Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/30/96 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 30, 1996 Present: George "Bud" Gates Johnnette Phillips Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Clerk to the Board Absent: James Johnson, Jr. Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Plat & Resolution Signing Kathy Eastley, Planning Technician, presented the following plats and resolutions to be signed by the Board. SM-I032-96 Terrace Ridge at the Homestead, Phase II. This is a Minor Type B subdivision, a resubdivision of Tract B, Terrace Ridge at the Homestead, Phase 1 to create 7 townhome units. The current zoning is PUD multi-family with a maximum number of 44 units permitted. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve SM-1032-96 Terrace Ridge at the Homestead, Phase II. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Corrmissioner Johnson was out of town at this time. Resolution 96-43 - AS-48-A Lehman Gravel pit. This is a resolution for approval, with conditions, for a Special Use Permit to allow for the temporary addition of 4.36 acres to the currently permitted gravel operation. The additional area will be utilized until September 1, 1996 for an asphalt plant to complete the overlay of I-70 between Gypsum and Eagle. This application was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on April 16, 1996. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve AS-48-A Lehman Gravel pit. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 96-44 - ZS-334-95-A Shrine Mountain Cemetery, Phase II. This is a resolution for approval, with conditions, for an amendment to a Special Use Permit to allow for the addition of .25 acres to the currently permitted cemetery site. This application was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on April 16, 1996. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve ZS-334-95A Shrine Mountain Cemetery, Phase II. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 96-45 - PD-347-95-S Two Rivers R.V. Park. This is a resolution for approval, with conditions, for a PUD Sketch Plan for a mixed use recreation/commercial facility located in Dotsero. This application was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on April 16, 1996. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve PD-347-95-S Two Rivers R.V. Park. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 96-46 - PD-311-94A Blue Ridge Planned Unit Development. This is a resolution for approval, with conditions for a PUD Amendment. This application was presented to the Board of County Corrmissioners on March 12, 1996. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve PD-311-94A Blue Ridge Planned Unit Development. 1 Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-293-96-AF1, Cordillera Sub PD-293-96-AF1, PD-293-96-F3, Patti Haefeli, Planning Technician, presented file numbers PD-293-96- AFl, PD-293-96-AFl and PD-293-96-F3, Cordillera Subdivision. She explained the files to the Board. Staff recommended approval. She stated the purpose of the first Amended Final Plat is to amend the building envelope allowing the residence to be built outside of a natural drainage which occurs on the site. All owners of any property within 75 feet of the property have been notified and staff has not received any negative comment. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve PD-293-96-AFl. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Ms. Haefeli stated the purpose of this Amended Final Plat, file number PD-293-96-AFl, is to amend the building envelope. This modification to the envelope constitutes a minor amendment to the building envelope. All owners of any property within 75 feet of the property have been notified and staff has not received any negative comment. This modification has received Design Review ap~roval. Cornmlssioner Phillips moved to approve PD-293-96-AF1. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Kathy Eastley presented this final plat application, file number PD-293- 96-F3, two Primary/Secondary lots on 1.965 acres in Planning Parcel M. The intent for Planning Parcel M is "place clusters of large lot development pods within the environments which are most suited for development thereby preserving large areas of sensitive habitats and minimizing i~acts. Building envelopes have been individually chosen to minimize dlsturbance of the existing natural character of the land." She stated Staff has an Subdivision Improvements Agreement which can also be signed upon approval of this final plat. Chairman Gates asked if the density would be increased. Ms. Eastley responded it would not. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number PD-293-96-F3. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ZS-232-96-A, Edwards Plaza Kathy Eastley presented file number ZS-232-96-A, Edwards Plaza. She stated thls was a request for a Special Use/Site Plan review of commercial development. The Commercial General Zone District requires a Special Use Permit for parcels greater than one (1) acre. A Special Use Permit was applied for and subsequently granted in 1987, however only Lot 3 was developed per that ap~roved plan. The developer now wishes to amend both the uses and layout of bUlldin$"s on Lot. 2. She stated the Special Use Permit granted in 1987 by Resolutlon No. 85-69 showed a single building occurring on Lot 2 which was approved to contain a maximum of 35,000 square feet of corrmercial floor area. The proposed amendment shows two (2) buildings: Building One contains 12,000 square feet of commercial space, 28 underground parking spaces, 7,200 square feet of mini-storage, and a 2,000 square foot restaurant to contain 60 seats; building Two is proposed for 9,000 square feet of commercial space or 13 dwelling units or 30 rooms of lodging. The total square footage on the lot would not exceed 30,700 square feet. Section 2.06.10(2) (a) states review and approval of the following site specific information is required for commercial uses on greater than one acre: 1. lot layout; 2. street pattern; 3. drainage plan; 4. landscaping plan; and 5. utility plan. This Amendment process is also reviewing several other Special Uses which are proposed in this development. The review includes: 1. exceeding the 22,000 square foot maximum; 2. use of residential units, not to exceed 33% of total square feet; 3. use of hotel/motel. Ms. Eastley further explained the zoning and surrounding land uses. She 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 stated there is 28,000 square feet platted of open space. She reviewed the issues and concerns. She stated the on-site detention must be reviewed by County Staff. The second issue is the pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Staff believes a path should be provided through this development. Potential safety issues arise with the pedestrian and vehicular circulation to and from this site due to the increased commercial activity and potential short and/or long-term residential use. A pedestrian link to the east side of the Access Road could mitigate the safety concerns. The third issue is non-conformance to various aspects of the Master Plans can be resolved upon compliance with drainage requirements to protect the Eagle River as well as the provision of identified circulation/trails. Issue four is regarding school district review of this proposal and would need to occur when the applicant finalizes the uses on this site. If residential units are constructed, fees or land dedication must be resolved with the School District. Issue five is regarding the State Highway Access Permit Amendment must be issued prior to activities occurring on this site. This application was presented to the Eagle County Planning Commission on April 17, 1996. A recommendation of conditional approval, incorporating staff findings and conditions, was rendered by a vote of 4-1. The condition included 1) a path/trail be provided along the Eagle River which connects to the Riverwalk trail to the east. 2) The short-term lodging, hotel/motel, be deleted from the proposal. 3) drainage issues be resolved. 4) prior to issuance of a building permit for residential units school land dedication and or cash in lieu of must be resolved 5) the amended state highway access permit must be approved prior to issuance of a building permit on this site. Mary Jo Berenato, Deputy County Attorney, explained the various options the applicant may have regarding these conditions. commissioner Phillips stated she is not comfortable with moving forward without review by the County Engineer. She believes there are two many questions to be answered. Fritze Schmidt, applicant, stated he is planning on building the main building first and then having an option on the small building. He suggested if he corrmits to one thing or the other, he is corrmitted. He doesn't understand the denial of the hotel. He wants to build a small lodge along the river which he believes would be very attractive. He referred to Riverwalk and the building going on there. He stated he is 5,000 square feet below what he could build on the lot. He stated they are doing a traffic study and are in conformance. He is willing to put in the path. He wants, in a couple of years, to either build a lodge or some residential units. Chairman Gates suggested the lodge mayor may not happen a couple of years down the road. Jerry Dockin, an architect, attempted to clarify some of the concerns. He is talking about two buildings, one with offices and parking. He is also talking about a small hotel along the river. They feel the uses are appropriate to the site. He showed views of the buildings in an artists renderin$"' The intention is to step the unit across the river and step it back so It relates to the existing center. with regard to the access condition, they are willin$" to abide by what is required. Chairman Gates asked If there is any employee housing required on this application. Ms. Eastley responded no, not on a special use project. Ms. Berenato asked if they are voluntarily going to dedicate a bike path. Mr. Schmidt said they would do so. He said he would either build it now or collateralize it. Mr. Dockin stated Mr. Schmidt is willing to accept staff's proposal except the concern with the hotel facility. They are here to ask approval be given. Mr. Dockin clarified the bike path requirements. Ms. Eastley stated the Plannin$" Commission recommended the deletion of the lodging units, however, staff dld not feel that necessary. Staff feels they have adequately reviewed the proposal and feel lodging or residential units are appropriate. Ms. Berenato asked about access onto the spur road. Martha Miller, Engineering Design Works stated they submitted a CDOT 3 permit in late December. It was returned because a permit cannot be issued until the uses are approved. She stated a CDOT permit is required whenever you have a change in land uses. The change does require an amendment. Ms. Berenato asked about the traffic flow. Ms. Miller stated they would use the current entrance into Fiesta's. She showed the traffic pattern on the map and there would be access onto highway 6 on the backside. Mr. Dockin stated there are two points of access. Ms. Miller stated the drainage issues have all been addressed and they were all fairly simple to resolve. She doesn't' see any outstanding issues. Ms. Berenato asked if the applicant was comfortable to come back should the engineering department have concerns. Ms. Miller stated they could be two months out. Mr. Dockin asked if there is an alternative. Ms. Berenato stated tabling. Commissioner Phillips stated she would give approval but would not want to do so with the inn or residential as part of the plan. She would like to see him return for approval at a later date. Chairman Gates asked if this is a zone change. Ms. Eastley stated it is a special use amendment. Mr. Dockin stated residential uses are not excluded. Ms. Eastley stated they are not a use by right, they are a part of the special use. Phil Scott, Engineering Technician, stated he cannot address drainage. He doesn't doubt that Ms. Miller was able to take care of the comments. He stated they did review the project after it was resubmitted. He added the spur road lS also a part of the study area under the access control plan. Access issues should be resolved. In the meantime, there should be a variance. Commissioner Phillips asked how soon staff can look at the plans and make the appropriate determinations. She feels this is being pushed forward when there are alot of unanswered questions. Mr. Scott stated John may be back in tomorrow or the following day. It would be next week before he could review it. Commissioner Phillips stated access from the state highway department is still an issue. Ms. Berenato asked if Mr. Scott is the reviewing authority. She stated Eagle County is the issuing authority for access permits. CDOT will review for agreement. Mr. Scott stated that process can take four to six weeks once they receive the permit request. Chairman Gates asked if this is tabled, he is not sure how long. Ms. Eastley read a section of a letter from Phil Scott to Martha Miller, which stated until the proposed uses are allowed, the application cannot be permitted. Mr. Dockin questioned if Commissioner Phillips feels the uses are inappropriate. Commissioner Phillips stated her problem is they don't know what they want for sure. She feels the approval of lodging could be changed back to residential. She is not sure that would be appropriate. Mr. Schmidt stated in three or four years down the road, the lodge would be perfect. He is not looking at a cheap hotel. He would like some flexibility because who knows what will be needed in three to four years. He wants to have something upscale. He would like a little consideration to look toward the future. Commissioner Phillips stated that is the reason she hates to approve something now. Ms. Eastley stated Mr. Schmidt could come back for another amendment. Ms. Eastley stated whether it is lodging or residential, they would be reviewing the development. Chairman Gates asked if they approve Building 1 at this time, could Building 2 be approved at a later date. Ms. Eastley stated that is possible. Mr. Dockin questioned Building 1 has no problems but the "or" issue lS what is of concern with Building 2. Commissioner Phillips stated Mr. Schmidt has a special use in place and can proceed with building 1. She stated if they are going to approve 4 r- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 something that won't happen in three to four years, that they approve one or the other. Scott Hover, representing B & B Excavating, stated they do not oppose his application and he has the right to modify it. Mr. Hover stated if they are talking about residential units would there not be the need to notify the school district. with that type of flexibility they might want to cover those basis. Again, B&B does not oppose this development. Ms. Berenato suggested they build building 1 first and prior to the building of building 2 they come back for review by staff and the planning department and the Board of County Commissioners. The Board then will have the option of denyin$"' Commissioner Phlllips moved to approve file number ZS-232-96-A, Edwards Plaza, with the following conditions: with building one as described and a second building which could be built after a site plan review, incorporating Staff findings and conditions as stated above. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Berenato asked the bike path issue be voluntary. Mr. Schmidt agreed. Chairman Gates called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-291-96-A, Riverwalk at Edwards Sid Fox, Planning Manager, presented file number PD-291-96-A, Riverwalk at Edwards. He stated this was a request for changes in the Employee Housing provisions of the PUD Guide to allow for pre-sale of units, changes to maximum height of buildings and lot coverage. Mr. Fox stated these modifications come form collaboration between the County and Mr. Williams. This amendment was preplanned. Staff recommended approval as did the planning commission. David Carter, Housing Coordinator, stated he has been working with Bob Loeffler to work out the details regarding the employee housing provisions. Chairman Gates asked if Mr. Carter had discussed the issues with Mr. Loeffler and Ms. Berenato. Mr. Carter stated there is a further appendix which was not included in the Corrmissioners packet. He stated this does not change much but it clarifies some of the issues. Mr. Carter stated the appendix follows up on the Memo Of Understanding and further defines the residential units will be deed restricted. When the units are ready to be sold, they will be deed restricted individually. Bill Williams, applicant, stated they have agreed on everything and the main goal is to make things simpler for everyone. The employee housing issue he does not believe is a perfect solution but he thinks it will work for them. Commissioner Phillips asked if the deed restriction was what they agreed on. Mr. Carter stated Mr. Loeffler has reviewed it and is happy with it. He related it appeared to be the intent for senior citizens to live there indefinitely. In this present wording, they have cleared that up. Mr. Williams stated because this is the first time to have done this they will probably be back in to fine tune it. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number PD-291-96-A, Riverwalk at Edwards. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Berry Creek, 5th Filing Sid Fox presented a request for Berry Creek, Filing 5, for the sketch plan to be extended for one year. Peter Jamar is here representing the applicant. Chairman Gates questioned if they understand correctly this issue is still in court. 5 Mr. Jamar explained their request saying the sketch plan will expire in June and they would like additional time for further planning. The purchase of the land to the east by the school district has created some new oI?portunities for joint planning efforts. The other issue that is up in the alr is the issue wlth the railroad which may effect their plans. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the extension of the sketch plan for Berry Creek, 5th Filing for one year. Chairman Gates seconded the motlon. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 96-47 - ZS-342-96-A, Daniels Special use Per.mit Ellie Caryl, Planning Technician, presented file number ZS-342-96-A, Daniels Special Use Permit. She stated this was a request to amend the existing Special Use Permit for a contractor's yard. Staff recommended denial. Ms. Berenato stated there is no reason to read the conditions into the record as they will be included in the resolution. Ms. Caryl stated #9 regarding the storage areas was an issue. She stated a rather large area was shown and they have talked with the applicant about reducing the area. Condition #18 states the special use will be limited to four contractors and will be limited to the storage area. She stated there is no restriction on type. Ms. Berenato stated Staff recommends the Board set this for a one year review. If there are any conditions needing to be satisfied that be done before review. Ms. Caryl stated they did more clarification for this revision with specific dates attached. They have clarified those and they are specified in the resolution. Chairman Gates asked about #9 and the potential for dust. Mr. Daniels stated there will be some when it dries out but they irrigate the piles. He lives downwind. He stated if he has complaints he'd be open to resolution. Commissioner Phillips asked if he accepts the conditions. Mr. Daniels answered yes. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number ZS-342-96-A, Daniels Special Use Permit amendment, incorporating Staff findin$"s. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two votlng Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-139-96, Arrowhead Village Sid Fox presented file number PD-139-96, Arrowhead Village Site Plan Review. He stated Vail/Arrowhead Inc. has submitted a development area plan in accordance with the PUD Guide which requires additional review of development Area Plans. This site plan review is in response to questions raised as part of the review of recent building permit applications and questions concerning how the village area plan conforms with previous approvals. The Arrowhead At Vail PUD Guide states that "Development Area Plans" are "subject to approval by the County Commissioners." The Development Area Plans shall typically identify the general layout of buildings, parking and other uses to scale, at a preliminary design level suitable for public review but not at the level of detail typically associated with the final design or construction documentation. This request is also for approval of the Building Height Exception as per the PUD Guide Section XI. ID. Height exception review requests will be evaluated using the architectural requirements contained in the Design Guidelines and shall follow the review procedure for the Development Area Plans. Development Area A is located at the base of the ski area and is intended to be the "village core." Staff recognizes the site plan before the Board today does not include all of area A. Staff is recommending approval noting there was public comment at the planning commission meeting. The concern was this plan would eliminate availability of affordable public parking for Arrowhead. 6 ~- T BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Chalrman Gates asked if the parking will be affordable. Mr. Fox stated he does not know whether it will be affordable or not. He stated the applicant is represented today by Chris Cares. Mr. Cares stated he is here with Pat Mayer and Tamara Underwood. Mr. Cares stated the height exception has been contemplated over the years. The desire is to create a pedestrian village with parking underground or located in accessible areas. Mr. Cares stated the PUD has always contemplated the ability to charge for parking. They are comfortable with the reviews by staff and the planning commission. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number PD-139-96, Arrowhead Village Plan Review as defined in staff's presentation. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ZC-273-96, Grant-Smith Property Paul Clarkson, Planner, presented file number ZC-273-96, Grant-Smith Property. He stated this was a request to rezone the subdivided 11.13 acres from Resource to Agricultural Residential and Residential Suburban Medium Densi ty . The purpose is to allow for the subdivision in two lots, one 10.4 acre parcel and one 0.7 acre parcel. A companion Minor Type A Subdivision is also pending before the Board. The intent of the application is to rezone and subdivide to fit the existing conditions on the site. This is to say the site already contains two single family and accessory structures which have occupied the site since prior to the County's adoption of zoning. The intensity, use and density of the site will not lncrease over and above what is already there. Mr. Clarkson stated this has been referred to the Town of Basalt and no response has been received from them. He stated this will settle the Grant Estate. Staff does recommend approval as did the planning commission. Michael Blair and Tom Hartford were ~resent. Michael Blair stated he is the grandson of Mr. Bair and is representlng Aloha Grant. He stated the zoning variance is simply a correction of an error and asked the Board waive the fee of $400.00. Mr. Hartford, an attorney, stated with respect to the future land use map, the territo:rx to the west has already been subdivided as has the Town of Basalt parcel. Wlth respect to the application, there is a significant difference in bringing an existing piece of pro~erty into conformance. upon approval the applicant will not be in the positlon to add density. The County will not be required to provide additional services. They do request the zone change as a matter of cleaning up the record. They would appreciate the waiver of the fee. Commissioner Phillips stated this has been a long process and it was a zoning error. She stated the Board has tried not to exempt fees due to the process of sometimes everyone requesting fees be exempt. She believes in this case it might warrant that because of the error originating from the County. She knows that Dale, before he died, was here requesting this be adjusted. Michael Bair stated on his own this has taken three years and been a very expensive project and they still have a way to go. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number ZC-273-96, Grant- Smith Property and exempting the applicant from paying the $400.00 fee because it was an error made by the County some time ago and the process will correct the error made. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-293-96 Cordillera Sub PD-293-96-Al sid Fox presented file numbers PD-293-96 and PD-293-96-Al, Cordillera Subdivision. He stated this was a request to add the Bearden Parcel consisting of 320 acres to the Cordillera PUD. The proposed plan is to reallocate 65 dwelling units to the Bearden parcel from the existing approved 7 density for the Cordillera PUD. The sketch plan was approved by the BOCC on January 2, 1996, Resolution 96-08. Staff reviewed this PUD plan to determine conformance. The only items of note are in respect to the wildlife. The applicant has been working closely with Staff and the DOW to miti$"ate these issues. In respect to open space and recreation, the Forest Servlce commented they would like to regain public access to the forest. The applicant has been working with them to figure out the details. Most of the corrments received were routine. There is a wildfire hazard located on the site. The applicant has incorporated wildfire mitigation into their plan. There is a signed agreement with the DOW and the applicant and is approved by the County staff. One concern that has evolved as a result of this amendment is through the evolution of the Cordillera PUD, there are some potential differences between the PUD guide and the wildlife agreement. They are checking into this issue. Staff is recommending approval with three conditions: 1) a signed wildlife mitigation agreement must be submitted with the first Final plat application. 2) the extension of lot lines beyond that proposed in the Preliminary Plan application is subject to further staff review to determine conformance with the Preliminary Plan and wildlife agreement. 3) all individual sewage disposal systems ISDS must be designed by a registered professional engineer. The Planning Corrmission recommended approval. Commissioner Phillips asked about the mitigation plan. Lance Badger, representing Cordillera, explained they have worked out all of the details with Bill Heicher. Commissioner Phillips asked if they are committing to funds instead of a plan. Mr. Badger stated $15,000 has been agreed to in addition to the plan. Chairman Gates suggested the wildlife mitigation plan is an issue that the Board would like to review it with the DOW staff. He asked about the change in density. Mr. Badger stated they are not changing the density, but shifting from the existing ranch to the Bearden Parcel. Chairman Gates asked if the Squaw Creek corridor would be open. Mr. Badger showed the plan on the maps. He stated they will leave the floor of the valley as open space and they have some funds and neighbors in the valley to do so. Commlssioner Phillips moved to approve file number PD-293-96 and PD-293- 96-Al, Cordillera Subdivision, with the conditions as stated above. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 1041-037-96, Cordillera Subdivision Sid Fox presented file number 1041-037-96, Cordillera Subdivision, Bearden Parcel. He stated this was a request for an extension of water and sewer services to the Bearden Parcel which will be provided by an extension of lines from the "Ranch." The construction period is estimated to start during the summer of 1997 and continue through 2002. The water system will be extended from the existing 400,000 gallon water storage tank which is supplied by well fields on the Ranch as well as an interconnect between the Western Parcel and the Divide. A new pumping station and interconnect between the Edwards Metro District and Cordillera has been completed but is not yet operational. The water system will be owned and operated by the Squaw Creek Metropolitan District. The proposed water system extension will be funded by General Obligation Bonds. The estimated construction cost of the water system is $500,000. The estimated construction cost of the sewer system is $800,000. The sewer line will be owned and maintained by the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District. The extension of the sewer line will result in 21,000 feet of 8" PVC pipe and 122 manholes. The central collecting of sewage will drain into a line which is parallel to Squaw Creek Road and eventually into the Squaw Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Chairman Gates asked for the location of the lines. Ray Merry explained where the lines are located. Mr. Fox asked a letter be submitted into the record by many special districts. The letter protests this application. 8 :.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Mr. Merry made copies of the letter available to the Board. The Board took a few minutes to review the letter. Chairman Gates asked if this is a proliferation of districts. Mr. Fox stated there may be a legal issue and the question was previously addressed in the service plan of the Squaw Creek Metro District and the Cordillera Metro District. This is an extension of physical water and sewer lines and not a new district. Mr. Badger stated the lands within the Bearden parcel are now part of the district. He stated he received his copy of this letter from the attorney's office. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number 1041-037096, Cordillera Subdivision with conditions A - I. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-293-96-A2, Cordillera Subdivision Kathy Eastley presented file numbers PD-293-96-A2 and PD-293-96-AF3, Cordillera Subdivlsion. She stated this was a request to revise the PUD to accommodate a specific development plan on the Northern Parcel, and, a request to amend the building envelopes. This is a request for a PUD Amendment on Planning Parcels C and D to accorrmodate changes made necessary by the formulation of a specific development plan for a portion of the Northern Parcel. The development proposal which has been submitted is to construct an English-style village complete with orchards and pedestrian interconnections. The theme includes low-profile cottages and detached garages which may be constructed close to the roadway and close to the adjacent lots. A Par Three Golf Course will provide recreation and open space around this village area. This plan necessitates the vacation of the previously platted building envelopes. An Amended Final Plat is currently being reviewed for those envelope changes and will be scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners in conjunction with this application. Staff's only real concern is the potential ridgeline impacts. The PUD Guidelines allow for a multitude of uses to occur in this area. Those uses include multi-family townhomes and duplex units as well as child day-care and administrative facilities. Staff is recommending approval in accordance with Section 2.06.13(11). This proposal is in accordance with the Cordillera Subdivision Amended and Restated Planned Unit development Guidelines. Chairman Gates asked about the visual effects. Mr. Badger showed the Board the layout. Chairman Gates asked about a recent building that lS visible. Mr. Badger referred to it as the Alcazar home and stated it was well on its way before they were able to restrict some of the building issues. Mr. Badger showed the area to the Board and explained the layout of the buildings. He stated they have started construction on the first home. Most of the sites are sitting well below the visibility point. Chairman Gates asked how many units. Mr. Badger responded they have platted fifty-five units. They will relocate the additional density elsewhere. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number PD-293-96-A2, Cordillera Subdivision, with staff's issues and concerns which seem to have been met and the condition the changes be made on the red line print. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-293-96-AF3, Cordillera Ms. Eastley presented file number PD-293-96-AF3, Cordillera. She stated this is a request to amend the building envelopes within Filing 16, the Northern Parcel. The intent of increasing the size of these building envelopes is to allow for the development of an English-style village. 9 Mr. Bad$"er confirmed their desires. Commissloner Phillips moved to approve file number PD-293-96-AF3. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Badger stated they worked very closely with staff on the Bearden parcel and believes they have a good plan. He recognized staff for the great job they did. SM-973-95, Wolcott Springs Paul Clarkson ~resented file number SM-973-95, Wolcott Sprin$"s, Parcel C. He stated this lS a Minor Type A Subdivision proposed to subdlvide a 35 acre parcel into 3 single family lots in accordance with the AR zoning: two 10 acre parcels and one 15 acre parcel. Water will be provided by a well and distribution system and sewage will be disposed of through an Indlvidual Sewage Disposal System. Access to all lots will be throu$"h Wolcott Springs Road. There are no on-site improvements proposed or requlred. Mr. Clarkson reviewed the chronology of the site stating there are 1,520 acres of AR land approved by the Board on May 8, 1978. Mr. Clarkson reviewed the conformance with the applicable master plans and all is in conformance. The Division Of wildlife has indicated the proposed wildlife mitigation measures will minimize the impact to wildlife to acceptable levels. Fire protection has been mitigated and an agreement has been entered into with the Avon Fire Department. Water , Bellyache Ridge Road and School Land Dedication fees have all been agreed to. Staff is recommending approval. Chairman Gates asked if the well is in place. Steve Isom, I Plan, Inc., responded yes. Chairman Gates asked if it has been pumped. Mr. Isom stated it has been pumped and has been tested. Chairman Gates asked about the road. Mr. Clarkson explained the road was dedicated for all owners of that road. It is the responsibility of the property owners to maintain the road. It is of an acceptable condition for a mountain road. Commissioner Phillips asked about the wildlife mitigation plan and how $1500.00 can mitigate the wildlife concerns to an acceptable level. Bill Heicher, Division Of Wildlife, stated the $1500 goes into a trust fund and the principal is never touched. The interest will be used for seeding, etc. The funds are set up in the Bellyache fund and those interest dollars will be used to improve the area. He stated there is approximately $25,000 in the fund right now. Burning is not really and o~tion so fertilization (aerial) will be used. It is a way to deal wlth the impacts for the life of the impacts. Steve Isom stated about one third of the property is in a wildlife easement. Commissioner Phillips understood the mitigation to allow the corridors to be left open. She asked when this started. Bill Heicher responded it was in 1986 with vail Associates. Mr. Heicher stated the County is not requiring money. The mitigation plan is drawn up by the developer and the DOW is agreeing to the ~lans presented. This mitigation trust fund is one way of handling It. It is fairly quick and easy. If the developer wants to spend the money to deal with the impacts, that's up to them. The DOW is saying here is one method that works. They always have the option of doing their own. Chairman Gates asked about the difference between the mitigation plan and the trust fund. Mr. Heicher further explained the plan and the various areas it addresses. The whole thing is the plan. The trust is only one part of it. Commissioner Phillips stated she remembers it all very well except the ~art about the trust. She questions the plan including amounts to be funded lnto the particular trust. She asked if other counties are doing this. Mr. Heicher responded he does not know. Commissioner Phillips brought up Cordillera and the Bearden parcel. Mr. Heicher stated Cordillera is a fund by itself. He stated again this is only one method of mitigating the impacts. He related the County zoned 1500 acres AR and now they are trying to address the impacts that they will have over the development of the area. Commissioner Phillips stated she still has some real concerns about this 10 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEI.:S 387869 as there are State legislators who are questioning the legality. Mr. Heicher referred to the new County Master Plan the requirement for mitigation. Mr. Heicher stated they have been the referral agency for the County. If the applicant does not like it, the developer can get a wildlife biologist to create a plan. Chairman Gates suggested the DOW and the Board sit down and come up with what may be a more agreeable plan. commissioner Phillips suggested developers feel pressured to agree to the fees imposed. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number SM-973-95, Wolcott Springs including staff's findings. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SM-982-95, Wolcott Springs, Parcel B1 Paul Clarkson presented file number SM-982-96, Wolcott Springs, Parcel B-1. He stated this was a request to subdivide 35 acres into three single family lots in accordance with the Agricultural Residential zoning; two 10 acre parcels and one 15 acre parcel. Water will be provided by a well and distribution system and sewage will be disposed of through an Individual Sewage Disposal System. Access to Lots 2 & 3 are from the Bellyache Ridge Road and Lot 1 will be access from the private Wolcott Springs Road. There are no on-sit improvements proposed or required. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Phillips asked about corrments from the Bellyache Ridge residents. Mr. Clarkson responded they did receive some comments and most of those were concerning the water issues. Staff believes there to be adequate water. Chairman Gates asked about geological concerns. Mr. Clarkson stated the concern for landslides in the area is very old and the hillside has since stabilized. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number SM-982-95, Wolcott Springs, Parcel B-1 including staff's findings. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-340-95-S, Fax Run Meadows Paul Clarkson presented file number PD-340-95-S, Fox Meadows. Lee Levenworth is present representing the applicant. He stated this is a PUD Sketch Plan proposal for 19 one to two acre clustered lots and seven larger (7.4-14 acres) with caretaker units totaling 26 lots and a maximum of 33 dwelling units. The common or platted open space totals 17 acres but through the use of building envelopes, the overall effective open space is over 60 acres or almost half the site. Water is proposed to be provided by a community system and sewage disposal is by way of ISDS (septic). Access to the clustered lots is via Paseo and the larger lots will access from Paseo, Fender and Harmony Lanes. A pedestrian/emergency access easement connects Fender Lane with Paseo. Mr. Clarkson stated at the two Planning Commission meetings positive input was given. Staff recommended approval. Ron Liston, Land Design Partnership, representing the applicant stated this has been a very good process which actually started back in 1990. He summarized what they have done since then to make this a possible project. The clustering concept was brought to the planning commission, staff and the nei$"hborhood. They made some significant changes as asked by planning and zonlng and the neighbors and since have had a recommendation for approval. Mr. Liston explained the plan to the Board using a map. He explained the location and the access to the property. He stated the majority of the property is currently irrigated hay meadow. A primary goal is to preserve the open space and country character. The clustering concept has two things in mind, large lots 8-10 acres and small lots, just under an acre. At preliminary plan, on the large lots, they will restrict how much can be built on to maintain the ranchette activity. On the small lots, trying to maintain 11 the open space, they are attempting to get lots that will be maintainable. He further explained the layout of the development. They have attempted to minimize the disturbance of views to Mount Sopris. They will need space for two leach fields via easements on the adjacent large tracks or the adjacent open space tracks. They have dedicated some of the area to open space. The area labeled "Park" will hopefully accomplish that if that is what the residents want by preliminary plan. They will have a central water system. The irrigation will be from Spring Creek Reservoir. There will be a water tank to service the area. At preliminary plan they intend to drop the tank and keep the profile low. Somebody sitting on higher ground may see it but they will do everything they can to hide it. The desire is to take the concept of the master plan and have accomplished through good design the preservation of open space, good view corridors, and wildlife concerns. Mr. Liston reviewed staff's recommendations listed as 1 - 8 and he responded to each issue. They are in agreement with these issues and intend to mitigate any outstanding issues. They will identify two types of development on each of the larger lots. The other concern is regarding livestock and having the results of running livestock to keep the activities away from the neighbors. The planning commission heard this file on February 8 and April 18, 1996 and took public testimony on both dates. They wanted to be sure there would be adequate space for the leach fields and the building envelopes be lowered. The planning corrmission requested limiting the number of units to 24 and the traffic be split so it does not all go on to Paseo Drive. The bulk of the traffic will go on Fender Lane. They are in agreement with all of the conditions as set forth. Lee Levenworth, Levenworth and Associates, reiterated the majority of the property is irrigated. The developer owns shares of the springs and is corrmitted to keep water available. He lives close to this development and is pleased with the plan as presented. They have tried to keep access off of Harmony Lane. Chairman Gates asked about the number of units. Mr. Clarkson stated they are proposing a maximum of 24 clustered smaller lots and 7 parcels with single family homes and caretaker units. The EIS can largely be waived as long as there is adequate information from the DOW. They have been difficult to get ahold of, but the applicant will continue to do so. They can support the requested waiver and propose adequate mitigation. The IGA is something staff will work out with Garfield County. Harmony Lane is wholly in Garfield. There has been an IGA in which Garfield granted Eagle County the rights to maintain the Fox Run Meadows PUD. Chairman Gates asked if there was specific feedback from Garfield. Mr. Clarkson stated yes and it was regarding the geology and water. He stated the planning commission meetings were successful and compromises were reached. The Eagle County Master Plan supports this though the Mid-Valley Master plan differs in the number of units. Staff sees this proposal as incorporating good ~lanning practices and staff is recommending an increase in the number of unlts over what that master plan sug$"ests. Mr. Clarkson reviewed the Sketch Plan and PUD Crlteria. Staff does recommend ap~roval with their conditions as stated. Commissloner Phillips stated she has concerns with the number of units being in non-conformance with the area master plan. She asked if the County master plan supersedes the area master plan. Mr. Clarkson stated the area master plan is five years old. Commissioner Phillips asked about the caretaker units. Mr. Liston responded they offered to remove the caretaker units on the lar$"e lots but the P & Z asked they be kept there. The hope is some will be avallable to address housing concerns to help provide affordable rentals. Mr. Clarkson stated they have a situation which could allow ten single family dwellings on this site in a cookie cutter format. Down the road, that would not be so positive. This proposal allows for a greater number of dwelling units and a better infrastructure as a clustered development. As much as 50% of the site will be maintained in its current form. They believe this to be the best compromise. 12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Commissioner Phillips stated just because they are approved, the caretaker units might not be built. She asked about the dog population. Mr. Liston stated that will specifically be dealt with in the covenants and the preliminary plan stage. Bob Schlegel, Animal Control, did respond and does recorrmend strong covenants. Chairman Gates asked the record to reflect there are some concerns addressed in letters they have received. Phil Scott stated the issues of concern have been remedied as the traffic will be directed to Fender Lane. Mr. Scott stated the conditions imposed by staff offer all needed information. Staff recommendation #3 is being eliminated per the planning commission recommendation. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number PD-340-95-S, Fox Run Meadows including Staff's recommendations 1 - 8, eliminating #3, making the changes to #7 which becomes #6 as reviewed and adding numbers 8, 9, and 10. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. In discussion, Chairman Gates asked about the wildlife mitigation. Mr. Clarkson stated that will happen at preliminary plan. Mr. Liston stated the DOWIs primary concern is the movement of wildlife and they would like to have recommendations in the covenants for managing the herds. Mr. Clarkson added the planning commission did modify #7 (now #6) by either increasing lot sizes or modifying ISDS conditions. Chairman Gates called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-348-95-S, Lone Pine Estates Paul Clarkson presented file number PD-348-95-S, Lone pine Estates. He stated this was a request for a 120 bed-room multi-family unit on five acres. Mr. Clarkson suggested the applicant present the basics of what this proposal is all about. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, representing the Brose Family, stated this submittal is in the Lone pine Estates located in the Edwards area just east of the Riverwalk project. He showed two maps, one of more detail explaining the location. He stated this is a central location adjacent to the core of what will be the Town of Edwards. He stated this is an appropriate location for the types of units they are proposin$' Riverwalk is contiguous to the west. The intention is to build five buildlngs of apartments, three stories high with underground parking. A day care facility would be located on the site. A fourth drawing shows the overall view and the proximity to the river and to Riverwalk. In meetings with the Planning Corrmission, they have reduced the number of buildin$s and offer more open space. The proposal has 2.6 parkin$ spaces per unlt with designated parking for the day care center. Snow stacklng was an issue and they have addressed that by adding a filtration system at the volleyball courts. A 50 foot set back is shown along the Eagle River. They would provide the accell/decell lanes according to CDOT. Because of the existing units at the Lone pine Mobile Home Park, there has been a great deal of concern. Danny Brose, a resident of Edwards, stated they began a conversation with the residents of Lone pine approximately three months ago. They have had three meetings with the residents and he met with the spokesgroup approximately six weeks ago. The desire was to find relocation areas for the residents of Lone Pine. They have looked from Dotsero to Wolcott and on to Leadville. They came up with approximately 75 spaces total in the Leadville area. They came up with 14 spaces in Eagle County nearer to Bond and McCoy. There were spaces in Dotsero but that would require re-doing the whole project. Many of the trailers cannot be moved because of the a$e of the units. They met six weeks ago and were going to appoint an arbltrator. He has hired an attorney who facilitated the mobile home park relocation of Avon Station. She will be working with the residents and him to get some monetary help as they did at the Avon Station. He stated he has been working diligently to try to find a relocation plan. He has hired someone familiar 13 with the removal aspects and will be writing the residents in the next few days. Chairman Gates asked about time frame. Mr. Brose stated they would try to give an ample amount of time being as much as six months. Chairman Gates asked how many trailers there are now. Mr. Brose stated about 41. He stated there are about 137 people in the mobile home park now which is about 3.5 per trailer. Mr. Brose stated they are now dealing with the relocation. It is very difficult relocating people and many of them will not have a mobile home to take with them because they cannot be moved. Chairman Gates asked whose expense it is if the trailer can't be moved. Mr. Brose stated he would assume that expense. Ms. Berenato stated, for the record, the recommendation requesting a plan is voluntary and not a requirement. If they own, they must be given 60 days notice, if they rent, they must give 30 days notice. Mr. Isom spoke to the issue of density and the comparison to Sun River. Sun Ridge, Phase II is also a similar development. Sun Ridge at Avon is also similar in size. Cliff Side Village is another comparable facility. As far as the density, they feel it is appropriate. The location and ability to walk to the surrounding facilities makes it more of a commmity. They will be doing a traffic study as part of the preliminary plan. The other questions that arise will be dealt with at preliminary plan. wildlife and fire issues will also be addressed. Chairman Gates asked if phasing could be possible so everyone is not displaced at once. Mr. Isom stated they considered this but the roads have not been maintained and then with water and sewer, access would be impossible. Also, many of the units project farther to the north. Paul Clarkson, directed the Board's attention to the second page of Staff's report and the conformance to the Master Plans. Edwards area is considered a corrmunity center and the density exceeds the requirements. This proposal may not be providing an adequate amount of open space. The Edwards Sub-area plan indicates this might be over building. Mr. Clarkson stated they received written comment from many of the referrals. He stated they have also received numerous letters of concern. The Eagle County Master plan states it is appropriate for multi-family develo~ment of 12 units per acre. This proposal exceeds that. He asked they keep In mind three items. 1) the overall living environment 2) the success of this projects integration into the neighborhood and 3) the adequate relocation of the current residents. Mr. Clarkson stated the applicant has not addressed the issue of maintaining affordability. David Carter stated given the rational for this density should preserve affordability by deed restriction. Density, Mr. Clarkson stated, is like comparing apples to oranges. The Rive rvi ew apartments in Eagle-Vail is the only example that is similar. The examples given are for sale units. Mr. Clarkson discussed the various comparisons given by Mr. Isom indicating they are not acceptable for comparison. River Run and this proposal may be similar. The question lS, is this site appropriate for multi-family development. This proposal, at 28 units per acre, may be getting into some greater concerns. The amount of open space does not appear to be up to the 25% as recommended by the land use regulations. The applicants are making some adjustments to provide a total lot and day care. Staff has some issues regarding open space. Staff believes this is a rather crowded development. Open space would have to be 1 and 1/3 acres. Some of the provisions may be considered commmity type entities causing staff to consider the density. The 9,000 square foot building plus play yard and tot lot may make It more acceptable. The design of this building must be appropriate to meet State standards. He discussed those requirements. This site, Mr. Clarkson stated, is appropriate for multi-family development, however, the Riverwalk principal investors are not committing to any working arrangement with the developer. Bill Williams stated via Mr. Clarkson, no conversations have taken place. Improvements to the site may connect the development to the rest of Edwards. There would be additional information required at preliminary plan addressing concerns of the Reserve and Riverwalk. These particular facilities should be dedicated to the use of the public and would integrate this proposal into the commmity 14 ." BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 of Edwards. Parking is proposed at 2.67 spaces per unit. They are doing this in a tandem configuration blocking one row of parking by another. Arranging the parking in this manner, is not familiar to staff in a high density rental development. Suggesting this type of parking further suggests the inadequacy of the site for this density. At preliminary plan, the applicant will be required to show how this has worked at other developments. The Sheriff has indicated there should be three s~aces per unit. He believes 2.5 is not enough. The minimum requirement lS 2.5 according to the land use regulations. Another issue is the massiveness of the buildings. The size could create some difficulty with snow melt due to shadows being cast. It will require a very intense snow removal plan. It is possible to provide for architectural improvements to break up the massiveness. The Reserve has requested an opportunity to review the plans and staff concurs. This project would probably not result in long term housing and there may be social concerns. Mr. Isom has responded to this issue and indicated good on-site management is the secret. That is probably correct but they don't have an indication from the developer as to what that is. One of the overriding concerns is can a development of this size overcome concerns with density, social issues, etc. The residents of the Lone pine Mobile Home Park do not have the ability for the most part to remain at the location. It does not appear that relocation is a very viable option. Is compensation an option? It is not in the County's right to require the developer to resolve the displacement of the residents nor to compensate them. The Lone pine Trailer Park is in conformance with the County's Master Plan. Mr. Clarkson reviewed the findin$s. Staff has seen a demonstrated willingness from the applicant to modlfy the proposal. Staff can support this project considering the conditions are met. Staff has fourteen items of recommendation. The Planning Corrmission met on March 6 and April 17. Testimony from current residents and neighbors was taken on both dates, none of which was in favor of the proposal. While many of the comments from the residents pertained to the loss of their homes and businesses, many other residents and neighbors testified to the inadequacies of the parking, the lack of snow storage, the inappropriate density of the project and the associated difficulties in management. The Planning commission unanimously recommended denial. Mr. Isom stated the Eagle Villa project and Lake Creek Apartments have some restrictions. Mr. 1som stated these do not have restrictions. Mr. Williams made clear he cannot add cars to his site until he has a permit. Thus he does not want to talk interconnection. Regarding tandem parking, Mr. Isom referred to River Run and The Gateway in Vail. They want to allocate spaces and the cars will be marked accordingly. This will require some planning and can be enforced. Mr. Isom stated Eagle Villa has 2.5 spaces as does Lake Creek. The height is 35 feet, not 45. They will be below the tree line. Mr. 1som stated two bedroom units are what is being looked for. Good on site management is a must. He stated Eagle Villas is a good example of that. The corrmunity building would be designed according to state recommendations. Mr. Brose stated he has had some recent lengthy conversations with David Carter and how he would do a conventional financing program to keep the costs down. A bonding underwriter reviewed it and came up 13 cents a square foot higher. He believes they could find a bond finance avenue to keep the costs down. He stated he is very much in favor of working with Mr. Carter to get this project to an affordable class. David Carter stated he can respond to any questions that arise. Chairman Gates asked for a brief surrmary. Mr. Carter stated he sees this at bein$ at a nebulous stage. In order to have a reasonable return, a more realistlc approach is to go into private activity bond. Mr. Carter discussed the financial as~ects of the deed restrictions and or renting. He stated they are looklng at a lot of density and that implies something in return. He questions what the return will be. Mr. Carter stated he is very concerned about the residents and what 15 happens if this proposal does not go through. He has heard some talk that regardless this may take away the mobile park. Mr. Carter further discussed the financial concerns. Commissioner Phillips asked if Joe Kavasovich will be retained to help people relocate is this pro~osal is denied. Mr. Brose stated she wlII be working with individuals from the mobile home park from the beginnin$ to the end. Mr. Brose stated if this proposal is denied, he will be buildlng a 70 unit patio development on this site. Commissioner Phillips asked if the units will be rental or be for sale. Mr. Brose responded he may put some on the market if the Commission requires. commissioner Phillips asked if these will be short term. Mr. Brose responded the minimum lease would be six months. He discussed the possibility of lock offs if one bedroom units are required. commissioner Phillips asked if there would be consideration of eliminating one building and keep the rental costs below $1000.00. Mr. Brose responded no. He believes he has already exceeded the costs of rental units by losing one building and to lose another he would go to the patio development. Mr. Brose stated the patio units would start at around $140.00 per square foot for sale. Chairman Gates discussed the concerns of affordable housing in this area and the difficulty in financing. Mr. Carter stated that can be addressed by providing a lease purchase arrangement. Dave Sloan, a resident of Homestead for a number of years, stated he has been to the last two Planning Commission meetings and why he dislikes the project. He does not fully agree with the things said by Paul, Steve or Danny. He reminded the Board they are being asked to look at a sketch plan. Mr. Sloan believes the lon$ list of what is wrong with this plan indicates it can't conform. If the modlfications are made, the final plan will look nothing like the sketch plan. The density issue is his primary concern. Mr. Sloan does not believe the Nimbyism is at work here. It is the density of this development that is of concern. He asks the Commission deny this sketch plan. Mark Matthews, a resident of South 40, stated they did not hear about this meeting and in the future requests all adjacent property owners be notified. Mr. Matthews stated density is one of his biggest concerns. He does not see it as being compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated increased density does provide for additional trash and things that spillover to surrounding projects. In his experience, in a project this dense, people will not prefer to live there, though they may not have a choice. He also commented on the parking and the units he manages in town, he stated parking is a big problem and a big concern. It can effect the sale price of units and the desirability. Mr. Matthews stated he was acquainted with tandem parking and it did not work very well. With a project this dense, ~arking will be an even greater issue come winter. Management is key, but he lndicated it is hard to assure how management will perform in the future. He recommends the applicant come back with a less dense project. Monte Barton, area resident, questioned the integrity and the good faith of the conversations. She stated they had no conversations before the submittal. She stated they had only one meeting, on April 10. The rent reduction was an offer and she complimented him but he did not specify it was on the units left. Speaking for herself and her children, she has no desire to live packed like sardines. Density has a direct correlation with crime. She stated she finds it odd that Mr. Brose just contacted Ms. Krovosich. She stated in February she contacted her and was told there was a conflict of interest. She reviewed the requirements of day care. Regarding Riverwalk, she spoke with Bill Williams and he said he would not back it. She read a statement to the Board and stated Lone Star has been there for twenty-five years. She asked the Board not to rezone this area. She stated they made an investment and before this took place it could have been sold for $15,000 now it is worthless. They are facing being homeless. She asks what Mr. Brose will do for them if this is approved. Commissioner Phillips asked how many trailers there are now. Ms. Barton responded 40. Steve Stafford, a resident of Morning Star Townhomes and a property manager, stated he appreciates Mr. Brose trying to address affordable housing 16 ~-- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 In Eagle County but what he is proposing has some serious concerns. He believes this proposal should be denied. The parking situation with this proposal in inappropriate. From his own personal experience he knows that 2.5 parking spaces is not enough. It takes at least three per two bedroom unit and especially in a project such as this which is called affordable housing. You'll have three or four single persons per two bedroom unit. He feels the snow storage is also an issue. Almost always there is not enough snow storage and it will make the parking situation that much worse. One other issue is the rent and $920 a month is not affordable. He referred to open market rentals which are not that much higher. The last issue is the density issue. This is too dense for this area. Affordable housing is a good thing but just because it is labeled as such, the County should not approve previously approved density. This is more of an urban situation and what most people moved here to get away from. He believes this site is appropriate for multi-family housing but not to this extent and feels the project should be denied. Ross Jansen, a resident of Homestead, stated he is in favor of the project if the recorrmendations stated by staff can be addressed. The over riding need for affordable housing over rides some of the concerns. Though $920 doesn't sound affordable, there is nothing further east. He feels this is one of the last sites at that end of the valley to provide some housing. It is getting too far away. It is close to the interstate, a day care facility, public facility, close to schools, and the medical center. It will also provide a net increase of 90 dwellings. He thinks it will clean up highway 6 to a large extent and help circulation. He does not believe it will hlnder or add to the traffic in a negative way. The $920 is not necessarily affordable but they manage some deed restricted units at $1200 a month. The building costs re<;IUire that kind of density. He stated he hates to lose the project to somethlng else as this is what lS needed. Mr. Brose responded to Monte Barton and her questions. He stated he has invested time and money into providing relocation. Not withstanding his desire to economically and morally work with people, he is not going to blatantly $"ive them an eviction notice nor will he turn them away in the winter. Hls building times are in the summer of this year or next spring. He will try to work out an alternative program with the County and he will contact his mobile leasing agent in Denver to arran$"e for trallers to be brought up on a temporary compound. He stated he wlll go the distance and he will treat the residents as well as those at the Avon Station. If there is a displacement issue and weather issue he will provide temporary housing and rent reduced units for a couple of years. He stated he hired a third party to help in this facilitation. Steve Isom stated there is only one point they do not agree with in staff's recommendations. Under #6, if they are doing bonding, it is not an issue. On an open market banking it is more difficult to work with. Commissioner Phillips asked how many units there now are owned. Mr. Brose responded there are 13 rental units. Corrmissioner Phillips asked what the rent is. Mr. Brose responded he does not know. He stated each one is a different case. He is not the owner of all of those trailers. Chairman Gates stated he still feels they have not found an answer. He believes something has to be done and corrmends Mr. Brose for bending over backwards. If there was a place for these people to go during the construction, that's a different matter. With as many concerns as have been voiced he would be hesitant to give approval at this time. He stated he does not know what to do and there are probably trailers that are not desirable to live in at this time. He stated he doesn't have the answers he needs to approve this application at the current time. Corrmissioner Phillips stated this is a concern. She read in the paper about the Planning Corrmission and their discussion regarding this. She has real concerns with 120 units replacing 40. She has heard in these discussions there is a possibility of doing a mobile home park in this area. Relocating to Leadville is not always an option. She believes the highest need for homes is not rental but the purchase of homes. Forty patio homes sounds better. The tandem parking is unacceptable as is the density. She 17 feels the open s~ace or lack there of is a problem, as is the drainage. An on site manager lS great but this density is more than they can a~prove. Density does provide for more affordable housing. She prefers thls be tabled until they can talk further about relocation and or the forty unit development as a better plan. Chairman Gates stated denying this is not necessarily the answer. He asked Mr. Carter about the research in assisting people wlth finding affordable housing. Mr. Carter stated this is only in preliminary stages and there is much work to be done. They have possibllities but that is all they are at this time. commissioner Phillips asked about some of the programs in place. Mr. Carter responded The Town of Vail has a program in effect. A down payment assistance program is feasible. Mr. Isom stated they are in the sketch plan concept. They can make some of the necessary changes but if the Board doesn't feel an apartment complex is appropriate they need to know. The apartment market is lacking in the valley. If in concept the Board is in a$reement, send it back to the Plannlng Commission and they will resubmit. Commissioner Phillips asked if some of the concerns can be addressed by tabling and returnin$ at a later date. Mr. Isom asked If they come back with a revised plan would that be appropriate. Ms. Berenato advised the Board they can not provide any kind of acceptance. If they come back with another plan and if it is a substantial modification it would go back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Gates asked if the people who live there would like to live in apartments. The majority present shook their heads no. Ms. Monet reiterated she lived in a housing project in Las Vegas and it was horrendous. She would much rather live in a trailer than in an apartment of the nature proposed. She added she would like to own a real house, but she can't come up with the 20%. The prices keep gettin$ out of her grasp. Ms. Berenato cautioned the Board regarding the patlo homes as it is not the issue before the Board today. Mr. Isom asked if Corrmissioner Phillips has an objection to the apartment plan. Ms. Berenato stated the concept of apartments is not before the Board today. Mr. Isom stated under a PUD you used to come in and discuss the concepts and that ability has been lost. If the apartment concept is inappropriate, they would ask to go back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Phillips stated reducing the units will make them more expensive and thus make them unaffordable. With the concerns she has, she doesn't see them bein$ answered nor do they have a plan for relocation. She does not see negotiatlon. Commissioner Phillips moved to deny file number PD-348-95-S, Lone pine Estates, incorporating Staff findings and conditions and those findings of the Planning Corrmission into the motion. Chairman Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until May 6, 1996. L~- Attest: . !z:a~ Clerk to t Board ~~~k,~J-/ 18