the county's
authority to review the consolidated application per Article 5. There were a lot of comments made about the offsite
pedestrian connection. The applicant proposed that if and when Eagle County acquired the Forest Service Property
they would construct a 10 ft. wide trail on the property. As far as zoning compliance,there were comments made
that suggested the proposed plan had not demonstrated that it could meet the regulations of the RMF zone district.
The applicant had demonstrated that the project as designed,would meet the requirements of Article 3,dimensional
standards. The variance for the on street parking was intended to be used for guest parking on the loop road and not
intended to be provided to meet the parking demand requirements per Article 4. Was it absolutely necessary? No.
However, it would be nice to incorporate the 16 on-street visitor spaces. Lastly, there were several comments
regarding the notion of this being a transit oriented development, and this was not their intent. The offsite trails
would provide connectivity to the park.
Mr. Schreiber believed that staff had continually found that the applicant was in substantial conformance
with the Mid Valley Area Plan, Future Land Use Map(FLUM), and Eagle County Land Use Regulations. He
believed they had demonstrated that adequate facilities existed, they were compatible with the surrounding uses,
and this was in-fill development. While there were a lot of opinions in the community,this was in-fill development
and this was what the FLUM was asking for and what was being encouraged by the goals in the Community Plan.
Density was not a standard,compatibility was, and they demonstrated that they were compatible.
Mr. Schreiber continued that it was important to note that there were a significant number of people who
supported the project. Housing was needed, and there was a balance to be struck with private developers. They
were trying to do their best in providing affordable housing,but there were things that were out of their control by
nature that they were a private entity and were subject to costs that were beyond their control. They had a limited
amount of land and were trying the best that they could with what they had. They believed they had gone above
and beyond the affordable housing requirements by more than double. In addition to that, they were providing a lot
of offsite traffic and infrastructure improvements that went beyond their impacts as a development. Lastly,there
was one public comment that suggested that they were not complying with potential covenants and believed the
comments were misleading and inaccurate.
Rickie Davies,Eagle County Staff Engineer, spoke about adequate facilities as far as Valley Road. The road
was a suburban residential collector and categorized for 3,000 vehicles per day. As far as traffic counts, a count
was done back in October of 2022. The average vehicle count per day was 1,032. This application was proposing
another 1,084 vehicles for a total of 2,116 vehicles per day, which would be double the amount of vehicles that
were on the road,but due to its classification of 3,000,Valley Road had the capacity for the additional traffic. He
spoke about the El Jebel intersection, and according to the traffic impact study,using projections for the year 2025,
8
02/21/2023
the average delay with The Fields was .5 seconds over the whole intersection. The intersection Level of Service
(LOS) according to the traffic impact study done in 2021,was a LOS "D." In the PM peak, it was a LOS "B."
Forecasting to 2025, the AM peak would be"D"and the PM peak would be"E." There was a perception that
traffic was bad,but the intersection functioned well as all cycles cleared except for the AM time. The trail would
be part of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement(SIA)and would have to be in before any buildings get a
Certificate of Occupancy. If there were accidents on Hwy 82,vehicles would use the side streets,but this was not
something they planned in advance for. According to the LUR, intersections both signaled and unsignalized shall
function at a LOS of"D"or better. This was averaged over a 24-hour period.
Mr. Schreiber stated that they were being held under Article 5 standards. In this case staff had expressed a
desire to see the adequate stacking in the AM and PM peak hours. !. .,
Matt Petreson,Assistant Eagle County Attorney, recommended it4when analyzing adequate facilities,to
always look to Article 4 standards so that the county had an objective" ' 'to review what an adequate facility
would be. Article 4 listed all the standards for road improvements and infrastructure improvements throughout the ,
county.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked if the traffic counts for October of 2022 were during a 24-hour period.
Mr. Davies stated that the counts were taken from September 29th until October 7th. It was an average of
the entire time period.
Commissioner McQueeney asked Mr. Peterson to address the issue of the legality around covenants and the
issue of the sketch plan and application being combined into one step.
Mr. Peterson stated that there was a provision in the land use code that allows the consolidation of
applications. Here there were numerous applications consolidated into one application. This was a determination
made by the planning director. The determination was made to be appropriate for this file. This did come with
some risk for the applicant but was an appropriate process. Efficiency was gained as the applicant was able to
apply for all of these things at once but did not negate any need to analyze any standard or meet any particular
standard. Regarding the covenants, anyone looking to enforce a private covenant on private property had to have
standing and be a party to the covenants. The county did not have standing related to this covenant so did not have
any standing to enforce the covenants. The county could not be involved, and it was his understanding that a
private lawsuit had been brought previously related to the covenants, and this would be a risk that the
developer/applicant would take on.
Commissioner McQueeney asked about the design for open space and whether the proposed open space
met the open space requirements based on county standards.
Mr. Hooper stated that the proposed open space met the standards.
Mr. Hooper reviewed the conditions for Sketch/Preliminary Plan and indicated that the application met all
the standards with conditions.
Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the 1041 application.
Mr. Hooper indicated that it was not his expectation that the board would get to this point in the meeting so
wasn't prepared to review the 1041 standards at this time.
Chairman Chandler-Henry stated since the board was unable to make a determination on the 1040
application, a tabling would be appropriate.
Mr. Hooper suggested March 21st was open,but Tori Franks with Housing would not be available on that
day.
Chairman Chandler-Henry believed that the housing had been covered so March 21st would work if it was
acceptable to the applicant.
Commissioner McQueeney questioned whether public comment would be limited to the 1041 application.
Mr. Peterson stated that the board would need to hear staff's presentation on the 1041 permit and then
public comment would be limited to the 1041 permit application.
Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that public comment may be limited to comments that hadn't been heard
before.
9
02/21/2023
Commissioner McQueeney moved to table The Fields: Combined Sketch and Preliminary Subdivision
Plan, SSP-9165-2021,Zone Change,ZC-9136-2021,Variation from Improvement Standards,VIS-9169,Areas and
Activities of State Interest 1041 Permit, 1041-9137 until March 21, 2023.
Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
of EA64�p�
There being no further busi a oard,the meeting was adjourned until February 28,2023.
Attes .
C1er to the Board Chairman
10
02/21/2023