Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/28/99 PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 28,1999 Present: Johnnette Phillips Tom Stone James Fritze James Hartmann Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator 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: Resolution 99-108, Eagle Riverview Housing Bonds Jack Gardner, Hogan and Hartson, serving as Bond Council, stated the request today is for passage of a resolution approving the issuance by Eagle Riverview Affordable Housing Corporation of Multi Family Housing Project Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,300,000, authorizing a project agreement and authorizing incidental action. He stated this resolution complies with federal tax law which requires the County to approve the issuance of the bonds. He stated additionally this resolution approves the agreement between the County and the corporation. It approves an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the Lake Creek Affordable Housing and restates the corporation's ability to spend excess funds on affordable housing. He spoke to a technical amendment, the exception of any contract or transaction with the Corporation and the County itself. One is the project agreement and the other regarding TABOR concerns and a grant that will come through the County to the corporation. It will be repaid to the County and restricted to affordable housing purchases. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 99-108, approving the issuance by Eagle Riverview Affordable Housing Corporation of Multi Family Housing Project Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $7,300,000, authorizing a project agreement and authorizing incidental action. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared "unanimous. Commissioner Johnson was not present for the meeting. Consent Agenda Chairman Phillips stated the first item on the agenda was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of June 28, 1999, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for July 1, 1999, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of June 14, 1999 D) Resolution 99-109 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorneys Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. 9382135 for McJoint Venture for $15,899, to expire July 1, 1999, for Filing 13 E) Resolution 99-110 disposing certificates of sale held by Eagle County for fifteen years or more 1 06-21-1999 F) Resolution 99-111 disposing of certificates of sale held by Eagle County for thirty years or more G) Notice of Award for the Colorado River Road paving project H) Notice of Award for the Frying Pan Road paving project I) Appointments for Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Task Force J) Resolution 99-112 disposing of mobile home. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the consent calendar items A through H and item J, ,pulling item I for discussion. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Chairman Phillips stated she had a couple of corrections to the agenda. She read those corrections into the record. Commissioner Stone asked Jack Ingstad, Asst. County Administrator, to address item 1. Mr. Ingstad spoke to the advertising they did to get applicants who were interested in positions. He reviewed the list of names. He spoke to a Garfield County resident who also submitted his name. Commissioner Stone asked if the total number was seven. Mr. Ingstad explained the process and spoke to those being appointed. Commissioner Stone moved to appoint Royal Laybourn, and Darrell Rankin and from Garfield County, Chris Bank. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unammous. Chairman Phillips asked to have a discussion with these people to clarify what their job will be on this task force. Plat & Resolution Signing Scot Hunn, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00112, Lot 37. Highland Park Subdivision. Filing No.1. He stated this was a Minor "Type B" Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 37 to create two lots, Lot 37 A and Lot 37 B. The sole purpose of this subdivision is to create two (2) single family lots from the previous lot which allowed for a potential maximum density oftwo dwelling units (duplex). The topography of Lot 37 is more conducive to the proposed two lot configuration as there is a gully which runs through the center portion of the lot. Both single family lots created by this plat have more than the minimum area required (15,000 square feet minimum) under the RSL - Residential Suburban Low Density Zone District. He stated there is a large gully running through this lot. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. 1. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a. Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. He stated staffs recommendation is for approval and there are members of the public here to 2 06-21-1999 speak to this file. Warren Graybois who lives immediately next door to this proposed subdivision, stated there have been letters written by many ofthe neighbors opposing this subdivision. He stated the land has slid twice in the last two years because of water main breaks. He has had to clean extensively as a result of this. He thinks that adding further density will endanger his home. He spoke to photos he has of the damage done. He also brought copies of the letters written. Chairman Phillips asked if they received a letter regarding this prior to the approval. Mr. Graybois stated there have been many letters sent prior to this. He added this has been a rather contentious application within their neighborhood. He stated he has been told this is a primary home, but there is a renter in the home. He has been told there is a second kitchen in the home. He would like to have this home inspected and an explanation given for the second oven. Commissioner Stone asked for clarification. Mr. Hunn stated there is one home on the property and this would allow for a second home to be built. Jessie Edeen, owner of the three and one half acres at the bottom of the hill, stated they have had to pay a price every time someone builds in Highland Meadows. She stated they have real concerns ,about any additional building. She stated even the soils experts have indicated it is not good for building. She stated this was a very poorly approved subdivision when it was approved years ago. She stated because they are at the bottom of the hill they are effected by it all. She stated this is an increase to density. David Edeen stated for the access to the existing house they had to obtain an easement from the neighbor because the applicants property was too steep. He stated if the subdivision goes thorough there is no good access into the site unless they engineer some type of steep driveway to get into it. There is over a 45 degree slope which is unstable. It will just make it worse. If this is approved he would like to see a stipulation that requires a properly designed driveway on the plat. Chairman Phillips stated this is usually very routine. She asked if any of these issues have been taken into consideration. Mr. Hunn stated they have worked on this for a year and one half. The property owner has provided the geo-technical reports done by Steve Pollack which state with extreme caution this can be a buildable lot. It went to the Colorado Geological Survey who expressed that this information must be made available to the engineer. Any building permit must be reviewed by CGS and there are plat notes to that effect. Chairman Phillips spoke to the extreme caution statement and asked what that consisted of. Mr. Hunn stated the plat note demonstrates they are looking for extreme caution when planning this site. Phil Scott, Engineering Department, stated part of the caution is the geo-technical engineer working in concert with the architect. They have identified the conditions and the measures that must be taken not to exacerbate the condition further. The engineer goes on in the report to state should they encounter something different in the soils they must be contacted. Jeff Hines has required the geo- technical engineer to be on site so they can made immediate decisions. Karla Sjogren, applicant, stated they have gone through a lot of hoops to answer the questions. They did hire an engineering firm to showaccessability. She spoke to the photos she submitted of Mr. Graybois house that sits on the same slope. She stated on Alpine Road there are other units on the steep lots. She spoke to the water main issues and a visit from the water district. They have removed the sprinkler system and designed better drainage. She stated they will not pile snow at the end of the property. She stated when she purchased this lot the easements were already granted to both pieces of property. She stated she made an agreement with her neighbor to reclaim the land. She stated this was a duplex lot and at that time there was no restrictions. She could have built on this site originally. She 3 06-21-1999 spoke to the water connect and the breaks. The first was not a break but a mis-connect. The second gave her the ability to work with Tom McNeils office to avoid any future breaks. The feeling is that building a structure there would actually be the best thing as it will be sheared up for engineering. She stated they have worked closely with the County to do the best thing and build the best structure. She offered the photos to the Board. Commissioner Stone suggested that normally they don't have as much discussion as this because it is normally a lot zoned for duplex and they are merely having an agreement that the two sides will have their own physical description. They are really creating a separate lot and a separate home. He stated he has some general concerns about the geology and a challenge to put something there that will be stable over time. What concerns him is the wording of the extreme caution. He is curious from the planning department what gave the comfort not to have a concern. Phil Scott read the letter from theColorado Geologic Survey for the record as follows: "We have reviewed the materials submitted in support of this proposal as well as the general and engineering geology of this site. In general the characterization and evaluation performed by Hepworth- Pawlak demonstrate that, with extreme caution and detailed site specific evaluation and design, this site can be developed as proposed. Special attention must be paid to the potential for induced slope instability during construction and grading activities on this site. We suggest that a condition be placed on this lot such that all excavation and grading be accomplished in a single construction season to avoid any additional problems related to freezing of exposed cuts with attendant pore pressure buildup over a winter. This condition in concert with the recommendations presented by Steve Pawlak should serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on this site to acceptable levels. It cannot be over emphasized that the success ofthis plat will require careful cooperation and coordination between the geo-technical, architectural and construction entities involved in this enterprise to assure that all potential problems are adequately identified and resolved on this site. The consequences of slope failure will in all likelihood extend beyond the boundaries of just this lot is something goes wrong in the future due to lack of attention to the care and detail needed in this situation. We would be happy to assist the County with any additional review as deemed appropriate." Mr. Scott stated the letter is signed by Jeffrey L. Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist. Commissioner Stone thanked him for reading that. He stated he doesn't know how the County can be guaranteed the slope maintenance will be done and keep safe the home below. In the long term how do they guarantee those mitigation measures. Don Everett stated in regards to maintenance, they are discussing that during the construction phase. He stated if something isn't done to the property as it sits now there is probably more chance for erosion down below because of the snow fill, erosion, etc. Commissioner Stone stated he has never seen this and doesn't see that building a home will stabilize a piece of land. Mr. Everett explained that shoring up and the maintenance will help to secure the site. Steve Pollac stated the house that would be developed would not be stabling the land but what they will build would not adversely effect the site. He suggested the site was built to steep when subdivided. He stated day in and day out they build and design so that developments done adversely effect adjacent property owners. He spoke to the County's piss poor grading in place now. He stated Carla is offering to improve the situation by putting in a structure that will provide stability. He stated a site specific grade and drainage must be done to the site. Chairman Phillips asked if they have agreed to have someone on site if they run into construction concerns. Ms. Sjogren responded the water department will be on hand and if someone needs to be on site she would agree to that. She stated her home is just a few feet away. She lives on the same hillside as 4 06-21-1999 do other people. If they have to have someone there during the excavation they will be glad to do that. Mr. Graybois presented the pictures dated April 27 and 28 taken of the last slide and how close it was to his house. His understanding that Carla would be on site or have someone on site means nothing as she could sell the lot. He would like to refute that she is on the same hillside. She built her house as far away as she could and near Dr. Truckley. He would have tried to fight the building of that house if at all possible. He stated there is not one neighbor that approve of this. Chairman Phillips asked if they realize this is a duplex lot. Don Everett spoke to the other pieces of property he owns in the neighborhood and there are other neighbors who have no problems with this. He stated they have offered to sell the property to Mr. Graybois and it was never purchased. Chairman Phillips closed public comment. Commissioner Stone asked what kind of assurance is long term as far as whoever develops the property and does the County have protection in place for adjacent property owners. Mr. Hunn spoke to plat note #8 and lot 37B that all plans shall be approved by the CGS and by Eagle County at the developers expense. He spoke to the Eagle County requirement for drainage and site drainage that is required at this time. Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated there is nothing with respect to someone on site during the course of actual excavation or a geo-technical person available. Commissioner Stone asked if there is any way of adding that. Mr. Loeffler stated the assurances can not be counted on being enforceable. He stated it could be done by way of a plat note if they were to find that the property were suitable for development. He stated since you have to address that standard, it could be conditioned to require a geo-tech be on site. Mr. Hunn asked how in the future would that be enforced by staff. What will suffice as evidence. Mr. Loeffler stated you'll never get a guarantee that it will happen. It is like a contract. The problem with this is that a neighbor who ends up with 50 tons of dirt in their backyard may not have an action. The County could only deny a Certificate of Occupancy. How do they enforce this. Presumably at the time of building permit issuance they would have to show that the state geologist looked at this and compliance with their direction and perhaps a contract with the geo-tech engineer that would say they were going to be there. A plat note really isn't the way to do it. Commissioner Stone moved to table final plat file number 5MB-00112, Lot 37, Highland Park Subdivision, Filing No.1, to see if they can come up with some type of contractual obligation that will make sure that the appropriate geo-technical requirements can be applied. Mr. Hunn asked about an SIA. He stated it will probably take more than a couple of weeks. Mr. Loeffler stated ifthey could get three weeks they could come up with something, have it approved by the owner and reviewed by the Board in advance of the meeting. Commissioner Stone asked about the applicant providing the agreement. Mr. Loeffler stated they don't insist on doing it themselves if the applicant is willing to do so. Commissioner Stone asked to make it for two weeks being the 12th of July. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. 5MB-00186. Lot 101 - Villas at Brett Ranch Phase III. He stated this was a Minor "Type A" Subdivision, a resubdivision of buildings 16 through 23 of the Villas at Brett Ranch to create 56 residential condominiums. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director 5 06-21-1999 shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. 1. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a. Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Stone moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-OO 186, Lot 186, Villas at Brett Ranch, Phase III, incorporating staff findings. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Federal COPS Program, Five Additional Officers A. J. Johnson, Eagle County Sheriff, presented a request for the Board to approve and sign a request for five additional officers for the Sheriffs Office under Federal COPS Program. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the request for five additional officers for the Sheriff s Office under Federal COPS Program with the understanding that if awarded the grant they must have a more extensive work session to discuss the need and the financial responsibilities of the grant. Mr. Loeffler asked they put in some diplomatic language regarding TABOR and the commitment for future employment. Commissioner Stone amended the motion accordingly. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Wolcott Yacht Club Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a new application for a tavern license for Wolcott Yacht Club LLC, dba/Wolcott Yacht Club. She stated the first order of business is to establish the neighborhood and the needs of that neighborhood. She recommended the neighborhood be from the establishment in a two mile radius. She asked they keep in mind there are not that many residents so many of the signatures will be from visitors to the area. Commissioner Stone moved to establish the neighborhood for Wolcott Yacht Club as from the establishment in a two mile radius. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Ms. Roach submitted a petition from the applicant as evidence of need. She explained this establishment is an outdoor facility adjacent to the Wolcott Market. It includes the grill area and a fenced patio area. Control is an issue. John Jouflas stated they are going to try something different for Wolcott. They feel there is enough clientele coming by that they feel having them sit in the park and enjoy some seafood will be a good selling point. They will be doing some of the food preparation in his sister's kitchen next door and 6 06-21-1999 some will be cooked at the grill. Chairman Phillips asked about the staffing. Mr. Jouflas stated his sister will help manage it, as well as Angie and the staff who currently work in her restaurant. Ms. Roach stated his sister can not manage his establishment as she holds her own liquor license. She stated they have some concerns over hidden ownership and the lease that has been developed. Chairman Phillips asked about enforcement. Mr. Jouflas stated they will have it gated and signed. The park itself is fenced. Mr. Jouflas stated around the outside area they will be able to sit at the booth but if they want to go into the park wait staff will carry the drinks. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, spoke to the lease amount and the payment of $4500 per month. She read the legal requirements. She suggested if the rent is that high she is wondering what kind of money they are making. She stated it is looking like a pass through. Mr. Jouflas stated his sister will still own the land and property. Ms. Black stated that $4500 actually implies that they are sharing more of the profit. Commissioner Stone asked why the sister cannot be a manager. Ms. Roach stated because she has two liquor licenses in her name. She cannot manage it and she cannot earn more than half of his business. The lease states he is going to pay $4500 per month for rent which means he would have to be making $10,000 per month for the landlord not to be making half of his profits. Chairman Phillips stated she can see the connection and related his sister cannot be a part of the business. She asked how they know the lease amount. Ms. Roach stated it is in the application. Commissioner Stone asked if they will need to make more than $9000 per month in order to not be a part owner. Ms. Roach stated this application could go to state and the applicant may have to prove that they are going to make enough money and that Jan Jouflas is not part owner of this business. Commissioner Stone asked if it is of concern of the Boards, if it is necessary for them to make the determination. He asked if the State would make that determination. Ms. Roach stated the County's resolution follows the State code to the letter. Ms. Roach explained that Jan came in to figure out how to open the facility on her own. She could not. Ms. Roach explained the licenses Jan holds. Both ofthose are off premise and this is an on premise license. Ms. Roach explained when Jan could not obtain the license, John came forward and expressed the desire to open the establishment. After the application was submitted the rent amount was questioned. Michael Caccioppo, area resident, stated he doesn't know that it is their position to get into the dollar amounts that someone pays for the lease and he suspects that if they don't grant it they might be preventing them from the full use of the property by leasing it to someone and allowing them to have a business. He stated she has the right to lease the property and to anyone who is willing to pay. He doesn't know that it is governments authority to make the determination. Mr. Jouflas stated Jan came up with the lease amount by looking at the amount of sales done there previously. Commissioner Stone moved to establish the needs of the neighborhood as evidenced by the submitted petition and testimony from the applicant. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Chairman Phillips spoke to the number of staff and the person managing the property not being 7 06-21-1999 able to manage it. Mr. Jouflas stated the assistant store manager will probably manage it. Chairman Phillips questioned the TIPS training and enforcement. She stated signage will be required. Commissioner Stone asked about providing fencing around outside of the benches. Ms. Roach stated that enters into the parking area. She suggested as long as they have help they will serve them in the area. Mr. Jouflas stated they will be using cans and plastic cups. When asked about TIPS training, he stated they will all be TIPS trained. Commissioner Stone moved to approve a tavern license for Wolcott Yacht Club LLC, dba/Wolcott Yacht Club. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Fair & Rodeo W orksession As the hearing was running behind, it was agreed to table the Fair & Rodeo Worksession to the sixth of July at 11 :30 a.m. Commissioner Stone moved to table the work session to July 6, 1999. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Homestead Subdivision Mike Caccioppo was present and asked to be heard by the Board. The Board agreed to do so in five minutes or less. Mr. Caccioppo stated this is a time of the essence thing. He stated there is a park in Homestead called Park DeClark. He stated they are attempting to sell the property and unfortunately they are not making more open space. He stated the developer did all that he had to do to be approved and it is pretty well sold out. He spoke to Tom Stone's editorial in the Daily Trail and the comments about community. He stated they are aware of his feelings and the most appropriate expenditures are police, fire, roads, and parks. He stated this park is used for neighborhood bar-be-ques, playing basketball, and is a gathering place. There is no other place in the area to do this. He spoke to the 27 boys and 2 girls in the neighborhood. He reminded the Board of the kidnaping in the neighborhood. He asked that the County figure out a way to purchase the park for $100,000/$130,000. Commissioner Stone asked about talking to the Edwards Metropolitan District and that they may have some funds. They are not going to build the sidewalk for which they've gotten approval and they are looking at buying the Berry Creek Fifth. Mr. Caccioppo stated he will speak to them. He believes they or Eagle County should be the owners of the Berry Creek Fifth. Mr. Caccioppo spoke to the sidewalk and that he is thrilled the Edwards Metro is willing to put some money into that. He stated if they are willing to put $125,000 towards the sidewalk and though it may not be the equivalent to the land use requirements, they may be able to grant a variance. He stated 8 06-21-1999 the point he would like to make is there may not be a need for a separate bike path or separate walkway. He stated he would like to see them revisit that discussion and grant a variance to allow them to build some kind of a sidewalk. Chairman Phillips suggested Mr. Caccioppo talk to the Metro District as they did make some , considerations. Mr. Caccioppo reminded the Board they are not obligated to build anything. Chairman Phillips stated the requirement was for twice what they asked to be approved. Commissioner Stone stated they came up with a difference between five feet and eight feet. The suggestion was never made by Edwards to come back and say the extra three feet will cost a certain amount and ask that Eagle County pitch in. He stated he offered and asked they not have an all or nothing attitude. It was not Eagle County who developed the Mexican standoff. Mr. Caccioppo stated it is the kids that are caught in between. What they have today is a road that handles traffic up to 45 miles an hour. The problem is location and the cost. Chairman Phillips stated they had the discussion and appreciate the additional input. AFP-00065, Amended Final Plat, Brett Ranch, Lot 14 (Side B - Tape 1 - the end of tape) Scot Hunn presented file number AFP-00065, Amended Final Plat, Brett Ranch, Lot 14. He stated this was a request for a building envelope amendment to create new, more effective buildable area with less site disturbance. He stated there is no major change to the building envelope. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 - Minor Subdivisions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following findings are made: a. The proposed amendment does NOT adversely affect adjacent property owners. b. The proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. The proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. NO improvements agreement nor off-site road impacts were applicable. e. The amendment is NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note. Staff recommended approval. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, asked if the concerns pointed out by the engineer have been addressed. Mr. Hunn explained saying all issues have been addressed. The irrigation ditch has been put to grade. Commissioner Stone asked about the surveyors technical comments. Mr. Hunn stated they have been addressed as well. Commissioner Stone asked if there are additional findings. Mr. Hunn responded no. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number APF-00065, Amended Final Plat, Brett Ranch, Lot 14, incorporating staff findings authorizing the chairman to sign the plat. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. ZS-00047, Berry Creek 5th Filing (Vail Valley) Rodeo Series Terri Bernath presented file number ZS-00047, Eagle County Recreation Authority Rodeo. She stated this was a request to renew the permit for Rodeo Series and other related equestrian events. She stated the permit expires in mid-July of this year. She stated there were no concerns or comments noted. 9 06-21-1999 She stated the planning commission considered this application at its June 16, 1999 hearing. Their concern included modification of staff s recommended condition regarding noise level testing and traffic concerns. Because the Rodeo is now using a newer sound system, the commission decided not to require the Rodeo provide proof of compliance with noise levels. The Commission considered that increasing traffic on the Edwards Spur Road required some determination of the need for traffic control. The condition was modified as noted on page three of the addendum to say the applicant would provide manual traffic control unless the Sheriff s office or the engineering department deems it necessary. She explained that would be difficult to administer based on the need of the engineering office to do a traffic study. The sheriffs office is not in a position to determine if traffic control is required. She suggested it might be more appropriate to remove the conditions and rely on public complaints to determine the need. Staff and the planning commission recommended approval with conditions. She read staff findings as follows: The following findings are made assuming compliance with staff and Planning Commission recommended conditions pursuant to Section 5-250(B) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 1. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. 2. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located (Resource) and any standards applicable to the particular use(s), as identified in Section 3-300 (Sports Complex) and Section 3-31OT (Mass Gatherings), Review Standards Applicable to Residential. Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts 4. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use(s) on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impacts on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and 10ading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and DOES NOT create a nuisance. 5. The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. 6. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 7. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 8. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Rick Plyman, Peter Jamar Associates, and Gail Grider were present for the hearing. Mr. Plyman thanked Terri for her assistance. He suggested condition #2, regarding traffic read the applicant shall provide traffic control at events in July and August. He stated it isn't impossible to do traffic control on the highway and if it is necessary, they will do it. But, what if it isn't necessary. They attempted to work out some equitable method of determining if it is or isn't required. That is how the condition evolved. They were comfortable with it from the planning commission but understand it is difficult to enforce. Chairman Phillips asked if there seems to be a need. 10 06-21-1999 Mr. Plyman stated there hasn't been. People come in over a period oftime. Leaving the rodeo ,has not been an issue yet. There may eventually be a traffic light there. The discussion evolved in a way to have wording ifin fact it is necessary. Commissioner Stone asked about the duration of the permit. Ms. Bernath responded it is for three years. Commissioner Stone suggested they could consider the traffic on an annual basis. Mr. Plyman stated the State Patrol comes through every night when there is a rodeo and they could provide a professional report. They could provide that at the end of June each year. Commissioner Stone stated condition #2 would not be a part of it and they would not be required to have traffic control this year unless they have problems, in which case they should address it at the following rodeo. Ms. Grider asked if they could control it by staff. The Board agreed. Mr. Fritze stated the condition should be reviewed by staff annually and they make a determination, if the determination necessitates appeal, they would have that ability. Mr. Clarkson stated if they make a condition for an annual review, it is the applicant's responsibility to see that it is submitted. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number ZS-00047, Eagle County Recreation Authority Rodeo, incorporating staff findings with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall provide a noise level report prior to the first public rodeo performance of the 2000 summer season which verifies that the noise levels produced by the public address system are below the maximum levels allowed pursuant to Section 4-520.A of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 2) Eagle County Staff shall have an annual review to look at the traffic reports and determine at a staff level if further traffic control is necessary or not. 3) This special use permit shall expire three years from its date of approval. 4) Prior to the commencement of any applicable activity, the applicant shall submit to Eagle County proof of such applicable Federal, State and Local permits and plans as are required for such activity. 5) This site plan attached hereto represents the proposed, approved uses and is incorporated herein by this reference. 6) Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the applicant in this application and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. ZS-00049, Gypsum Point Expansion of Telecommunication Site Terri Bernath presented file number ZS-00049, Gypsum Point Expansion of Telecommunication Site. She stated this was a request to expand the building, add a generator and upgrade the electrical. Ms. Bernath stated the forest service indicated a moderately high rating. She spoke to the agreed upon mitigation. She stated there is also a BLM approval required. She stated this is visible but rarely seen. It can be seen on the BLM land in a scarcely used area. She stated the Planning Commission considered this application at its June 16, 1999 meeting. Planning Commission concerns included noise generated on the site, trash removal after construction, general accessibility of the site, tree cover to be removed per the wildfire mitigation agreement. The Planning Commission added condition #7. She stated staff recommends approval with conditions. She read staff findings as follows: 11 06-21-1999 The following findings are made assuming compliance with staff recommended conditions pursuant to Section 5-250(B) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 1. The proposed Special Uses ARE appropriate for their proposed location and are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. 2. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located (Resource) and any standards applicable to the particular use(s), as identified in Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Residential. Agricultural and Resource District Uses (telecommunications facility). 4. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use(s) on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impacts on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and DOES NOT create a nuisance. 5. The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. 6. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 7. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 8. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Mac Newman was present for the hearing. He thanked Ms. Bernath for her assistance. He asked that condition #7 be read. She read the site shall be free of debris and construction materials within 30 days of final inspection by the Eagle County Building Dept. Ms. Bernath read staff's conditions into the record as follows: 1) The applicant shall comply with all BLM conditions of Right-of-way permit approval. If compliance with the terms and conditions of the BLM permit referenced in this application (Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands) causes non-conformance with any of the terms and conditions of this approval, this special use permit shall be subject to amendment and may be subject to revocation. Against this event, prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or grading permit, whichever shall be first, the applicant shall submit to the Eagle County Department of Community Development, a copy of the executed BLM permit noted above for its review. 2) Prior to the commencement of any applicable activity, the applicant shall submit to Eagle County proof of such applicable Federal, State and Local permits and plans as are required for such activity. 3) The facility is limited to a height of 25 feet, length of 41 feet, and width of 36 feet. Antennae (whip, panel, etc), satellite dishes and other apparatus attached to the building tower shall be limited to 4 feet in diameter. 4) Additional users shall be permitted on the facility without additional County approval 12 06-21-1999 if the additions comply with the requirements of this permit and necessary approvals are obtained from the Bureau of Land Management. 5) All uses approved by this permit shall be subject to all applicable Site Development Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, Division 4-5 (Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards). 6) The site pIan attached hereto represents the proposed, approved uses and is incorporated herein by this reference. 7) Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representation of the applicant in this application and public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Commissioner Stone suggested that rather than staff having to go back out there after 30 days that it be cleaned by the contractor at the time the final inspection is made. Ms. Bernath explained that the building department will not take the responsibility to inspect the site. There is no final inspection by the planning department. Chairman Phillips suggested when they call for final inspection they will ask the building department to review that as part of their detail to look for clean up. Mr. Newman suggested they may have materials that they may not be able to get out at the time of final inspection. Commissioner Stone stated he would rather assume that there would not be anything there. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number ZS-00049, Gypsum Point Expansion of Telecommunication Site, incorporating staff findings and conditions changing #7 to read "the site shall be free of debris and construction materials at the time of the final inspection by the Eagle County Building Department and shall be examined by the Eagle County Building Department". Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. VIS-0003, Cordillera Mountain Tract, Variance from Improvements Standards John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number VIS-0003, Cordillera Mountain Tract, Variance from Improvements Standards. He spoke to the project description and related the applicant has applied for Final Plats for the Cordillera Mountain Tract, Filings 35 & 36. The Eagle County Engineering Department noted several of the road design standards in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations that were not met in the application. The applicant revised their plans to conform with standards to the greatest extent possible. However, there are still some aspects of the road design that do not conform. The applicant, therefore, has decided to seek relief from the strict interpretation of the standards by applying for a Variance Permit from the requirements of Section 4-620.J: Geometric Standards. The Variance Permit will apply to the roads in Filings 35 & 36 described as follows: The Summit Trail from Station 63+00 to the end at Station 124+98, Webb Peak from Station 0+00 to the end at Station 49+8, New York Meadows from Station 0+00 to the end at Station 12+18, Pine Marten Way from Station 0+00 to the end at Station 23+734, and Stagecoach from Station 0+00 to the end at Station 12+57. He stated it should be noted there were questions about some of the names. They are what show on the application at this point. Section 4-620.J defines the standards of road design and construction for each Functional Classification of roadway in Eagle County. The Functional Classifications are defined in Section 4- 620.D. The Functional Classification for each roadway in Eagle County is designated in Appendix C. The roads in the Cordillera development beyond the intersection of Squaw Creek Road and Fenno Drive are private roads and their Functional Classification has not been designated in Appendix C. The 13 06-21-1999 estimated traffic for Filing 35 & 36, and the adjacent land use indicates that the likely Functional Classifications for the roads in question are as a Rural Residential Road or as a Rural Residential Collector Road. This petition for a Variance Permit has been reviewed against these design standards. The petition for a Variance Permit identifies the specific design standards that are requested to be included in the Permit. Some of these design elements, such as pavement thickness, right-of-way width, shoulder width, etc., apply to every part ofthe proposed roadways in Filings 35 & 36. Other design elements, such as curve radius, minimum vertical curve factors, gradient, etc., may occur in selective locations, and conformance with these standards has been done wherever possible. He reviewed staffs major concerns and issues as follows: 1. Residential Collector Road The following list summarizes the design elements that are to be considered for variance on the Residential Collector Road: A. Minimum Structural Section: The applicant is proposing to use a structural section of 3-inches of HBP asphalt (HBP) on top of 8-inches of compacted aggregate base course (ABC). The Land Use Regulations call for 4-inches HBP over 12-inches of ABC. The applicant has used this design through out the Cordillera development with success and has soils engineering reports that support the adequacy of the "3 & 8" design. B. Right-of-Way Width: The Land Use Regulations call for a 60-feet wide right-of-way. The applicant wants to provide a 50-feet wide right-of-way. C. Shoulder Width: The Land Use Regulations require a 2-foot wide shoulder for the Residential Collector Road in mountainous terrain. The applicant wants to provide 2-foot wide shoulders. No variance is needed for this design element ifthe terrain is considered to be mountainous. D. Inside Lane Pavement Widening on Curves: The Land Use Regulations require lane widening on all curves. The applicant wants to provide no lane widening. E. Centerline of Road to Centerline of Ditch: The Land Use Regulations call for this distance to be 16-feet in mountainous terrain. The applicant proposes 17.5 feet, which is close to the 18- feet required for rolling terrain. F. Design Speed: The Land Use Regulations call for a design speed of25 mph in mountainous terrain. The applicant is proposing to use 25 mph. No variance is needed for this design element if the terrain is considered to be mountainous. G. Super elevated Curves and Spiral Curves: The Land Use Regulations required Super elevated and spiral curves. The applicant does not want to provide curves of this type. H. Maximum Grade: The Land Use Regulations require a maximum grade of 8%. The applicant wants to use a maximum grade of 10%. 1. Minimum Vertical Curve K Factors: The applicant has designed the road to have a minimum vertical curve K factor of 30 in sag curves and 20 on crest curves. The Land Use Regulations require 30 and 20 respectively ifthe terrain is considered to be mountainous. No variance is needed for this design element if the terrain is considered to be mountainous. J. Maximum Grade through Switchback Curves: The Land Use Regulations call for a maximum grade though switchback curves of 6. The applicant wants to use a maximum grade of 8.35%. K. Foreslope: The Land Use Regulations require a foreslope having the dimensions of 1.5-feet of run per I-foot of rise in mountainous terrain. The applicant proposes to use 1.5 to 1. No variance is needed for this design element if the terrain is considered to be mountainous. L. Intersection and Cul-de-sac Radii: The Land Use Regulations call for a intersection radius of 50-feet where connecting with a similar road and 30-feet where connecting with a lesser road. The applicant wants to provide a radius of20-feet. There are no cul-de-sacs at the ends of the collector roads so a variance is not required. M. Fire Hydrant Location: The Land Use Regulations call for hydrants to be placed in a specific location. The applicant wants to place the hydrants in locations approved by the Eagle River 14 06-21-1999 Water and Sanitation District. N. Utility Boxes and Service Valve Locations: The Land Use Regulations call for these items to be placed on the property line. The applicant wants to allow their locations to be within the right-of-way. O. Ditch and Slope Erosion Protection: The Land Use Regulations call for the CDOT standard to be used. The applicant wants to use a different standard. P. Slope Reclamation Techniques: The Land Use Regulations are specific concerning the method of restoring disturbed slopes. The applicant wants to use a different standard. Q. Driveways of Rural Residential Collector Roads: The Land Use Regulations ,discourage driveway access directly onto Rural Residential Collector Roads, but allow them with the approval of the County Engineer. Since this item is left to the discretion of the County Engineer, it is not necessary to receive a variance. R. Dual Access: The proposed development has only one point of access to the public road system. Two are required by the Land Use Regulations. The applicant wants to continue to use the single access. S. 2% Slope Away from Through Roads: The applicant wants to provide the required 2% slope from the centerline of the roadway rather than from the edge of the traveled way as required by the Land Use Regulations. T. Minimum Tangent Distance From Intersections: The applicant wants to provide less than the 100-feet of tangent distance from intersections as required by the Land Use Regulations. 2. Residential Road The following list summarizes the design elements that are to be considered for variance on the Residential Road: A. Inside Lane Pavement Widening on Curves: The Land Use Regulations require lane widening on all curves. The applicant wants to provide no lane widening. B. Centerline of Road to Centerline of Ditch: The Land Use Regulations call for this distance to be 15- feet in mountainous terrain. The applicant proposes 17.5 feet. C. Design Speed: The Land Use Regulations call for a design speed of20 mph in mountainous terrain. The applicant is proposing to use 20-25 mph. No variance is needed for this 'design element if the terrain is considered to be mountainous. D. Reverse Crowned Curves and Spiral Curves: The Land Use Regulations required Reverse Crowned and spiral curves. The applicant does not want to provide curves ofthis type. E. Maximum Grade: The Land Use Regulations require a maximum grade of 8%. The applicant wants to use a maximum grade of 10%. F. Foreslope: The Land Use Regulations require a foreslope having the dimensions of 1.5-feet of run per I-foot of rise in mountainous terrain. The applicant proposes to use 1.5 to 1. No variance is needed for this design element if the terrain is considered to be mountainous. G. Intersection and Cul-de-sac Radii: The Land Use Regulations call for a intersection radius of 30-feet where connecting with a similar road. The applicant wants to provide a radius of20- feet. The applicant also wants to provide cul-de-sacs with radii of 30-feet. This is consistent with the Land Use Regulations except where the number of units on the street leading to the cul-de-sac is ten or more, in which case a radius of 40-feet is required. H. Fire Hydrant Location: The Land Use Regulations call for hydrants to be placed in a specific location. The applicant wants to place the hydrants in locations approved by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. I. Utility Boxes and Service Valve Locations: The Land Use Regulations call for these items to be placed on the property line. The applicant wants to allow their locations to be within the right-of-way. 1. Ditch and Slope Erosion Protection: The Land Use Regulations call for the CDOT 15 06-21-1999 standard to be used. The applicant wants to use a different standard. K. Slope Reclamation Techniques: The Land Use Regulations are specific concerning the method of restoring disturbed slopes. The applicant wants to use a different standard. L. Minimum Tangent Distance From Intersections: The applicant wants to provide less than the 100-feet of tangent distance from intersections as required by the Land Use Regulations. 3. Applicant's Proposed Typical Road Cross Section Is Not Consistent with Any of the Design Standards The roadway design for Cordillera Mountain Tract, Filings 35 & 36 is not consistent with a design for a specific Functional Classification of roadway as defined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. However, the design is consistent with the road design used for similar roadways in the Cordillera Development. Most of Cordillera was approved and developed under the previous edition of the Land Use Regulations. The design used, up to this point in time, was in conformance with the requirements of those Land Use Regulations. With Cordillera approaching completion, it may be inadvisable to implement new design standards that would create inconsistency in the look and feel of the road system between the old and the new. 3. The Design Standards for Lesser Functional Classifications Are Equally Durable and 'Provide an Equivalent Level of Public Safety The proposed design should provide a level of safety and durability equal to that required by the Land Use Regulations. The proposed design has been used successfully to serve the remainder of the Cordillera Development that has been constructed and used up to this point in time. It is anticipated that the design will also successfully serve the Mountain Tract. 4. Applicant Has Demonstrated Hardship The applicant has identified several hardships that will be imposed on the developer including inconsistency with the existing road system, increased disturbance of land and timber, and diminished blending of the road in the natural landform. Mr. Vengrin reviewed staff findings as follows: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 2. The petition has been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. The road design proposed by the petitioner will provide a road design that is equally durable and equally safe to the Residential Collector and Residential Road designation standards but would be considerably less expensive, use less land, and blend in better with the environment and land form. 4. The applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence to the Residential Collector and Residential Road Functional Classifications for the roads in Filings 35 & 36 ofthe Cordillera Mountain Tract. Staff recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Variance Permit from the strict interpretation of the Road Improvements Standards in Section 4-620.J, and Section 4-620.D ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations for the roads in the Cordillera Mountain Tract, Filings 35 & 36. The design elements to be included in the Variance Permit include items A through T in Section III. 1 , and items A through L in Section III.2 of this Staff Report. Chairman Phillips asked if Kathy Eastley, representing Cordillera, had anything to say. She asked about the concerns and issues and statement that the applicant wants to provide no lane widening but they are going to make a wider center lane from the center road to the ditch. Ms. Eastley stated she is not prepared to answer that question, Lance is on the way. Mr. Vengrin stated they are providing two 11 foot lanes for a total asphalt width of22 feet, they 16 06-21-1999 think that is adequate. In terms of distance to the ditch, he thinks the reason the land use regs call for 16 feet in the mountainous terrain is the slope gets greater and the shoulder smaller. He is happy with the section proposed. He stated that design element has a pretty large range between mountainous and rolling. They are close to complying. Commissioner Stone asked in III -1 about 0 and P. He questions the statement where the applicant wants to use a different standard. He asked what that different standard is. Mr. Vengrin stated the applicant is going to provide erosion protection and reclamation but not exactly as the regulations require. Commissioner Stone stated he would like to know what that is and where it is written. Commissioner Stone stated it is the same on 111-2 items J and K. Mr. Vengrin spoke to page 41 and the engineer has detailed what they plan to do. They are going to use standard engineering practices in these instances and notes placed in the plans that they will use where needed. They asked for greater flexibility in placing erosion control blankets. During the final plat they will have the opportunity to see this. Chairman Phillips asked that they state the applicant will use acceptable practices and or have them specifically spelled out. Lance Badger, representing Cordillera, arrived and apologized for being late. He stated it seems they have been able to address all the engineering issues to Eagle County's satisfaction and are trying to accommodate the new land use regulations as they finish off the project. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number VIS-0003, Cordillera Mountain Tract, Variance from Improvements Standards, incorporating staff findings. He said he would like to see III-I, o and P and III-2, J and K further clarified based on staffs recommendations of acceptable standards. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Commissioner Stone explained his concerns to Mr. Badger and stated they don't need to tell them now but he would like to see them specified if they are not adhering to the Land Use Regulations. PDF -00036, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 35 Terri Bernath, Planner, presented file number PDF-00036, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 35. She stated this is a final plate and is a request to plat 16 single family parcels in Planning Parcel S, Mountain Tract. She read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b(3) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following: 1. This final plat IS in conformance with the approved Preliminary Plan; 2. This final plat IS in conformance with standards set forth in Section 5-280.B.3.e (Standards for Subdivision) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 3. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement IS required by the Board of County Commissioners and is presented here today. Staff recommended approval. Ms. Eastley stated she has no comments but is available for questions. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number PDF-00036, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 35, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the Plat and sign the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Chairman Phillips thanked Ms. Bernath for her services and wished her well in her endeavors. 17 06-21-1999 PDP-00013 & ZC-00030, Logan Park Eric McCafferty, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00013 and lC-00030, Logan Park. He stated this was a request for review of a zone change and preliminary subdivision plan for the Logan Park Subdivision. The applicant is Oran Palmateer represented by Tom Boni and Kevin Lindahl. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) All habitable structures shall adhere to a 50 foot setback from Highway 6. 2) The building envelope on Lot 5 shall be setback a minimum of ten feet from the relocated Edwards Cemetery Road easement. 3) Building coverage on Lots 1 thru 4 shall be limited to 3,000 square feet. Building coverage on Lot 5 shall be limited to a maximum of 4,000 square feet, with no more than 3,500 square feet devoted to the primary residential structure and no more than 500 square feet devoted to the accessory dwelling unit. 4) Building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3 shall be setback at least five feet from the common lot line. Prior to the Planning Commission making its recommendation, the only revision to the plan, as proposed within the original application, was for a setback from the relocated Edwards Cemetery Road. Instead of the previously proposed zero foot setback from the edge of the easement, the applicant now proposes a five foot setback, along portions of the easement. The Planning Commission's recommended approval conditions account for all other project revisions to date. The original staff report identified a variety of issues that have either been decided or that have been left open to further consideration. It is staff s position that all ofthe following items are required elements of any good development plan and this, should be required with this development plan: 1] The adequacy of the setback from Highway 6 right-of-way, currently proposed to be only 20 feet. Staff would like to see all building envelopes adhere to a minimum 50 foot setback from highway 6. This requirement would ensure the safe and efficient operation of Highway 6. Additionally, redevelopment of properties should strive to eliminate non-conforming uses of land, not create them. 2] Adequacy of the proposed setback from the relocated easement for Edwards Cemetery Road proposed to be 5 feet. Staff sees no credible resolution to this setback issue. Ostensibly, the relocation of the road to the eastern side ofthe property was to provide a "buffer" between the development and the adjacent gas exchange plant. The relocation was purported to have the additional benefit of eliminating a busy roadway from within a residential area. However, neither "benefit" survives close scrutiny. The applicant argues that the subdivision should be provided a separation from the adjacent land use, yet the separation proposed would be a busy roadway. While the gas exchange plant may not be an attractive land use to view out your window, it is illogical to suggest that a strip of asphalt with moving traffic offers a better alternative. It may be a matter of personal choice, yet staff certainly does not agree that this roadway will effectively serve as a buffer. What is perhaps more disturbing is the assertion that this arrangement provides a safer alternative to the existing conditions. Serious safety issues arise from the ability to build two (2) residential units (a primary unit and an accessory dwelling unit) immediately adjacent to the access easement. The existing residential units maintain a setback well in excess of the five (5) feet being proposed. To encourage a lesser design standard than what exists only moves people closer to the potential danger. Vehicles will, from time to time, run off the road. Vehicles running off this road would imperil property and lives on Lot 5. Staff notes that this will not likely be a daily occurrence, however, even the plowing of snow would negatively impact people and property on Lot 5. 3] the relative density of development on the net developable portion of the site; The application proposes limiting the size of structures to no greater than 3500 square feet on 18 06-21-1999 Lots 1 thru 4, and no greater than a total of 5200 square feet on Lot 5 (inclusive of primary and secondary units). A reduction in square footage would necessarily result in a reduction in massing, resulting in a much less cramped development. The Planning Commission considered this situation, recommending reductions to the square footage of the residential units. Lots 1 thru 4 are proposed to be limited to a maximum of 3000 square feet, and the Lot 5 would be limited to a maximum of3500 square feet. 4] the concept of combining Lots 2,3 and 4 to create one large lot; and the provision for lot combination could generally be recognized by the underlying, RSL zoning. The Sketch Plan did not identify the lot combination concept leading staff to conclude that the proposed Preliminary Plan is not in conformance with the approved Sketch Plan, as required by Regulations. Staff sees no credible resolution to this issue and recommends that this is not a precedent that should be set. Planned Unit Developments are encouraged to allow a landowner the flexibility in designing a development plan that would "achieve a more desirable environment." Approving a development plan that can generally be recognized by the underlying zoning does not achieve the stated purpose of PUDs. 5] waiver of dimensional standards. All PUDs must comply with the dimensional limitations of the underlying zone district, in this case, RSL. Logan Park seeks waivers from the minimum lot area per use, maximum lot coverage, maximum floor area ratio, minimum front yard setback, and minimum side yard setback dimensional limitations. To obtain the required waiver, at least one specific purpose from the list of standards contained in Section 5-240(F)(3)(f) must be achieved by the development. Those purposes include 1] obtain desired design qualities; 2] avoid environmental resources and natural hazards; 3] water augmentation; 4] trails; 5] affordable housing; and 6] public facilities. Staff concludes that none of the above purposes would be met by this proposed development (except for the water augmentation standard, which dose not apply) and opines that approval would be in direct contravention to, at a minimum, obtaining desired design qualities; and 'affordable housing. The Planning Commission, however, found that the development would achieve all of the stated purposes, with the exception of the water augmentation standard, which does not apply. It is true that the Board of County Commissioners approved an application for a variance from improvement standards. That approval, however, only considered the engineering arguments surrounding the relocation of the access easement and the dimensions thereof. The approval did not consider the issues set forth in items 1 thru 5, above, what staff considers to be relevant, important planning considerations, required to be addressed by the Land Use Regulations. Staff does not wish to be obstinate in the review of this development proposal. In staff s judgement, development on this site, even redevelopment, is appropriate and is encouraged. However, as staff found at the time of the Sketch Plan hearings, the proposed development simply cannot be accommodated on this parcel of land. The issues that led staff to conclude that the Sketch Plan should be denied are every bit as acute with the Preliminary Plan, as they were with the Sketch Plan, even more so now that the Preliminary Plan details have been reviewed. Staff can find no good or compelling reason to confer approval on this development plan. The PUD would eliminate seven (7) existing affordable housing units, would not adhere to even the most fundamental site design considerations of setbacks and site coverage, would not cluster homes and provide beneficial open space, and would not accommodate efficient and safe transportation. Furthermore, the provision for combination of three (3) of the lots into one (1) large lot could actually be allowed by an approved subdivision utilizing the underlying, RSL zoning, and the desired flexibility of lot combination does nothing to promote the intent of PUDs, but would set bad precedent for future proposals. ADDITIONAL STAFF CONCERNS AND ISSUES: The identical 4 - 3 votes on this joint development proposal (zone change and preliminary development plan) clearly show that the Planning Commission was split on its approval 19 06-21-1999 recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Those members of the Commission who voted against the proposal, stated they did so due to the fact that the development could not be shown to comply with sound planning concepts and all required provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations. Furthermore, those members concluded that legitimate, positive findings for all development standards could not be made. Zone Change The vote on the zone change focused substantial discussion on the lack of direct compliance with the County Master Plans, specifically the Eagle County Watershed Plan; the inability to demonstrate that the plan addresses a community need and a finding that the plan is not within the public interest, due to the loss of employee housing. The Land Use Regulations state that "The wisdom of amending. . .the Official Zone District Map. . .is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. In determining whether to adopt, adopt with modifications, or disapprove the proposed amendment, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following: 1] Consistency with the Master Plan; 2] Compatible with surrounding uses; 3] Changed conditions; 4] Effect on natural conditions; 5] Community need; 6] Development patterns; and 7] Public interest. Legal advice given to the Planning Commission regarding the zone change identified that the Commission must only consider the standards and that not all findings must be positive. However, the Planning Commission was in a noticeable quandary over making findings of fact that were indeed negative. The staff review determined that the plan violated all seven (7) of the standards, while the Planning Commission determined that three of the seven zone amendment standards were found to be violated by this development. Staff stated at the time that Planned Unit Developments must strive for demonstrated compliance with all standards, otherwise there is no legitimate showing why the zoning should be amended. Preliminary Development Plan The Planning Commission was in a similar quandary regarding the findings that accompany Preliminary Plan review. However, there is an important difference between zone change findings and Preliminary Plan findings. While zone change standards apparently must only be considered, a "Preliminary Plan for PUD shall comply with the [listed] standards." The Planning Commission, based on its vote, found that the PUD did not comply with the Eagle County Watershed Plan and its recommendation that development comply with a 75 foot setback from the Eagle River. However, those members voting in opposition to the plan voiced concern that the plan was not in compliance with the 75 foot recommended stream setback, the overall density of the project, lack of appropriate setbacks between units and from the roadway easement, and loss of employee housing. Mr. McCafferty reviewed the location and size of this parcel. He stated they do have two sets of findings and asked if they should wait to read those once the decision is made. Chairman Phillips suggested that would be appropriate. Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services, stated since Commissioner Stone was not present for the sketch plan review he asked to review that and then go into the issues staffhas brought up. There are currently four mobile homes on the east property lines, four on the west end and three structures. He showed the access and the gas transfer station and the property owned by the Donovans. A portion of the existing tri-plex and the mobile homes is in the 50 foot set back of the river. He showed the sketch plan that was approved last year showing the thirty foot easement in the middle of the property and the private driveway. He showed the landscape plan submitted with the application. The intent is to create a berm and the buffer. The site is constrained with Highway 6 on the south and the Eagle River on the north. One way they tried to deal with those constraints is to take the open space area and place a garage between the highway and the residential unit on lot one acting as a buffer. The other aspect was because 20 06-21-1999 of the single family design they approached the County with, the need to do design variances. They need a PUD to develop the open space but also the placement of the garage to provide the buffer for lot one. He showed one illustration of how the property might be developed. They hired Brett Holm of Holm Architects to set the site and determine what setbacks would be needed. It was in this 'configuration they have lot 5 where they looked for a place to provide an employee unit. The solution was to look at this particular corner and the set back line at the top of the bank. He stated there is 15 feet or more between the back of the deck and the top of the bank for transition area. They received sketch plan approval in October of 1997 with four conditions, the first being that of the property line deeds. He explained they have submitted a signed letter of intent agreeing that the Palmateers would convey that property to the Donovans. The area will be removed come final plat. It is the location of the existing approach to the bridge. The second was the vacation of the existing road and it is felt the timing of that would come at final plat and be part of the SIA to construct the road. The third was the use of accessory units being encouraged. They have located one of those units at the corner as a gate house. Because of the constraints on the site they would like the envelope to be right up against the 30 foot easement providing 6 feet for snow storage. The transition from Highway 6 keeps the roadway away from the building area. He stated they never considered the easement to provide access to the neighbors across the river. They have planned to have all ofthe garages face the highway. The fourth issue was location off the road and this being a road that crosses the river. He explained the railroad setback to the north of the river. He explained there are differences in the elevation of the riverbank, the existing curvature and the hairpin turn. He explained the gradient would be approximately 10%. He stated they have responded to the conditions placed on the sketch plans and staff recommendations. They have identified a five foot set back from the thirty foot easement. He ,spoke to the edge of the building envelope and the highway right of way. They have changed the plan and noted that a one story garage would be all that would be permitted. That would be the only encroachment they are recommending in the 50 foot set back. They are in a PUD and that gives them the option to look at design issues and review the options. The setbacks from building to building recommended by the Planning Commission can be accommodated. He referred to the conditions of approval stating the first was the fifty foot setback from Highway 6 for the habitable structures. They did allow the garage to be within the fifty feet. The building envelope of lot five will be set back 10 feet from the Cemetery Road. He explained the topography and showed storage. They would like to retain the five foot setback for the single family homes and zero set back for the garage and accessory unit. Building coverage on lots one through four limited to 3,000 feet and lot five limited to 4,000 They believe that they can create 3500 square feet of floor area that is adequate and would like to retain their plan as presented. The fifth being building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3. They shall be set back at least five feet from the common lot line. Chairman Phillips asked about the accessory unit. Mr. Boni explained. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated they looked at this from a design point of view as well as a master plan point of view. They feel the garage is beneficial. It is within the community center where they could have twenty two units. They tried to come up with a plan that meets with the existing neighborhood and not push it near the maximum. He stated there are over lapping property descriptions which the Palmateers and the Donovans have worked out. The plan is an improvement over what is there today. Oran has agreed to widen the road and build a better road. They feel it is acceptable under the master plan. Mr. Loeffler suggested they call for public comment. Chairman Philips asked accordingly. Commissioner Stone asked to review staff s concerns and issues. 1] the adequacy ofthe setback from the Highway 6 right-of-way, currently proposed to be 21 06-21-1999 only 20 feet; Commissioner Stone asked what that is. Mr. McCafferty state 19.98. Commissioner Stone asked if they have a feeling about the garage being there. Mr. McCafferty stated setbacks are required for various reasons for maintenance and safety. For snow plowing it will hit the garage and possible damage the area. He stated there will be some site issue considerations that will effect looking westerly. The structure may effect it as well. He stated there is more room for error if someone runs their car off the road. 2] adequacy of the proposed setback from the relocated easement for Edwards Cemetery Road proposed to be five (5) feet; Mr. McCafferty stated they originally proposed 0 feet the Planning Commission recommended 10 feet. It is the minimum road standard with a right of way of 40 feet. A setback would be at least 25 feet. Commissioner Stone asked for the clarification of the distance. Chairman Phillips stated this is in fact a variance. She asked when Mr. McCafferty reviewed the concerns why did the Planning Commission vote for this. Mr. McCafferty stated the comments reflect their concerns, those voting against were more vocal. Commissioner Stone stated the Planning Commission, on a vote of four to three, recommended approval with some conditions. He asked ifthose are items 1 - 4 and if#1 excluded garages. The applicant is still requesting 5 feet. Mr. Boni stated if it means coverage they are comfortable, if it is fluid area they are content with number 3. Mr. McCafferty stated in the proposed PUD guide they are proposing 3,500 square feet for lots 1 thru 4 with lot coverage up to 35%. From staffs original concerns, in doing the calculations on the developable portion of the site, when they deduct for the amount in the river and the hundred foot floodplain they come out to 3,100 buildable area. You divide by six structures you come out to ,approximate average lot six of 5,200 square feet. That in staffs opinion is compacted development. Commissioner Stone stated the interpretation from the Planning Commission is the footprint should be limited to 3,000 square feet. Mr. Loeffler stated his recollection is the square footage of the residence not the building footprint. Mr. Boni stated that is how they read the discussion as well and hopes he conveyed their sense of a 3,500 square foot building and 1,200 square foot accessory. Commissioner Stone suggested they should state limited to 3,000 square feet on 1 - 4 and lot 5 4,000. Mr. Boni stated they are asking for 3,500 for 1 - 4, 4,000 for lot 5 and 1,200 for the accessory unit. Commissioner Stone asked about the combining of lots 2,3, and 4 and leaving it as one lot. Mr. Boni spoke to the option to re-plat the area if someone so desires. It does not require a PUD. Commissioner Stone asked about the negative effect on the natural environment. Mr. McCafferty stated he can't find a positive effect. The density is out of line with what is there currently. He spoke to the 75 foot water setback. He stated he can't find if it does anything for the environment. Chairman Phillips asked about eliminating the trailers. Mr. Boni stated the natural environment currently has septic systems with two different fields. ,This proposal puts them on the sewer system. There is an existing water system which would become public. He stated they are in the Edwards Metro District. The existing homes are in the 50 foot set back. 22 06-21-1999 They believe the fifty feet is adequate and more than exists. He spoke to the drainage and the fact the run off is currently unprotected. They will contain the runoff and will landscape and vegetate to the benefit of the environment. Commissioner Stone asked about the PUD not providing adequate water supply and the roads. Mr. McCafferty stated in the original staff report they have acknowledgment from the Division of Water Resources. He read the report that needed to be submitted. He stated that was not submitted, so they don't know if it is adequate. Mr. Boni stated it will be supplied by the Edwards Metro District and the division might question it if their records are not up to date. Commissioner Stone asked about an ability to serve letter. Mr. Boni stated he doesn't have that with him today. It was submitted to the Metro Board last week. There has been a change of format. Commissioner Stone asked if they get the letter will it solve the issue. Mr. McCafferty stated the water providers have been remiss in submitting the proof of water sufficiency. Chairman Phillips asked about the trailers there now and what they do for water. Mr. Boni stated they are on a well. Chairman Phillips asked about the relocation of the residents. Mr. Palmateer stated they have known for the last four or five years they will have to move. Some have already taken means to do so. Others have no options but the Palmateer's will do their best to help them in finding other options. They have given them years in finding other solutions. They are assisting but they have not determined what a number will be. Commissioner Stone stated what is being proposed is not affordable housing as it reduces the amount of affordable housing for some time. Mr. Palmateer stated they have provided the housing for over 26 years. He stated they are being judged perhaps on what they are going to do but not on what they have done. Commissioner Stone asked again about water supply and an ability to serve letter. Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, stated the water providers still have an obligation to provide the state with a report. If the Edwards Metro District states they are willing to serve, it is a district report to supply the info to the state engineer. Commissioner Stone asked if the set back from the stream being fifty feet he recognizes it is not a regulation to have 75 feet. Mr. Stone spoke to the old sawmill and the requirement of that application to be 75 feet and this to be 50 feet. Mr. Merry stated where you have disturbance they are looking for mitigation and a lesser degree of nonconformity. He thinks the removal of the septic is a great improvement. Commissioner Stone asked about trails in that area and the pathways on the north side of 'Highway 6. He asked about the plan for that area. Mr. Boni stated in looking at the plan some time ago it stayed on the north side of the highway and dropped down to the north side of the river. In trying to remember whose property it is whether on the highway or Arrowheads property. Mr. Boni asked if this was circulated to trails. Mr. McCafferty stated he is not sure. Commissioner Stone stated he believes the desire is to pick up trails as they move forward. Mr. Boni suggested you go to the end ofthe Arrowhead property and then to Donovan and this parcel. Paul Clarkson stated he spoke with Ellie Caryl during sketch plan and it was fully intended to use this Cemetery Bridge as a connection from the north side of the road to the south side. He spoke to the Riverwalk connection, through Miller's Creek has also dedicated and is collateralizing the trail adjacent on the south side of the railroad and will connect up with Cemetery Road. 23 06-21-1999 Commissioner Stone asked if this property would be effected by the trail plan. He questioned you would want to pick up the trail then heading east. So this property shouldn't be effected. Chairman Phillips asked about the allowable density. Mr. Boni stated in the community center the suggested zoning is about 3 units an acre to RF which is 12 units an acre based on the location, access and topography. They are proposing five units on about 1.9 acres. Some of that is in the river and some is within fifty feet ofthe road and some in the setback. They are proposing five single family homes and one accessory unit to be about 3.5 units per acre. Commissioner Stone asked about the planned study discussed this morning and in that study they hope to embark along looking at changing the locating of the Cemetery Road. George Roussos, County Engineer, questioned why they built the bridge there in the first place. Usually they will build it where it makes the best sense. All locations are open for consideration. Commissioner Stone asked how it could potentially effect this property. Mr. Roussos stated they talked about the right of way and they are looking at a major road going through there being two lanes and sidewalks. It could have a major impact. Commissioner Stone asked about the recommended easement. The rural access is a forty foot easement. Mr. Boni stated they have shown 30 foot of easement as a result of discussions at sketch plan. They continue to put thirty feet of the eastern side of the property. Kevin Lindahl, Attorney representing the applicant, stated the County is claiming a prescriptive easement and they doubt that if it went to court it would be found as such. Rather than get into a dispute they requested the thirty foot easement as set on the map. Commissioner Stone stated he is still not sure if the bridge moves to the east, it helps out. If it moves to the west it could hurt the subdivision. Mr. Lindahl stated the Board did approve the thirty foot variance. Mr. Knight stated if it moves west it could harm this property or it could go beyond this property. Chairman Phillips asked for additional public comment. There was none. Commissioner Stone stated the good part about this project is a demonstration of improvement over what is there with the setback from the river and the removal of the septic. He stated when he looks at this it is more in keeping with the Arrowhead type of development and the building to the east. He appreciates the fact they could be asking for higher density and generally is an improvement. His remaining concerns is the setback from the Cemetery Road easement being only five feet. It is too little. He feels the Planning Commission requirement of 10 feet is more appropriate. He feels making lot number 5 to the west and that not being a habitable structure is good. He thinks they do need to have an ability to provide services from the water and sanitation district. Chairman Phillips stated since the sketch plan was approved and with the approval of the Planning Commission her concern is the 10 foot set back. She would like to look at the accessory unit being 1000 feet and not 1200. Mr. McCafferty read staff findings as follows: STAFF FINDINGS: Mr. McCafferty reviewed the Planning Commission findings as follows: 1) The proposed Planned Unit Development IS NOT consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan; Eagle County Watershed Plan or the Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan. 2) The proposed Planned Unit Development IS NOT compatible with surrounding uses. 3) Conditions HAVE NOT changed that would require an amendment to modify the use or density of the underlying zone district. 4) The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD HAVE a negative effect on the natural environment. 24 06-21-1999 5) The proposed Planned Unit Development DOES NOT address a demonstrated community need. 6) The proposed Planned Unit Development DOES NOT demonstrate logical and orderly development. 7) The proposed Planned Unit Development IS NOT within the public interest. Discussion was had on #7 and it was changed to read - The proposed Planned Unit Development IS within the public interest however it will result in a loss of affordable housing. Pursuant to Article 5-240(F)(3)(e) - Preliminary Plan for PUD - Standards 1. The proposed Planned Unit Development DOES demonstrate unified ownership and control. 2. The uses that would be allowed within the proposed Planned Unit Development ARE in conformance with Table 3-300 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 3. The proposed Planned Unit Development DOES NOT conform to the dimensional limitations ,of the underlying zone district, nor has the application demonstrated the necessity to vary from the dimensional limitations. 4. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD provide adequate parking. 5. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD provide adequate landscaping. 6. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD allow an acceptable sign plan. 7. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD NOT provide adequate water supply, wastewater treatment or roads. 8. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD NOT result in greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation. 9. The proposed Planned Unit Development IS NOT compatible with surrounding land uses. 10. The proposed Planned Unit Development IS NOT consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan, Eagle County Watershed Plan or the Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan. 11. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD be built in a single phase. 12. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD comply with the recommended amount of open space. Mr. McCafferty stated the only partial negative one there is number 10. Commissioner Stone stated that could remain as is. Pursuant to Article 5-240(F)(3)(f) - Variations Authorized - Basis for Granting Variations 1. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD NOT obtain desired design qualities. 2. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD NOT avoid environmental resources and natural hazards. 3. The water augmentation standard is not applicable to this development. 4. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD NOT provide incentives for long-term affordable housing. Commissioner Stone asked what those incentives are. Mr. Loeffler stated he doesn't remember. Mr. Boni stated in his understanding of the motion it was their proposal follow the suggestion of the County to provide accessory units. They have provided one unit. Mr. Loeffler stated you don't have to make all five, only one and requirement for the variance will be satisfied. Mr. McCafferty continued reviewing staff findings: 5. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD NOT provide incentives for long term affordable housing. 6. The proposed Planned Unit Development WOULD NOT provide incentives for development of public facilities. Mr. Loeffler stated that would be sewer. 25 06-21-1999 Pursuant to Article 5-280(B)(3)(e) - Subdivision Standards 1. The proposed subdivision IS NOT consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision WOULD NOT comply with all standards and provisions ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 3. The proposed subdivision, insofar as utility and road extensions, utility lines and coordination of extensions are concerned, WOULD provide efficient spatial patterns. 4. The land proposed for subdivision IS NOT suitable for the development of the subdivision being proposed. 5. The proposed subdivision IS NOT compatible with surrounding uses. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number ZC-00030, Logan Park, incorporating the Planning Commission findings as modified. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number PDP-00013, Logan Park, incorporating the Planning Commission findings and the following approval conditions; 1] All habitable structures shall adhere to a 50 foot setback from Highway 6. 2] The building envelope on Lot 5 shall be setback a minimum often (10) feet from the relocated Edwards Cemetery Road easement. 3] Building absolute square footage on Lots I thru 4 shall be limited to 3,000 square feet. Building absolute square footage on Lot 5 shall be limited to a maximum of 4,500 square feet, with no more than 3,500 square feet devoted to the primary residential structure and no more than 1000 square .feet devoted to the accessory dwelling unit. 4] Building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3 shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the common lot line. Mr. Loeffler asked if the square footage is excluding garages. Commissioner Stone stated that is habitable square footage. Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Boni stated he has not looked up the definition for habitable. Mr. Loeffler read the definition. Mr. Boni stated he was then comfortable with it. Chairman Phillips called for the question on 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 July 6, 1999. Attest: Clerk to the Board ~ 26 06-21-1999