Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/25/99 PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 25,1999 Present: Johnnette Phillips Tom Stone James Johnson, Jr, James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Phillips stated the first item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of October 25, 1999, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for October 12, 1999 C) Change Order Number 1 to the Frying Pan Road Paving Contract D) Change Order Number 1 to the Colorado River Road Paving Contract E) Agreement to lease recycling bailer to Summit Recycling Project, Inc. F) Resolution and power of attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. 9860193 for Robert 1. Law in the amount of $2,000.00, to expire October 28, 1999, issued by 1 st Bank of Avon. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated item F needs to be pulled. Commissioner Johnson stated he did not have any backup for item E. Ron Rasnic, Solid Waste Manager, stated he had submitted backup when this matter was scheduled but does not have it with him. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to pull this matter until next week. Mr. Rasnic stated the time schedule is tight but it could be heard next week. Chairman Phillips stated she has corrections to the minutes. On page 3, it says "Chairman Phillips asked if there", change "there" to "are", strike "this" and add the word "the". Commissioner Stone moved to approve the consent calendar as presented, pulling items E and F, re-scheduling item E to next week, with the corrections to the minutes as stated by the Chairman.. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Scot Hunn, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00197. Lot 6. Arrowhead at Vail. Filing No. 10. He stated this was a Minor "Type B" Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 6 to create two lots, Lot 6 A and Lot 6 B. This plat does contain a duplex split caveat stating that only one (l) two-family residence may be built on the combined area of the two lots. He reviewed staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 1 10-25-1999 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. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00197, Lot 6, Arrowhead at Vail, Fling No. 10, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00074. Lot 11. Block 4. Cordillera Subdivision. Filine 34. He stated this was an amended final plat in Cordillera which alters the shape of the building envelope and shifts it slightly to the rear of the lot. This amended final plat is being processed under the Cordillera administrative procedures. The Cordillera Design Review Board and all adjacent property owners have agreed to the amendment. He reviewed 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. Commissioner Stone moved to approve final plat file number AFP-00074, Lot 11, Block 4, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 34, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. RFRHA Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative George Roussos, County Engineer, presented the selection of locally preferred alternative for RFRHA. He introduced Tom Newland, with the Roaring Fork Holding Authority. He stated when the authority was established there were two items to be completed. One, the corridor was to be purchased which was done in June 1997. Two, to plan for the corridor's use. For the past nineteen months numerous citizens of the roaring fork valley have been studying the transit options that exist there. He stated an in-depth investigation of the build alternative has been done as compared to the no-build alternative. He spoke to the task forces as follows: Glenwood Springs Task Force recommended a rail alternative 13 to 1 Aspen Task Force recommended a rail alternative 7 to 4 Carbondale Task Force recommended a rail alternative 9 to 5 Mid-Valley El Jebel Basalt Task Force recommended rail 6 to 3 All task forces came together for a combined recommendation of rail with a 7 to 1 vote. 2 10-25-1999 Mr. Roussos stated on October 8th RHFRA met and unanimously recommended a rail system which has a feeder bus system and includes a trail that will go from Glenwood Springs to Woody Creek. He stated RFRHA must take formal action next week on which alternative is supported. He requested direction from the Board. Five ofthe valley governments have already met as follows: Carbondale Town Council voted 5 to 2 in favor of a rail system Snowmass Village voted 4 to 0 in favor of rail Basalt provided direction they support rail Glenwood Springs Council voted 6 to 0 in favor of rail Pitkin County Board provided direction they support rail Aspen and Eagle County are meeting today to complete the presentations. Mr. Roussos recommended rail be supported as a locally preferred alternative. Commissioner Stone asked about the effect of the County's recommendation. Mr. Roussos stated the agreement that exists requires all governments unanimously adopt the proposal. He stated the next step would be the investigation of the environmental components, the Environmental Impact Statement leading up to a record of decision. In the T -21 Legislation, there is a 40 million dollar authorization for the Roaring Fork Valley rail project and upon completion of the FEIS they would be able to negotiate a full funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration, which puts us in line to receive additional funding. Commissioner Stone asked if this action approves a specific alignment. Mr. Roussos referred to alignment C, which departs from County Road 100 in Garfield County, and proceeds towards Catherine's Store, then continues on Highway 82 to serve the population centers ofEl Jebel and Basalt. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve and forward the selection ofthe rail option for RFRHA. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Cooley Mesa Leasing Jim Elwood, Airport Manager, stated the next item on the agenda was a request by Cooley Mesa Leasing to pave the western section of their leasehold. He stated on the western edge of their lot it is only gravel and it is their intention to pave 8800 square feet of that area. He stated there are already gas pumps and asphalt and this area will bridge those together. He pointed out on a plat the area to be paved. He stated under their lease with the County the Board must first give their approval before the applicant can go forward. Commissioner Stone stated the Board has a letter from Cooley Mesa Leasing and it appears the paving of this area has previously been scheduled without Board approval. Mr. Elwood stated there was some mis-communication which has been corrected. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the request from Cooley Mesa Leasing to pave the western section oftheir leasehold with 4 inches of 3/4 inch road base, covered with approximately 8,835 square feet and 4 inches of HBP material. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Selection of Reilly Johnson Architecture Rich Cunningham, Facilities Management Director, presented a request for approval of Reilly Johnson Architecture to perform the pre-design and needs assessment of the Eagle County Sheriffs Department. Contract negotiations will then be entered into for this project with Reilly Johnson Architecture. Commissioner Johnson moved to authorize staffto proceed with contract negotiations with 3 10-25-1999 Reilly Johnson Architecture, failing that with HLM and then DLR would be the final firm enter into negotiations with. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Stone questioned the ranking of Reilly Johnson Architecture, HLM and DLR. Chairman Phillips called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Selection of Norris Dullea, Eagle County Fairgrounds Rich Cunningham presented a request for the approval ofthe selection of Norris Dullea to create a master plan for the Eagle County Fairgrounds. Contract negotiations will then be entered into for this project with Norris Dullea. He stated he was asked to do additional research on references. He stated he has spoken with the City of Denver Parks and Recreation, Frazer Valley Metropolitan District, Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District, which have given this firm an outstanding reference. He stated he also spoke with DHM, who is also in the running for this contract and they gave Norris Dullea a good reference. Joan Hamed, area resident and business owner, requested the Board have a citizen group monitor this process. She stated having a committee working with this firm would be a wonderful idea. Commissioner Stone asked if the selection committee would like to continue this process. Ms. Harned stated she believes so. Commissioner Stone asked what was the next step after the contract is approved. Mr. Cunningham stated they will notify the firm of the award and proceed with contract negotiations. He believes a work session is needed to determine what steps should come first after the contract is approved and how the public process is going to continue. Ms. Harned stated she believes the committee should be included in the negotiations of the contract. The Board concurred. Mr. Cunningham stated both Master Plans will be considered. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the selection of Norris Dullea to create a development plan for the Eagle County Fairgrounds. Contract negotiations shall be entered into and if those negotiations fail, negotiations will go forward with DHM, and if those fail, negotiations will begin with Design Workshop. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Discussion followed on the selection committee helping negotiate the contract. 1041 Completeness Hearing, Beaver Creek Resort Tambi Katieb, Environmental Health, presented the 1041 Completeness Hearing for Beaver Creek Resort. He stated this is a 1041 Permit Application for a Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water Treatment System (Beaver Creek Resort) & Efficient Utilization thereof. The action that will be requested from the Board on October 25, 1999, is to determine completeness of a 1041 Permit application and to estimate associated processing fees. Vail Associates, Inc. has submitted a 1041 Permit application for the construction of a major extension of domestic water treatment systems for the Spruce Saddle, Red-Tail Camp, and Beano's Cabin developments located in unincorporated Eagle County. Staff has reviewed the above referenced application and has found it to be complete. We have tentatively scheduled the hearings for the Planning Commission and Permit Authority on December 1, 1999 and December13, 1999 respectively. Estimated fees for the above referenced 1041 Permit application are as follows: 4 10-25-1999 Community Development Staff 20 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 850.00 Engineering Staff 5 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 212.50 Attorney Staff 8 Hrs @ $75.00 = $ 600.00 TOTAL = $1,662.50 Commissioner Johnson moved the Board accept the application submitted by Vail Associates, Inc. for the construction of a major extension of domestic water treatment system and efficient utilization thereof for the Spruce Saddle, Red Tail Camp, and Beano's Cabin developments located in unincorporated Eagle County (Beaver Creek Resort), as complete. The estimated fee to process this application is $1,662.50 and may be altered to cover the actual cost of review and public hearings. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the waiver request for the requirement of a special use permit as applied from Section 3-310-1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as it is not necessary. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Intergovernmental Agreement, Town of Vail Jim Fritze, County Attorney, presented an Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Vail regarding the affordable housing project located at Berry Creek Fifth Filing. He explained the agreement to the Board. He stated this agreement has not yet been formally considered by the Vail Town Council. That consideration will take place on November 2, 1999. He stated this agreement fulfills the requirements of the purchase contract and those conditions adopted which refers to the Town of Vail paying for 50% of development costs and will receive the ability to control 50% ofthe housing to be built on that parcel. Commissioner Johnson asked ifthe Town of Vail will be paying for 50% of the costs incurred by the two partners or 50% of the total costs. He stated what they are talking about is the cost to the partners rather than the total cost of development of the housing. Mr. Fritze stated they are both the same. If there is reimbursement built into the price and recovered, Vail will up front 50% of the costs that are required to be paid by the partners in the entity. He stated there will be more costs early on than later in the development. Commissioner Stone stated this in no way is contract zoning and the Board is not guaranteeing that a certain number of units will be built on the property. This agreement speaks to the public process. What can and cannot be built on the property will be determined later. Mr. Fritze stated none of the details are known. Those will be determined at a later time. Mike Cacioppo, area resident, suggested in paragraph 3, it reads "joint participation and the affordable housing effort", he believes that could be misconstrued to indicate the Town of Vail could be entitled to help plan for open space and recreation development. He suggested changing the word "and" with the word "of' so that the Town of Vail's agreement is for potential employee housing and not open space and recreation. Mr. Fritze stated he believes this agreement is fairly clear but related the Board could change that wording. He stated the property is identified in the agreement for development of the employee housing proj ect. Mr. Cacioppo stated he believes the Town could argue later on that recreation amenities would 5 10-25-1999 be better served on this property. He stated changing the word to "of' eliminates that. The Board concurred to change "and" to "of'. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Vail regarding Berry Creek Fifth Filing, changing the title of Paragraph 3 to read "of' as opposed to "and". Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0022, Eagle Ranch 1041 Permit Application Hearing Tambi Katieb presented file number 1041-0022, Eagle Ranch 1041 Permit application hearing. He stated the Eagle Ranch Planned Unit Development, annexed by the Town of Eagle, is proposing that a portion of the wastewater collection system trunk line cross over unincorporated Eagle County. The proposed line extension which connects the Eagle Ranch PUD wastewater conveyance system to the Town of Eagle collector system near the town's existing wastewater treatment system consists of approximately 1,265 feet of 21 inch sewer line. This sewer line crosses a parcel of unincorporated land owned by the HBE Corporation and is located south of Highway 6 near the intersection of Highway 6 and the new Brush Creek Road. Until recently, the Eagle Ranch had a tentative agreement with Adam's Rib (HBE Corp) for the mutually beneficial trunk line alignment (easement) proposed in this application. The developers of Eagle Ranch had expected that Adam's Rib would also be annexed to the Town and a 1041 Permit would not have been required for this portion ofline. However, since the Town of Eagle and the developer are no longer planning such an annexation, Adam's Rib is no longer willing to provide this easement to Eagle Ranch. Mr. Katieb stated the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the application as recommended by staff, with a slight amendment to the recommended condition. There was minimal discussion on the choice of alternatives available to the Eagle Ranch Metro District, and in particular the Green Acres Mobile Home Park alternative. The applicant also summarized the proceedings leading to their currently pending easement agreement with the H.B.E. corporation for the JHY parcel. The Planning Commission reasoned that since the applicant has the ability to condemn the said property for the trunk line placement it was appropriate to move the permit forward with a conditional approval to the permit authority. This was done knowing that the permit authority themselves could not approve the application with the same condition in place(a conditional finding), and, with the agreement of the applicant that a tabling would be requested should they not receive a legally binding easement agreement prior to the Permit Authority hearing. Mr. Katieb then spoke to the addendum stating there is an easement signed and in effect. He stated staff has no new issues. They do have the easement in place and recommend approval with one condition. Rick Pylman, Jamar and Associates, was present for the hearing. He stated Tambi did a good job of explaining the file. He spoke to the lack of annexation of Adam's Rib. He stated in January of this year the annexation was completed. They assumed this would run through other annexed property but since that has not taken place they are requesting this permit. Commissioner Johnson asked of the 1265 feet how much are they talking about. Mr. Pylman stated it is all of the 1265 square feet in Eagle County's jurisdiction. He showed the location on the map and referred to the JHY Property. He stated this is from the Eagle Ranch PUD boundary to Highway 6 and the waste water treatment plant. Commissioner Stone asked about the easement through the JHY property. Mr. Pylman stated there is an easement. They will put in sewer lines in excess of the capacity needed by Eagle Ranch. Chairman Phillips asked for public comment. There was none. 6 10-25-1999 In accordance with Section 6.04.13 (Major Extension of Existing Domestic Sewage Treatment Systems) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for extension of the Eagle Ranch wastewater collection system: a. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing water and sewage treatment systems of communities within this County within the development area and source development area; FINDINGS: This extended sewer system, as proposed, will result in proper utilization of wastewater system for development and the source development area. b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plan; FINDINGS: The proposed development does not conflict with the Eagle County Master Plan, the Eagle Area Community Plan, the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan, or other applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plans. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users; FINDINGS: The proposed development will not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users. d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; FINDINGS: Not applicable. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; FINDINGS: Not applicable. This is a request for an extension of a sewer line from the Eagle Ranch PUD to the Town of Eagle wastewater treatment plant. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; FINDINGS: No additional wastewater treatment facilities are proposed with this development. This is request is for an extension of existing sewage services from the Eagle Ranch PUD wastewater conveyance system to the Town of Eagle Wastewater Authority Plant. g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewage services or create duplicate services; FINDINGS: The proposed extension will not create duplicate services. The extension will improve existing sewage service to the site and is necessary to the project. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; FINDINGS: The proposed wastewater facility is not a replacement of existing facilities but an extension of current service required to serve the proposed development. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; FINDINGS: The development of such a system is appurtenant to a land use approval granted by the Town of Eagle. Area and community development trends have clearly demonstrated a need for such development. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division; FINDINGS: This permit application does not propose a new wastewater treatment plant, therefore, this criteria is not applicable. k. The site of the proposed sewer trunk line is subject to an easement granted to them for the JHY Parcel by the owner, HBE Corporation. 7 10-25-1999 FINDINGS: The site of the proposed sewer trunk line is granted to the applicant (Eagle Ranch Metropolitan District) through an easement from the owner (HBE Corporation), granted effective October 7, 1999. l. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; FINDINGS: No losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands will occur because of the extension requested. The line will be underground when constructed and the land above it may continue to be used for agricultural purposes by the owner. m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; FINDINGS: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted. n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate Federal or State air quality standards; FINDINGS: The proposed development and its associated collector system will not violate Federal or State air quality standards. o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forest and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public out-door recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; FINDINGS: The proposed development will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forest and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public out-door recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance if the construction is in accordance with the application submitted. p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; FINDINGS: The proposed development will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors if the construction is in accordance with the application submitted. q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution systems will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; FINDINGS: The proposed development will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area, since all project facilities will be paid for by the applicant. r. The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, 8 10-25-1999 snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rock slides or other disasters which could cause a system operation breakdown; FINDINGS: The site is not subject to natural hazards, as evidenced by the application submitted. s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health; FINDINGS: Not applicable. t. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area; FINDINGS: The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed extension will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, approval of the Permit application: c. Major new domestic water or sewer systems, major extensions of such systems, and municipal and industrial water projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant that: 2. That compliance with the special use permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. FINDINGS:The applicant has requested a waiver of the special use permit requirements, as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. Staff recommended approval with the following condition: 1) Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations 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 Johnson questioned the change in finding k. Mr. Loeffler stated if it reads as above it will be fine. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number 1041-0022, 1041 Permit application for Eagle Ranch, incorporating staff findings and condition as follows: 1. Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and public meeting, including the applicants' assurance of obtaining the required JHY property easement prior to the Eagle County Permit Authoritv hearing, shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the waiver of the special use permit. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. VIS-0004, Miller's Creek, Filing No. 2 John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number VIS-0004, Miller's Creek, Filing No.2. He stated this was a petition for a Variance Permit from the Driveway Standards established in Section 4-620.J.9.c(4) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations for the number of dwelling units that may be served by a driveway. The Variance Permit petition is in accordance with Section 5-260.G and Section 4-610.A.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. S-MAC Miller's Creek LLC is applying for approval of a Planned Unit Development Sketch/Preliminary Plan under File Nos. ZC-00033, PDA-00022, and PDSP-00010. The application is known as Miller's Creek, Filing 2. As part of that application, it is proposed to create four dwelling units on two duplex lots. It is also proposed to serve these lots by construction of a driveway. Section 4-620.J.9.c(4) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations states, in part, "Driveways 9 10-25-1999 shall not serve more than three (3) dwelling units, unless specified otherwise in these regulations. ...". In order for the Miller's Creek, Filing 2 Sketch/Preliminary Plan application to be approved, it must redesign the access to the duplex units to comply with the Regulations or receive a variance. The applicant has therefore requested a variance. Tom Braun, Braun Associates, stated they did submit new information a week ago that defines more clearly the manner in which the driveway would be constructed. The problem they have is considering the alternatives. He spoke to their desired access and then to the alternatives. He suggested they can build it to road standards but that would require a turnaround and a lot of asphalt. He reviewed the other alternatives. He stated they are proposing a 20 foot wide section of asphalt which was recommended by the Planning Commission. They would not propose curb and gutter but would build it to durable standards. The process laid out in the code for this type of variance involves a couple of steps. He stated section 2 of the code says the standards are not inflexible. He read from the code. He spoke to the public safety issue and the information they have submitted to staff. He believes they have addressed the issues and those of the Avon Fire Department. He spoke to the need to balance the hardships of the applicant to the health safety and welfare of the citizens. The hardship of building per code will cost the applicant and ultimately cost the owners. In terms of the adverse impacts, there seem to be none. They believe this proposal is more sensitive to the site, providing more green space, more lawn and less hassle. They welcome the support of the Board. Mr. Vengrin stated one of the reasons the regulations are written as they are is that it is important the road construction be part of the SIA. Driveways are not included. He spoke to the requirements and that this goes over the line in accordance of the regulations. If the variance is granted there will be no control under the SIA. He stated he is still not clear what the hardship is to the applicant to comply. He would recommend a denial and ask the applicant to do some redesigning. Commissioner Johnson asked for information on the adverse impacts. Mr. Vengrin stated he can not speak to any item that would not be a health, safety or welfare Issue. Commissioner Stone stated the applicant has said they will build this road to a certain fashion. He asked if there is a way for that not to happen. Mr. Loeffler stated the applicant is stating how they will construct the road. They might make a condition that would be in effect and require the equivalent of an SIA to have it built in accordance to the standards. Mr. Braun stated they have included in the construction drawings the cross sections and would be willing to include the driveway. Commissioner Stone stated he appreciates the applicant looking at other options. He stated if the Board only has one option to choose from it is either that way or no way. Commissioner Johnson stated he does not need to spend any more time on the variance as the options submitted by the applicant have addressed his concerns. Mr. Vengrin reviewed the concerns and issues as follows: The applicant's proposed design does not meet the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. There is no physical reason why the regulations can not be met. The hardship to the applicant of not granting the variance does not exceed the adverse impact to the health, safety, and welfare to affected persons or the land. Commissioner Stone moved to approve a variance, file number VIS-0004, Miller's Creek, Filing 2, as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDSP-000I0, ZC-00033, PDA-00022, Miller's Creek, Filing 2 Jean Garren, Planner, presented file numbers PDSP-OOOIO, ZC-00033 and PDA-00022, Miller's 10 10-25-1999 Creek, Filing 2. At its Public Meeting of August 30, 1999, the Board of Eagle County Commissioners tabled this set of filings to September 13, 1999, a regular planning day. On September 7, 1999 the Board considered and TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 related File VIS-00004, a request for Variation from Improvement Standards [Section 4-620.J.9.c.(4)] to allow four dwelling units to be accessed by a common driveway. She stated the applicant has worked to obtain signatures from affected owners. Ms. Garren reviewed the following: 1. Applicant's Responses to Proposed Conditions of Approval a. Public Fishing Easement (PDSP-000I0). Applicant has revised the Preliminary Plat to designate the proposed trail along the river and all that land south of the field located mean high water line as "fishing access easement." This change satisfies the Planning Commission's concern about possible trespass from fisher persons leaving the trail to access the water, hence Condition 1.d has been removed. b. Plat Note re: Geotechnical review (PDSP-000I0). Applicant has revised the Preliminary Plat to reflect the addition of the requisite plat note, consequently Condition 1.b has been removed. 2. Authorization. In its review, staff had identified the possibility that even though the developers of Miller's Creek, "Filing 1" and the developers of Filing 2 were actually one in the same, since lots have been sold, or could be sold, they may no longer possess the authority to incorporate Filing 2 into the Miller's Creek PUD. The applicant indicated at the hearing that all authorization has been accomplished through the Declaration. The Planning Commission agreed that it is of some concern and modified the staff recommended condition to permit the County Attorney to review such authorization. The Eagle County Attorney reviewed the documents submitted relevant to the following questions: Since the owner/developer of Miller's Creek (M.R.L.D. LLC) is not the same as the owner/developer of Miller's Creek, Filing 2 (S-MAC MILLER'S CREEK LLC), have M.R.L.D. LLC and all other Miller's Creek property owner given satisfactory evidence of permission for the proposed addition of land to the PUD? Have all affected property owners - M.R.L.D. LLC and any to whom it has sold any portion of Miller's Creek, given satisfactory evidence of permission for the changes proposed in the controlling development documents, to wit: the PUD Guide? In looking at both the Declaration text and the Miller's Creek PUD Guide (development plan), it was determined that the Declaration alone, as a private agreement, only authorizes the right to include "expansion" property into the Declaration and has no bearing on the matters of subdivision law, Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and the right to add one property to another and make changes to its governing land use documents thereunder. In effect, then, as a private matter what the Declaration says really doesn't matter much to Eagle County. In looking at the Miller's Creek PUD Guide, no part of it speaks to either the right and ability of any entity to add additional land to Miller's Creek or modify the strictures contained in the Guide. Thus, in order for S-MAC to be able to incorporate Miller's Creek Filing 2 into Miller's Creek, all Miller's Creek property owners would need to join permissively in the applications submitted, either by direct signature on the application, through letters of agreement, or through powers of attorney to S-MAC to act on their behalf. In reviewing the courthouse records staff found that as of approximately August 10, 1999, all lots in Miller's Creek were owned by M.R.L.D., Inc.; however, it is understood that some lot sales may have taken place since that time. In the paperwork submitted with the application package, a letter from M.R.L.D. LLC authorized submittal of the proposed land use actions and BAI/Braun Associates, Inc. to represent M.R.L.D., LLC in them. Staff recommended that the Applicant add language to the PUD Guide that would allow for its future modification without the foregoing complications. Mr. Loeffler stated the letters from the owners are sufficient to move forward with the 11 10-25-1999 application. Ms. Garren stated a new PUD Guide has been submitted. She stated ECO Trails has determined their concerns have been met. Commissioner Johnson asked about the amendments to the PUD Guide. Ms. Garren stated those were required from the previous application and staff discovered there was no mechanism to amend the PUD and it did not address Minor Type B Subdivision. Mr. Braun reviewed the changes for the Board. He stated they pertain to housekeeping items, duplex lots can be further subdivided, wildlife mitigation, landscape plans and dog runs and height of fencing and incorporating these four units into the PUD Guide. Ms. Garren reviewed the referral responses as follows: Eagle County Engineering. (September 7, 1999) The Eagle County Engineer, in response to materials submitted August 20, August 26, and September 3, 1999, commented that the following from its July 14, 1999 memo have not, as of the writing of this Staff Report Addendum 2, been satisfactorily addressed: (1) The proposed driveway to serve four dwelling units does not meet County standards. (Item 1) (2) Construction drawings for the street serving Lots 1 and 2 have not been provided. (Item 2) (3) All details of the grading plan have not been addressed. (Item 3) (4) Landscaping requirements have not been fully addressed. (Item 5) (5) The pedestrian access (sidewalk) is not shown on the construction drawings. (Item 6) (6) Calculations or measurements demonstrating adequate site distance exists have not been submitted. (Item 7) (7) A plan view of all service connections is needed in order to demonstrate that all utilities will be properly installed. (Item 8) In addition, the sketch submitted by Staff in order to resolve driveway access and parking lot issues satisfies the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. Ms. Garren reviewed staff findings as follows: FINDINGS REVISIONS: Thefindings have been revised based on additional materials received since the preparation of Staff Report Addendum 1. ZC-00033 : Pursuant to Section 5-230.D of the Land Use Regulations, in determining whether to adopt, adopt with modifications, or disapprove the proposed amendment [to the Official Zone District Map], the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following": 1. Consistency With Master Plans. The proposed PUD amendment and the extent of the proposed PUD amendment ARE generally consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan. 2. Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed PUD Amendment and the extent of the proposed PUD Amendment ARE compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and PUD IS the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district. 3. Changed conditions. There ARE sufficient changed conditions, and extent of changed conditions, that require an amendment to modify the use or density / intensity. 4. Effect on natural environment. The proposed PUD amendment and the extent of the proposed PUD amendment would NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. Community need. The proposed PUD amendment and the extent of the proposed PUD amendment DOES address a demonstrated community need. Development patterns. The proposed PUD amendment and the extent of the proposed PUD 12 10-25-1999 amendment WILL result in a logically and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning, and the resulting development CAN logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. 7. Public interest. The area to which the proposed PUD amendment would apply, and the extent of the area to which the proposed PUD amendment would apply, HAS changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Commissioner Johnson moved the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners APPROVE File ZC-00033, incorporating the staff findings, and continue the application until November 8, 1999 for the signing of the Resolution. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00022 and PDSP-000I0 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.f.(3) Basis for Granting Variations. A variation from use or dimensional limitations may be granted when the Board of County Commissioners finds that the Preliminary Planfor PUD achieves one (1) or more of the following purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. (a) Obtain desired Design Qualities. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT permit the integration of mixed uses or allow for greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings under the provisions of this Section. (b) Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT avoid valued environmental resource and natural hazard lands as identified in Section 3- 3 1O.B. 1., Purpose. (c) Water Augmentation. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT create incentives for the applicant to commit to a water augmentation plan for its development that brings "wet" water into the Upper Eagle River Basin. (d) Trails. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES make contributions to the County's multi-use trail system in accordance with the recommendations of the latest version ofthe Eagle County Trails Plan, and also appropriates forms of access ... to public lands and to river and creek drainages in Eagle County. (e) Affordable Housing. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT ensure that long term affordable housing is provided. (f) Public Facilities. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES develop public facilities, including but not limited to public transportation facilities, public recreation facilities and similar facilities. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary PUD Plan: (1) Unified ownership or control. It IS NOT represented that title to all land is owned or controlled by one (1) entity but authority has been given by all property owners. (2) Uses. Uses that may be developed through the proposed PUD Amendment ARE NOT those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300 or Table 3-320 for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations ofthese use designations ARE authorized pursuant to Section 5- 240.F.3.f, Variations Authorized.. (3) Dimensional Limitations. Dimensional limitations ARE as specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations," for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. (4) Off-Street parking and Loading. The proposed off-street parking and loading DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. (5) Landscaping. It HAS been demonstrated that landscaping to be provided for structures contemplated by the PUD Amendment complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, 13 10-25-1999 Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Applicant HAS demonstrated that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts; creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas; and is consistent with the character of the area. (6) Signs. A comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD EXISTS within the Miller's Creek PUD Guide. (7) Adequate Facilities. The applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed by the PUD Amendment will be provided with adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply; and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services; the applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed by the PUD Amendment will be provided with adequate facilities for fire protection and roads. (8) Improvements. The improvement standards applicable to the development ARE NOT as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. It HAS been demonstrated that the development may deviate from the County's road standards so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts under the following minimum design principles: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. It HAS been demonstrated that there is safe, efficient access to all areas of the proposed development. (b) Internal Pathways. It HAS been demonstrated that internal pathways form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian accesses with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. It HAS been demonstrated that the roadways are designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. (d) Principal Access Points. It HAS been demonstrated that the principal vehicular access points are designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas for snow storage HAVE been provided on the plans submitted. (1) A variance was granted relating to file number VIS-0004, which was approved by the Board on October 25, 1999. (9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. The development proposed for the PUD Amendment IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. (10) Consistency with Master Plan. The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plans, including, but not limited to, the 1996 Future Land Use Map (FLUM). (11) Phasing. A phasing plan for the PUD Amendment HAS been provided; guarantees SHALL be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents ofthe project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. (12) Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD Amendment DOES comply with the following common recreation and open space standards: (a) Minimum Area: Recommended "minimum open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public" (as defined) is 25%; (b) Improvements Required: All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the FINAL PLAT for the PUD Amendment and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD Amendment. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance: Not applicable: refers only to deed restrictions and/or deed covenants. (d) Organization: Common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, and such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and 14 10-25-1999 operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. (13) Natural Resources Protection. The PUD Amendment HAS considered the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendation received by responding referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards: Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410); Development in Areas Subject to Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420); Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards (Section 4-430); Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440); Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450); Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460). Mr. Loeffler stated on finding number 8, the improvement standards applicable to the development are not specified in article 4 is correct because a variance was granted. He suggested adding (f) noting a variance was granted. PDA-00022 ONLY Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m Amendment to Preliminarv Plan for PUD: (1) The proposed PUD Amendment IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest; and (3) The proposed PUD Amendment IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Commissioner Stone moved the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners APPROVE File PDA-00022, incorporating staff findings and with the following conditions, and continue the application until November 8, 1999 for the signing of the Resolution, including the addition of item f) under Section 5-240.F.3.e: 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement. Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.h.(1) a PUD Agreement shall be drawn between the Applicant and Eagle County, and signed by the Applicant and Board of Eagle County Commissioners at such time as a Resolution approving the PUD Amendment shall be signed by the Board. 2. Final Plat Conditions. Prior to the submittal of any Final Plat for Miller's Creek, Filing 2, all conditions of Final Plat approval shall be met. 3. All Material Representations. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions of approval, all material representations of the Applicant in its submittal package and in public hearing shall be binding. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDSP-000I0 ONLY Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: (1) Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan/so (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision IS NOT in compliance with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisio~s of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Articl~ 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. however a variation from dimensionallimitations has been granted bv the Board as of October 25. 1999. The Board has approved a variance from site improvement standards as per file number VIS-0004 as of October 25. 1999. (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The spatial pattern IS efficient. The project IS "located 15 10-25-1999 and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a 'leap frog' pattern of development." IT CAN be shown that: (a) Utility and Road Extension: Proposed utility extensions are consistent with the utility's service plan or that County approval of a service plan amendment will be given; or that road extensions are consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population: Utility lines will be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions: "Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area." (4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. (5) Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Commissioner Johnson moved the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners APPROVE File PDSP-000I0, incorporating the staff findings, with the following conditions, and continue the application until November 8, 1999 for the signing of the Resolution: 1. Final Plat Requirements. All requirements for Final Plat pursuant to Section 5.280.B.5 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations shall be met, including, but not limited to: a) Revised Subdivision Improvements Agreement. A revised Subdivision Improvements Agreement that incorporates all requirements for Miller's Creek, Filing 2 shall be submitted, including but not limited to provisions for monies for Eagle County Trails and driveway construction specifications as attached and as presented by the applicant. b) School Land Dedication Fee-in-lieu. The fee-in-lieu shall be $3,043.95. 2. Landscape Irrigation Plan. A landscape plan that conforms to the requirements of Section 4-240. Installation and Maintenance Requirements shall be submitted with the application for Final Plat. 3. All Material Representations. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions of approval, all material representations of the Applicant in its submittal package and in public hearing shall be binding. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until November 1, 1999. 16 10-25-1999