Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/13/99 PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER l3, 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 Chairman Phillips stated the Board convened to adjourn into "Executive Session". Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated the matters the Board may want to discuss are Board of Equalization cases on the Stokley and Johnson, legal advice regarding the certain County Airport property, to receive legal advise regarding Brett Ranch transfer fees, to direct negotiators with regard to certain water negotiations, direct negotiators regarding an easement on Saddleridge, and also negotiations with United Airlines and to receive legal advise regarding a district where members are appointed by the Board. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjoum into "Executive Session" at 8:47 a.m. to discuss those items mentioned by County Attorney. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from "Executive Session" and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. The time was noted at 9:47. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Mike Cacioppo, area resident, was present and asked to comment. He complimented the County on its performance. He stated he appreciated the Board stating for the record the issues to be discussed during "Executive Session". He stated it is important that the public have an opportunity to ask for clarification about what was being discussed. He questioned the certain airport land discussions. Jim Fritze stated there were two airport matters, one with regard to advice on leases and directions to negotiate certain pending airport terminal leases. Commissioner Johnson stated the other was the request for information to transfer airport property. Jim Fritze stated it was regarding an easement on the property. Mr. Cacioppo asked if that is a matter for "Executive Session". He spoke to the depositions last week with the School Board. He suggested when the County is purchasing land, that should be privileged. If the County is selling land, that should not be privileged. Mr. Fritze stated they are not to that stage as yet and ifthere is a contract it would then become public record. Commissioner Johnson clarified they gave direction to their negotiator regarding the possible sale. Once they decide if they are going to enter into the contract, that is when the public should become involved. Mr. Cacioppo stated he respectfully disagrees. He stated the public needs to have the ability to say beforehand whether they are interested or not. He questioned the third issue on Brett Ranch and the transfer fees. Mr. Fritze stated the Board asked for legal advise about the fees. Chairman Phillips suggested they are running behind and asked if that is all. Mr. Cacioppo stated he questioned the fees for Brett Ranch. He stated he believes they should have the right to question what the Board is discussing. Commissioner Johnson asked they call for the question. 1 12-13-1999 Chairman Phillips called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Phillips stated the next item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of December 13, 1999, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for December 16, 1999, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioner's meeting of November 22, 1999 D) Resolution 99-218 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. 361, for MRLD, LLC in the amount of$634,015.80, to expire December 16, 1999, issued by Weststar Bank, Miller's Creek Subdivision E) Resolution and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. WSL890817, for Brett Ranch in the amount of$21,747.95, to expire December 13, 1999, issued by Keybank Denver, Area D On-site improvements F) Resolution and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. WSL8908l6, for Brett Ranch in the amount of $42,240.14, to expire December 13, 1999, issued by Keybank Denver, Area D On-site improvements G) Resolution 99-219 expressing intent to participate in a Rural Transportation Authority H) Jail Medical Care and Health Services Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Valley Emergency Physicians, P.c. I) Intergovernmental Agreement for the purchase of administrative services in connection with the Housing Voucher Assistance Payments Program, between Eagle County and the Housing Authority of Garfield County J) Community Development Block Grant Change Letter #2 K) SalelMaintenance Agreement between Eagle County and Xerox for DC332, DC328Stplr, CRUS32METR, Assessor's Office L) Approve the Lease Agreement between Friends of Eagle, A.A. and Eagle County for the office at the Fairgrounds M) Intergovernmental Agreement between County of Eagle and Town of Red Cliff for road maintenance services. Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated that items E and F can be pulled. Chairman Phillips stated on the minutes on page 7 there is a typo on the next to last line. It should be "an" instead of "and". On page 1 0, 1/3 of the way down there is a typo, it should read "he stated that it". At the end ofthat discussion, on page 15, where it states Mr. Forinash clarified it was to be 34 housing beds she believes it should read 34 housing units. Commissioner Johnson explained that should be as it currently reads. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the consent calendar as presented with the corrections to the minutes as stated by the Chairman, pulling items E and F. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-OOI99. Arrowhead at Vail. Filine 13. Lot 34 and Tract I (Alpine Club) 2 12-13-1999 This Minor Type B Subdivision is both a horizontal and vertical resubdivision of Lot 34 and Tract I to comprehensively include underground (parking) lots, create a new above ground lot (Lot 35) for project amenities, and identify a pedestrian access easement. He read staff findings for the record 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 5MB-00199, Arrowhead at Vail, filing 13, Lot 34 and Tract I (Alpine Club), incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Snow Removal in Red Cliff Gordon Adams, Road and Bridge, spoke to the snow plowing contract and snow storage in Red Cliff. Commissioner Stone stated they wanted to make sure that Road and Bridge was comfortable with the removal of the two snow storage areas in Red Cliff. Mr. Adams stated they were not removed but the Town of Red Cliff wanted to make sure that there was ample room for storage and that Road & Bridge was aware of their concerns with spring thaw and the flooding of some of the mobile home park. Mr. Adams discussed the crossed off items on the previous contract and related those items were addressed in a letter. The County did not lose those two areas. Mr. Loeffler stated that he would reproduce the contract without the mark through's. Resolution 99-220, Fifth Supplemental Appropriation Terry Lowell, Finance Director, presented Resolution 99-220, fifth and final 1999 supplemental appropriation for the County of Eagle for fiscal year 1999. He spoke to exhibit A and the 1.5 million for the East & West Brush Creek Purchase. He spoke as well to a reduction of $460.00 in the Housing V oucher Assistance Fund. He explained that they are unable to spend more money than is taken in which was the cause for the adjustment. Chairman Phillips spoke to the minutes of November 22 and the discussion where they could amend this resolution. She spoke to the Sheriff s operations being placed in the Sheriff s fund. She spoke to the purchase ofthe Skatefish Hanger and related she would like to see that $200,000 placed in that fund. Commissioner Stone asked if Jim Elwood, Airport Manager, was not going to get back to them regarding a lease purchase. Chairman Phillips stated he did and handed the information to Commissioner Stone. Commissioner Johnson stated he thought that was going to take place in the 2000 budget. Chairman Phillips stated that with the money being available now she would like it done at this time. She suggested there is no guarantee that the hangar will be available later on. 3 12-13-1999 Mr. Lowell suggested it may be appropriate to make that purchase in 2000 as it may be too late to do so in 1999. Jim Elwood stated it is at the Board's discretion to purchase the hangar either in 1999 or 2000. Chairman Phillips asked if the money can be appropriated now and then rolled over into 2000. Mr. Lowell suggested that by rolling it over, it was assumed that it should have been spent in 1999. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated it might be more practical ifit is appropriated next year. He stated technically if it is to be rolled over it should be encumbered. Chairman Phillips spoke to this being the Airport Fund. Mr. Fritze stated if they were under contract or had a Memorandum of Understanding it might be appropriate to adjust it this year. He stated in light of the meeting dates, it seems more appropriate to do so in 2000 out of the 2000 budget. Commissioner Johnson stated it could just as easily be added into the 2000 budget and be available as of January 1 st. Chairman Phillips stated that the other items she would like included in the appropriations were included. Commissioner Stone suggested he would prefer to discuss it with the next item on the agenda. Chairman Phillips asked for public input. Brad Udhall, Eagle Valley Public Trust, thanked the Board for their involvement with East & West Brush Creek. He stated that area has always provided clean air and clean water. He stated he is proud to be a citizen of Eagle County and is proud of his County Commissioners. In the midst ofthe tremendous growth boom this is something to be proud of. He thanked Jack Ingstad, Jim Fritze, Terry Lowell, and George Roussos. He stated the closing is set for the last day of the year. Commissioner Stone stated the Governor is putting special emphasis on the creation and maintenance of State parks. He stated this County's timing is unique and goes along with the agenda. Commissioner Johnson thanked Brad and Joe Macy for helping put this together. He thanked the previous Board's who have made this possible as well. Chairman Phillips echoed their sentiments. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 99-220, the fifth and final 1999 supplemental appropriation for the County of Eagle, fiscal year 1999. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 99-221, Adoption of the 2000 Budget Terry Lowell, presented Resolution 99-221, adoption of the 2000 Eagle County Budget and the making of appropriations. He spoke to a couple of errors which he has found. He stated the Capital Improvement Fund had the 1.5 million dollars listed twice. He stated he made a $10,000 reduction in the Microwave Maintenance Fund. He spoke as well to the Skatefish Hangar. Mr. Lowell stated in the detentions budget they failed to request $25,000 in overtime. He asked they consider placing those monies in the Sheriff s budget. He suggested it would cause more problems by not including it. Chairman Phillips spoke to the Skatefish Hanger and asked it be amended to reflect the $200,000. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the $50,000 for youth programs and his desire that prior to those being spent that an assessment be done. One of the things supportive of that and in today's Daily Letter To The Editor, students wrote about the need for teen activities and the possibility of the crime rate going down. Another student wrote that teens do crime because there is nothing to do. He offered there be an amendment to the budget. He stated within the budget he does not see the market adjustment for employees. He asked about a final number on what that adjustment will cost. Carla Budd, Human Resources Director, stated the anticipated pay increases regionally will be 4 12-13-1999 5% including merit increases and cost of living adjustments. She stated they were 1 % out of line last year. She stated it would probably be another 3% to get to market. Chairman Phillips spoke to the merit increases and that Summit County was the only County giving an adjustment. Ms. Budd stated they are looking at all of the businesses throughout the area, not just Counties and Cities. It is businesses and education and all those who participate with the survey. Chairman Phillips stated she doesn't have a problem paying employees a decent wage. Ms. Budd stated an additional 3% is $495,220. Nearly $1.0 million to do the 6%. Chairman Phillips stated they need to give at least the 1 % but she suggested that can be seen as a slap in the face. Commissioner Stone asked ifthe $50,000 is over and above the 25% from the Forest Service fund. Commissioner Johnson stated it is and he would like to see a council set up with youth on the Board to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners like the Human Service Council. He suggested they could do the needs assessment as well. Chairman Phillips asked how they would spend the $50,000. Commissioner Johnson stated they would set up a Board to provide direction and guidance with teens and adolescences on the Board to help direct the spending of the monies. Chairman Phillips asked if Commissioner Johnson was was looking at giving $450,000 to youth programs. Commissioner Johnson questioned that figure. Mr. Lowell stated when they changed that calculation they added another $49,000. Commissioner Stone asked about the funds currently earmarked for Health and Human services. He suggested some of those monies have gone toward youth programs. Commissioner Johnson stated that amount is about $80,000. He stated he had taken $20,000 from those monies. Commissioner Stone asked if the $50,000 is in addition to what might be spent out of the $80,000. Commissioner Johnson stated this would be a partial offset. He asked how much is budgeted. Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services, stated it is $80,000 which have been reduced. She stated this year they spent a little over $92,000. The recommendation for next year total $80,000. Commissioner Stone asked ifthis is a real $50,000. He asked how much is additional. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to put $40,000 into youth programs and then work with Ms. Forinash regarding TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds and the need for dollars for teen pregnancy. Commissioner Stone asked if they should reduce the $80,000 to $70,000. Commissioner Johnson stated no. Ms. Forinash stated the monies have to be used for specific reasons. She reiterated those and stated there is about $70,000 unallocated that could be designated. Commissioner Johnson stated they should be able to get $10,000 from the TANF funds. Chairman Phillips stated she would like to see the 25% increase from the forest service reserve fund go to the schools and she believes that will work. They do not have the money to add another $40,000 to the budget. She would like to propose with the 3% merit, a 2% cost ofliving. Commissioner Stone suggested James proposed one thing and Johnnette proposed another. Commissioner Johnson 3% and Chairman Phillips 2%. He asked where the monies will come from. Commissioner Johnson stated 2% would be $286,000. Chairman Phillips stated the 3% is already in there. She doesn't want to take it out of the surplus revenues. 5 12-13-1999 Mr. Ingstad stated on page 14, the adjustments made would allow for this. Commissioner Stone asked if there are no offsets. Commissioner Johnson stated there is not a need. Commissioner Stone asked if market adjustment is the same as cost of living. Commissioner Johnson stated for the year 2000 they will need an additional 2% plus the 1 % to stay up with Mountain States. Ms. Budd stated for Denver Metro they are looking at an overall 4.5%. Commissioner Stone stated in summary, the three additional expenditures suggested are $50,000 or $40,000 for youth programs, either a 2% or 3% wage adjustment, and the $200,000 to purchase the Skatefish Hanger, and the overtime for the detention officers in the amount of $25,000. Jim Fritze stated his suggestion is they vote to direct staff and continue the hearing to later in the day to come back with corrected documents. Commissioner Stone moved to table Resolution 99-221, adoption of the 2000 Eagle County Budget and the making of appropriations for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado with the following changes in the document, continuing for final approval, 1) an additional $40,000 out of the General Fund to be earmarked for youth programs, with a process for determining those funds, 2) a 2% market adjustment looking at it further in the year to look at stipends that mayor may not be necessary for certain positions, 3) $200,000 out of the Airport fund for the purchase ofthe Skatefish hanger, 4) approval of an additional $25,000 for overtime in the Detention Center, until later in the day. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 99-222, Setting the Mill Levy Jim Fritze stated the next item will have to come back as it can not be adopted until the budget has been adopted. Commissioner Johnson moved to table Resolution 99-222, setting the mill levy for County of Eagle, fiscal year 2000 to later today. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00050, Alpine Bank Drive Up Facility Paul Clarkson, Senior Planner, presented file number ZS-00050, Alpine Bank Drive Up Facility. He stated the Planning Commission at their public meeting of September 15, 1999, expressed concerns about the following items suggesting that the applicant request a tabling so that the proponents could adequately respond: . Parking and circulation: The underground parking should be better utilized by better informing the patrons and encouraging the employees to park underground. Subsequent subdivision of Lot 2 into 2A and 2B caused a circulation encroachment onto 2B which needs addressing. . Status of the previously required path to the Spur Road pedestrian bridge and the likelihood that Edwards Plaza is in violation of that requirement. . There was also some concern that the property owner, Fritze Schmidt, may not be aware of the issues identified both by staff and the members of the Planning Commission and therefore, also not aware of any potential conditions of approval that might affect future development plans. The meeting was tabled at the applicant's request until November 3, 1999 at which time an additional request for tabling was submitted as one of the applicant's representatives was out of town. The next available date was December 1, 1999. Applicant did submit materials as described in B. below 6 12-13-1999 intending to address staff and Planning Commission concerns. At the public meeting of December 1, 1999, to which Mr. Schmidt was in attendance, the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with conditions as noted in E. below. Mr. Clarkson reviewed the project revisions as follows: . Evidence that the pedestrian path connection is under construction and that completion is expected soon. . An access easement intending to resolve encroachment onto 2B has been developed and will be recorded. . New construction plans to respond to staff recommended condition better separating the residential use from the drive-through. . A new landscaping/planting/irrigation plan. . New parking and circulation plan and controls including: · One-way circulation, · Signage, · Parking and circulation graphic · Employee and tenant parking plan and sticker program. He stated that the Planning Commission did unanimously give approval and complimented the applicant on their efforts. Mr. Clarkson introduced Sid Fox and David Tanzer. David Tanzer introduced the project giving an overview of the location. He stated this is in Edwards, near the stop light where Marco's Pizza and Fiestas are. He stated the newer building has been completed over the last couple of years. He referred to the sketch showing where Alpine Bank is located. What they seek to do is place a drive up island on the east side of the building. He explained they will be using the pneumatic tubes. He explained the original approval did not allow for this and therefore they are looking to amend the special use. He stated Alpine Bank started back in July working with staff and what they are trying to do. They got feedback from staff and they had the hearing in September before Planning and Zoning. Planning & Zoning pointed out the concerns they had and related those have been worked out. On December 1 st, Planning & Zoning approved their application. He stated the comments they received were in six categories; 1) overall consent to the drive-thru, 2) owner aware of implications, 3) landscaping and irrigation, 4) parking and traffic flow, 5) pedestrian bike path, 6) cross easement as there are lots 2A and 2B both owned by Edwards Plaza. The driveway does go between the two. On the 15th of September they worked more closely with Paul Clarkson and Fritze Schmidt. He stated on item #6, the cross easement, the purpose is to amend the special use for Alpine Bank. He showed a copy of the easement and with approval from the Board they will record it with the Clerk & Recorder's office. #5, the pedestrian bike path there is still work being done on the rails. They are very close to completing that project. #4 parking and traffic flow was the biggest issue to deal with. The primary concern is that at some of the busiest times, lunch time, there was concern with parking and traffic flow. He stated they took the suggestions from staff and Fritze Schmidt. The problem is not that there aren't enough parking spaces, but getting people to park in the right spot. There are many parking spots below the building and others behind the building. They are trying to come up with an education program for the customers as well as for employees of the various establishments. Mr. Schmitdt worked closely with Mr. Fox in identifying the parking and placing signs accordingly. He explained the signs now in place and showed photographs of the signs. He showed the back entrance to the lower ground parking and that on the western side. He spoke of the signs in the hallways and at the elevator as well. He stated another side of the equation is educating the tenants and their employees. Mr. Schmidt agreed to speak with the tenants and did so by meeting with each of them and following up with a letter accordingly. He handed out a copy of the letter sent to each ofthe tenants. Mr. Schmidt is implementing a parking sticker program to let them know that there is a requirement under the lease. The feedback they have gotten is that it appears to be working. #3, landscaping and 7 12-13-1999 irrigation was also an issue. Mr. Tanzer stated there were some issues brought to the surface by staff about 4-240 and 4-640 regarding irrigation. Mr. Fox worked with staff to meet those requirements and to implement some of their ideas for landscaping and irrigation. He stated those were met and showed the irrigation plan they have incorporated. #2, owner awareness. Mr. Tanzer stated the owner has signed the application and he was present at the planning and zoning meeting. Mr. Fritze drafted a letter which was submitted to Mike Glass. He read the letter into the record dated November 30 as follows: "Dear Mr. Glass: By virtue of this letter to you, you are authorized and directed to advise the Eagle County Community Development and Planning & Zoning Commission, that I have reviewed the Amendment to the Special Use Permit, Staff Reports, signed and forwarded letters to all tenants concerning parking facilities, reviewed the Planting Plan and Irrigation Plan with Mr. Fox, reviewed Michell Plus Drive Up Teller Plan and details with Mr. Fox, reviewed the Edwards Plaza II, Parking and Circulation Plans with Mr. Fox, executed the cross easement of Lots 2A and 2B for filing in Eagle County, and have otherwise reviewed all other pending matters to my satisfaction related to the pending application by Alpine Bank. I hereby acknowledge that I am aware of all matters related to the request presently being made by Alpine Bank, aware of the potential implications to any further or potential development of Lot 2B, and hereby acknowledge my consent and approval thereof. Sincerely, Fritze Schmidt. " Commissioner Johnson asked if there is actually one island or two. Mr. Tanzer explained there is one with allowing for two lanes of traffic on either side. Commissioner Johnson asked about a mark on the plan they have. Mr. Fox stated one of the windows is on the inside ofthe island using the building and then a space on the outside of the island. There is additional space to accommodate the circulation. Commissioner Johnson reviewed the dimensions stating the one on the outside is at least 21 feet. He asked if it will accommodate two vehicles at a time. Mr. Fox stated it meets the requirements and is designed appropriately. Commissioner Johnson asked how many compact car spaces are on the outside of the driveway. Mr. Fox responded there are actually eight. Commissioner Johnson asked about stacking. Mr. Tanzer stated they moved this forward to the north to allow for the stacking often cars. Five per lane. Mr. Fox stated the width of the lane is almost 19 feet, a little over nine feet per lane. Commissioner Johnson explained he had concerns with the stacking allowing for enough room for circulation. Mr. Tanzer stated originally the tubes were placed farther back. As was requested, they moved them forward. He stated now there is plenty of room. Commissioner Johnson stated the concern is that in this plaza everyone is trying to use the area at the same time, being at lunch time or after work. Mr. Tanzer responded that is why extra effort has been placed in educating the tenants and employees by asking for voluntary encouragement of employees. He stated that over the last few weeks it has made an impact. Mr. Clarkson reviewed staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-250.B. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 1) Consistent with Master Plan. 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 FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. 2) Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 8 12-13-1999 3) Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards ofthe zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. 4) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nUIsance. 5) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. 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) Impact on Public Facilities. 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) Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 8) Other Provisions. 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. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval with the following conditions: 1) The Edwards Plaza property owner shall record an access easement over that portion of Lot 2B covered by the access to the north side of the building to the benefit of Lot 2A and shall present a copy of this recorded easement at the time of application for the drive-up facility building permit. 2) The approval of this Special Use permit does not supercede the requirements of resolution 97- 120. 3) A device that functions as a screen compliant with Section 3-330.A.2.a.coincident with the "guardrail, to match building standard" as identified on the Drive-Up Teller Plans and Details by Mitchell Plus Associates, Inc. shall be submitted with the building permit application. 4) All required landscaping and traffic control devices and improvements shall be in place and subject to planning staff inspection at or prior to the final inspection of the building permit. 5) All material representations made in this application and in hearing shall be considered as conditions of approval. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number ZS-00050, Alpine Bank Drive Up Facility, incorporating staff findings and conditions. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion for discussion. Chairman Phillips asked for public input. There was none. She called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SDS-00006, Castle Ridge Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number SUS-00006, Castle Ridge. He stated this property is located in Sections 1 and 12, T8S, R86W of 6th PM, west of Taylor Creek at Frying Pan Road, approximately 4.3 miles east of the Town of Basalt. He stated this is a request to subdivide an 18.22 acre parcel, west of Taylor Creek, north of Frying Pan Road, and east of Seven Castles Estates into four residential lots and two open space tracts. The single family lots would range in size from 2.56 to 2.89 acres. The open space tracts at the north and south ends of the tract would serve the purpose of avoiding steep terrain and certain critical wildlife habitat. 9 12-13-1999 Water is proposed to be provided by the Basalt Water Conservancy District under an umbrella Substitute Water Supply Plan and wells. Individual sewage disposal systems would be used for wastewater. Access would be by way of an existing gravel road from the Frying Pan Road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision. Mr. Forinash stated it is a public right of way with a private road. Mr. Forinash referred to a fax received this morning from homeowners of the Seven Castles subdivision. Commissioner Johnson asked about the public easement. Mr. Forinash stated it is a public right of way with a private road. Mr. Forinash reviewed the chronology ofthe property for the Board: 1979, The Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning of this parcel from Resource (R) to Rural Residential (RR), with the condition that if application is made for subdivision of the parcel, the process would involve a full subdivision review rather than a minor subdivision review. Mr. Forinash reviewed referral responses as follows: Eagle County Engineer (copy attached) · Descriptions of vegetation on the site are missing. · Site plan does not show certain detail, such as existing power lines and trails. · A variance may be required during Preliminary Plan review for the access road to the site. · Since the subdivision would create four lots, the access road would have to meet certain roadway standards. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District (copy attached) · Cuts for roads or construction should be re-vegetated to prevent erosion. · Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any re-seeding of the area. · Monitoring of seeding should be done to ensure grass, and not weeds, is established. Re- seeding or weed control programs should be implemented if a problem exists. · A bond should be required to ensure re-vegetation is completed and vegetation is established to assure reduction of erosion. · Animal control should be required in this area. Colorado Division of Wildlife (copy attached) · The site includes [1] winter range for elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep, [2] severe winter range for mule deer and elk (on steeper hillside to the north), and [3] winter concentration area for bighorn sheep (on steeper hillside to the north). · Animals use the area along the east fence line and the hillside that slopes down to the east to Taylor Creek as a travel route. · Mountain lion occur in the area. · A number of recommendations are made to: 1. Relocate Lot 4 (on the north) further south. 2. Provide berms and thick vegetative screens to separate home sites from severe winter range and winter concentration areas. 3. Restrict fencing. 4. Prohibit livestock or horses. 5. Severely restrict dogs. 6. Restrict human use in both open space tracts from December 1 to March 31 to protect wintering wildlife and help prevent displacement. 7. Restrict outside lighting. 8) Provide educational information to residents. Colorado State Forest Service (copy attached) · All building envelopes are within a meadow with low hazard "A" fuels. · Close proximity of steep slopes with severe hazard "X" fuels makes it advisable to 10 12-13-1999 mitigate wildfire by moving building envelopes on Lots 1 (on the south) and 4 (on the north). · Setbacks on east sides of Lots 1 and 4 should be increased to 50 feet, and the western setback of Lot 4 should be moved east of the existing fence to further mitigate wildfire hazard. · Lots 2 and 3 have adequate setbacks for the eastern property line; the proposed road would serve as a fire break. Colorado State Engineer (copy attached) · N either copies of water use estimates nor a copy of a proposed contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District were provided. · Well permits may be available but no application has been received and there is no guarantee that a well permit can be issued; to be considered a legally reliable source of water, the well must be included in a court approved augmentation plan. · Applicant has not provided the required adequate evidence that the water supply is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability. · Based on information provided, the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights. · Information provided is insufficient to provide comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. Colorado Geological Survey (copy attached) · Building footprints should be adequately setback from the eastern slope of the site so that a potentially large debris flow which might erode the slope face would not undermine structures. · Potential hydro-compaction may necessitate additional foundation considerations. · It is appropriate that structures are not proposed on the north and south ends of the site due to slope stability rock fall problems. · It is advisable that a qualified geotechnical and/or soils engineer make recommendations regarding appropriate foundation, drainage and septic considerations for the site. Mr. Forinash explained, as the building sites are moved to the west, useable space is reduced. He suggested that fewer residential lots are appropriate on this site. Master Plans: The consideration ofthe relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. The Master Plans consider the proposal as submitted, not the staff recommendations which may mitigate non-conformance. 1 Proposed development will be visible from Frying Pan Road and may have adverse ridge line impacts. 2 Proposed development will be visible from Frying Pan Road and may have adverse ridge line impacts. 3 Proposed development is not near an existing community center. 4 Proposed development is in a Critical Wildlife Habitat Area. The Mid-Valley Master Plan provides for the following: 1 Proposed development provides open space amenities and is set back from Frying Pan Road, but does not provide reduced densities in an area that would have negative environmental impacts. 2 The development does not accommodate improvements for existing roadways. 3 The application does not demonstrate that the existing water quality will be maintained; no mitigation is proposed for impacts on wildlife. 4 A 200 foot setback from the Frying Pan Road is proposed; however, development is proposed 11 12-13-1999 in an area visible from the Frying Pan Road; improvements to Castle Lane would likely involve road cuts visible from off-site; the preservation of historic trail right-of-way along Stage Coach Road is not addressed. Most importantly, incremental impacts on Frying Pan Road would be significant given that traffic generated by existing and unbuilt but approved units exceeds the comfortable carrying capacity of Frying Pan Road. If this does go forward, staff believes that a visual impact study may need to be completed. He stated the environmental impact report that was prepared by the applicant and staff accepted that but made clear to the applicant that a report from an independent professional would be appropriate and required. The access road (Knight Road and Castle Lane) needs to be improved to some standard, with or without variances; applicant needs to work with other users to propose appropriate standards to County staff and decision makers. A resident testified they are the ones who maintain the road. He stated that trash pick up is not being made through the subdivision now as there is not enough room to move. Access to the site by service or commercial vehicles is a concern as is access by emergency vehicles. He stated that is certainly a concern to staff and the residents. Improvement of the road would involve some difficulty though not impossible. Maximum grades, minimum switch backs all need to be addressed. Staff believes improvements should be required and the responsibility of the applicant. There is no evidence of a well application or that the water supply could be reliable. The applicant has not yet proven that the water is adequate. Mr. Forinash stated there is no reason the applicant can not provide the necessary information. Staff has a concern with the potential over development of the site. He explained there may be too many sites and that it encroaches on significant wildlife habitat. He spoke to the ridge line development. These concerns suggest to staff the number of lots should be reduced from four to two. Road improvements should be borne by the applicant and maintenance must be worked out by all the owners. One of the accesses, that to lot ll, appears to go through this site. He stated it is not clear where the roadway is as opposed to the access easement is. That should be confirmed and specified. Animal control is always an issue and that should be limited and kennels used for outside. He spoke to the old stage coach trail going through the site. Mr. Forinash reviewed the concerns and issues as follows: 1. Master Plan Impacts on Frying Pan Road The proposed subdivision presents significant non-conformance issues with respect to the Master Plan. The most significant aspect of non-conformance has to do with the impact on Frying Pan Road. Preservation of the rural nature of the Frying Pan Valley is an important value recognized in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The area is constrained by a limited quantity of private land, a narrow valley floor and access restrictions imposed by the capacity of the Frying Pan Road. Due to the nature of these constraints, each incremental development in the Valley contributes significantly to the intensity with which the constraints are felt. The point is made clearly in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan that traffic generated by existing and unbuilt but approved units exceeds the comfortable carrying capacity of the Frying Pan Road. Although the incremental impact of traffic generated by four additional dwelling units may be minimal in and of itself, the sum of a number of such incremental impacts would be soon be substantial. The Mid Valley Community Master Plan specifically recognizes that the development potential of the Frying Pan Valley is very limited and recommends low density development consistent with current zoning. Although the zone district change to the current zoning of Rural Residential occurred prior to the adoption of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, the potential for contributing to an unsafe level of traffic on Frying Pan Road is significant. Consequently, the intensity of development on this site may well ought to be less than that which the zoning itself might permit. Further, the Mid Valley Community Master Plan states in the strongest terms that improvements 12 12-13-1999 to the Frying Pan Road "must" be in place before further development is approved. Yet, because of the constrains present in the Valley, there would be significant adverse environmental impacts of making sufficient improvements to Frying Pan Road. Staff considers this issue in itself sufficient reason to deny this application for subdivision. Wildlife Impacts This site is in certain Critical Wildlife Habitat Areas. The applicant has taken some measures to avoid these areas, but no additional mitigation is proposed. The proposed development is in such close proximity to the critical areas as to result in significant impacts and the reduction of wildlife habitat and feeding areas. See additional discussion below under "Article 4: Site Development Standards." Other Master Plan Concerns Other significant areas of non-conformance with the Master Plan include [1] greater density than the site and access roads can support, [2] potential visual impacts due to development along a ridgeline, and [3] the absence of a demonstrated reliable water supply. These items are discussed below. Because ofthese concerns, staffhas determined this application should be denied. The planning commission recommended the same with specifically wanting to convey to the Board that the applicant should come back with corrected provisions. Steve Isom, Isom & Associates representing the applicant, stated the project is located on the ridge approximately 3.5 miles east of Basalt. He showed all of the private ground along the Frying Pan. He stated this property has been zoned rural residential. He showed the access road from Knight Road and Castle Drive and the 50 foot right of way into the property. He showed the density on the UGGS map and the subdivisions to the east. He stated it is a gorgeous piece of property. He showed where Castle Drive hooks in. He spoke to the ridge line that drops off to Taylor Creek. He suggested they would put the road on the high side and move the houses to the west. If you are on the site looking toward the east you can see the Frying Pan road two miles away. He brought photographs to show the Board. He stated they have stayed out of the tree line to keep it open for the wildlife. He stated looking east you can't see a road or development in that direction. He handed the photos to the Board. He stated this isn't a wildlife park nor a place to shield those who have been relocated. He stated they have stayed away from the tree area because of wildfire. He suggested it makes no sense to move it to the west. He stated he was questionable about staff inferring they could not do the wildlife impact studies. He stated the grades aren't bad and there are no ditches on the roads. He stated what is really needed is to grade it accordingly. He stated by doing so that will take care of the access for larger trucks. He stated the use, they agonized over that. He stated four sites work the best to preserve where this goes down and to stay out of the tree massing. He suggested one of the Planning Commission members was strong in keeping four sites. He stated the Basalt Water Conservancy District wrote a letter saying they will allow them to join the district. He spoke to the four wells on the site which have lapsed. He stated they have water sufficient to irrigate more than 12 acre. He spoke to a letter from Paul Anderson and their desire to be a good neighbor and be part of the community. They will place restrictions on dogs, noise, lights, and once the road is rebuilt they will work with the neighbors on road maintenance. He suggested they would restrict the development, maintain the Old Stage road by preserving it as a walking site. He stated the density makes sense, the location is beautiful and the zoning is in place. Chairman Phillips asked for public comment. Lucy Jukes, wife of the gentleman who maintains the road, spoke to the easements. Mr. Isom clarified the easements for Ms. Jukes. Ms. Jukes asked about the road costs and how those would be passed on to the lot purchasers. Mr. Isom stated the cost of the road improvements are appropriate and would be passed on. Ms. Jukes showed on the map where they live and the access to their facility. She stated Mr. Wells and they bear the cost of maintaining the road about half the way to Knight Road. She read her letter into the record. The letter referred to the requirement for a full subdivision review. She stated this is a dead end access. She stated the only person on the Planning Commission that approved this is Mr. 13 12-13-1999 Don Lane who owns property to be effected by this. She referred to the well permits and the fact they have expired. She spoke to the lack of water and the concerns for wildfire. She spoke to the stage coach road needing to be preserved. She stated you can see the houses as you come up the Frying Pan, by moving them down is where the wildlife is. She spoke to the herd of elk that live there. She stated there is a possibility that this could have eight units and not four. She spoke to the Well's storage tank for water. She stated the tank is there for fire protection. She stated she has lived there since 1987 and not objected to development before. She stated this is only for financial gain. She is concerned about the cost of road improvements to 40 foot wide roads. She suggested this will be passed on to the homeowners. This is a workingman's neighborhood, but it won't remain as such. Bob Johnson, owner of 318 Knight Road, referred to the letter he submitted including eight signatures. He stated there are two more on the original. They wrote the letter not to completely reject the plan but to address the concerns. They feel the developer needs to provide some answers. He referred to the traffic and speeds along the Frying Pan road and it being dangerous for pedestrian use. It is not a road, these are trails throughout the subdivision. He questions whether the guidelines are sufficient and what improvements and maintenance would they see to keep it safe. He spoke to blind curves and the difficulty of getting up the road during the winter. Water supply is a true concern and you are looking at a 2 to 3 acre lot. That will require irrigation as people will not let it go naturally. They will want to maintain, put in lawns, and have trees. That will use a great deal of water. He questioned the demand on sewage and questioned the effects on Taylor Creek. Wildlife and open space create the marketability of the area. He asked they keep a focus on that. His final point being the emergency equipment, trash collection, lighting on the roads, maintenance. This area goes through hills and valleys during the season. He stated they have tremendous winds. The dust generated is incredible. He stated it is an unimproved road, speed, safety and dust already have a negative impact. To put in eight homes, that's sixteen more cars traveling that road. He stated this was a surprise to the homeowners and there has been no contact to those in Seven Castles Estates. To be a good neighbor, that would have been appropriate. He stated there is no defined plan being presented nor what the impact of the plan will be for them. He showed another plot of land just below this one. He stated this is almost laying the grounds for future development. He stated this could set a precedent in the area. He thanked the Board. Elizabeth Berg, a homeowner on Knight Road, stated that road was improved four years ago and they did put in ditches. She stated the size is such they have to pull over to let others pass. She stated they all pitch in to maintain the road and there is a constant effort to do so. She spoke to the houses they are putting in heading east. She stated she is constantly flagging them down. The developers are not cognizant this is a neighborhood. She stated she is not real thrilled with what Eagle County has done on this side of the valley. She does not want to see those houses on the ridge. She thanked the Board for their time and effort. She believes the Master Plan needs to be identified as an important part of their decision. Kevin Lindahl, representing Mr. Lew Wells, a lot owner in the Seven Castle Subdivision, stated most of the points have already been discussed. He referred to a map of Seven Castle Subdivision. He stated it was done in 1964 before the County approval process. He stated they dedicated Knight Road and Castle Lane at that time. He showed those on the map and his clients property location. He stated in looking at this, the most glaring problem is access to the property. Mr. Lindahl stated he has not found a 50 foot easement. He did find the 40 foot easement to the public. He stated it truly is a driveway and does not in some locations allow two cars to pass each other. He spoke to the switch back and the likelihood it would not meet County Standards. Commissioner Johnson asked about the road dedication. Mr. Lindahl stated it states it is a public easement. He stated it would most certainly not meet the County standard. He showed photographs to the Board. He stated what he would anticipate there was some type of subdivision approved and if the access wasn't properly addressed, the homeowners will petition the County to maintain the road and the County then having to improve the road to a point 14 12-13-1999 where it could be maintained. He stated the garbage truck will come to the switch back and that is as far as they will come in. He spoke to his client's 7000 gallon water tank and that being critical to fighting any type of fire in the area. He stated this is really rural. He stated it is pretty clear to him in the staff report how strongly they are recommending denial. It doesn't conform to the Master Plan, to the Mid- Valley Community Master Plan, the impact on water, inadequate fire protection and impact on the wildlife. He suggested they would need to condense the development. He asked they listen to senior staff and to the neighbors. He stated just because Seven Castles is here, it doesn't mean they should approve the development. Commissioner Johnson asked what size road would be needed. Adam Sommers, Engineering, stated it doesn't fall under the driveway standard but would be considered a road and it would be the rural residential. That would require asphalt. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant is proposing to improve the road from the Frying Pan to the subdivision and to what standard. Mr. Isom stated they are and the paving can be done. He stated it can be shaped and it needs to be mag-chloride. He stated they seem to want to keep it a small rural road. He suggested they can work together to see the level. Mr. Sommers stated it would be 10 foot wide with 2 foot shoulders and paved. Commissioner Stone asked about the easement. Mr. Sommers stated it would be 50 feet. Commissioner Johnson questioned if this could be graveled according to the standards. Mr. Sommers responded the standards require a paved road that would be a minimum of 3 inches pavement and 8 inches road base. Mr. Lindahl asked about the future maintenance of the road. He stated the developer keeps speaking ofthe adjacent property owners. He stated the whole subdivision is being effected. People don't want to be compromised while this is going on. Commissioner Stone read the statement about the developer wanting to go to the Board of County Commissioners even though the Panning Commission recommended denial. Mr. Isom stated that is what they chose to do. This can not go to four lots. He stated they have done a lot to restrict what could be on the property. He thinks that everything is resolvable. They are in keeping with what is currently built there. Chairman Phillips asked about the lot size. Mr. Isom stated 2 to 3 acres. Commissioner Stone thanked those of the public who came today and thanked them for their remarks. He suggested the issues of water supply, fire control and access have not been more completely addressed. Mr. Isom stated the well reports show there is adequate water at depth. Part of the preliminary plan, if they are required to have additional water they will do that. As far as the roads, they think they can do what is required. They would like to stay with gravel. He thinks if the Board is in agreement that this is acceptable for a subdivision without additional work on the Frying Pan, they will gladly meet with the property owners and come up with a solution acceptable to everyone. Commissioner Johnson asked about the letter from the Water Conservancy Board. Mr. Iosm stated he submitted that with the application. He gave Commissioner Johnson a copy saying Resource Engineers is the spokesman. Mr. Isom stated the letter is from Paul Basson, written in July of 1999. He read the letter into the record saying the property is within area A and covered by the letter. The letter explained the application process and the inclusion into the district as being applicable. Commissioner Johnson apologized and stated they did have the letter. He asked about the substitute water supply plan. Mr. Isom explained there can be a transfer of water rights to people within the district from Ruedi Reservoir. He stated this is a paper transfer of water. 15 12-13-1999 Commissioner Johnson suggested they would be providing the water for the augmentation plan. He asked who provides fire service. Lucy Jukes stated it is the Basalt Fire District. Mr. Isom stated the sketch plan submital process is to submit a project such as this allowing for this type of input and outlining what must be provided at preliminary plan. Whether this is the appropriate density and the appropriate location is to be considered. He stated they would deed restrict not allowing a second unit on each spot. Mr. Forinash reviewed staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards, for review of a subdivision sketch plan 1. Consistencv with the Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS NOT consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan; 2. Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES NOT comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 3. Svatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located 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 "leapfrog" pattern of development. Specifically: (a) Utilitv and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. The required finding that utility lines ARE or ARE NOT sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines IS NOT APPLICABLE. ( c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. The entire range of necessary facilities CAN provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 4. Suitability for Develovment. The property proposed to be subdivided IS NOT 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. Compatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area but WILL adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Mr. Forinash stated members of the Planning Commission indicated a willingness to consider revisions to the Sketch Plan to develop something the Commission could support with a conditional recommendation for approval. The applicant declined, indicating that he preferred to go first to the Board of County Commissioners to seek direction on how he might proceed. Mr. Forinash stated the Town of Basalt recently responded as follows: Town of Basalt (recent response - copy attached) · Staff workload and availability of agenda time has caused a delay in Town's response. · Town intends to respond sometime after Planning and Zoning Commission considers the referral on December 7. Mr. Forinash added the following findings: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards, for review of a subdivision sketch plan. [NOTE: Planning Commission changes to staff findings are indicated by either ovGI5t1iking to indicate deleted words and italicizing to indicate added words.] 16 12-13-1999 1. Consistencv with the Master Plan The proposed subdivision IS NOT consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM ofthe Master Plan; 2. Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES NOT comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 3. Svatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located 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 "leapfrog" pattern of development. Specifically: (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. The required finding that utility lines ARE or ARE NOT sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines IS NOT APPLICABLE. (c) Coordinate Utilitv Extensions. The entire range of necessary facilities CAN provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 4. Suitabilitv for Develovment. The property proposed to be subdivided IS NOT suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development ofthe property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. The Planning Commission has determined the property proposed to be subdivided IS NeT 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. Comnatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area but WILL adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The Planning Commission has determined the proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area bttt and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Mr. Forinash stated there is another point to make regarding Seven Castle Estates. He stated there is no signature by the Board of County Commissioners on the plat itself. They have treated this as a legal subdivision, however, matters concerning the road may make this an appropriate time to correct the issues they face. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the wildfire issues and his concern with who is going to serve this area. He suggested he hopes that cigarette smoking may not be the cause but that lightening may very well be. He feels that is very necessary upon sketch plan. Mr. Isom stated that is why they moved the building envelopes out of the trees. Commissioner Stone asked about the sharp turn and grading and if those are a problem with our road standards. Adam Sommers presented photographs about the grade. Commissioner Stone asked what they show. Mr. Sommers responded that specific grades were not provided. Mr. Fritze suggested all these pictures if going to be used then should be identified and the Board will keep them for 30 days. They named the ones the applicant is submitting as applicants # 1 - whatever, those the opposition are submitting as opposition #1 - whatever, and staffs photos being labeled staff #1 - whatever. They clarified they have applicant's 1 - 6, Jules 1 - 5, and staff 1 & 2. 17 12-13-1999 Commissioner Stone moved to admit the photos into the record. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Adam Sommers stated the minimum radius is lOO feet with the grade being 8%. Chairman Phillips suggested since this is sketch plan and there are some things that should be addressed she would agree to a tabling. She stated that she would also vote to either approve or deny. Commissioner Stone moved to table File No. SUS-00006, Castle Ridge Subdivision Sketch Plan, specifically for the applicant to come back and give precise information on the following items: 1) bringing the road up to County standards including but not limited to surface, width and details regarding grade and turn radius, 2) water in relation to what the applicant would do for water to the homes and restrictions but more importantly fire suppression. 3) wildlife concerns, he would like a better idea of the proposed mitigation 4) line of site for ridge line development recognizing they are asking for information that may be beyond the sketch plan phase however, he would like to have those answered so that they all have a level of comfort ifthey may eventually approve. This would be tabled until January 18,2000. Commissioner Johnson stated he would prefer to send this back to the Planning Commission and that they should have the opportunity to hear this and allow the residents to hear the file. Commissioner Stone stated he agrees but didn't realize that was a possibility. Mr. Fritze stated if it is to be continued for that long they can do so only if the applicant agrees. Mr. Fritze stated if it is information as presented it is appropriate for the Board to hear, but if there are changes, it should go back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stone asked if it is possible to obtain information from the Planning Commission. Mr. Fritze stated it is not contemplated. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD Amendment Paul Clarkson presented file number PDA-0021, Blue Ridge PUD Amendment. He referred to the letter submitted by Mr. Isom, however, Mr. Clarkson stated there are still a number of issues which have not been addressed. He spoke to the reduction from 121 to 115 units, and believes without a site plan they may have some issues. He spoke to the Memorandum from the County to Mr. Isom. Mr. Clarkson stated the applicant must comply with preliminary plan. He suggested there is a substantial change to the application requiring it to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fritze read the definition in the regulations which states it increases or decreases the number of dwelling units. Chairman Phillips stated it has been pointed out that this is a substantial change and must be remanded back. Mr. Isom stated in their discussion with Mr. Clarkson they plan of removing one building which will allow for the spacing to increase. The other item is the road being a collector road. They have taken all the parking off and the access points. They disagree that this should be a suburban road requiring curb and gutter and a bike path. They would want it to be a rural road with shoulder and ditch and then a separate bike path. The second item is the traffic study. They don't believe they need to make the collector road the major expense ofthe development. He stated they agreed to build this road and do substantial improvements to EI Jebel Road. This is something they are doing to accommodate the County and doesn't believe they should bear the costs. He stated by removing the six unit building they can accommodate the parking. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the waiver process for the Board or Engineering to consider and must be noticed for comment. As for the traffic study, he thinks they do need to know what the impacts on EI Jebel Road are going to be. He referred to the process and the Texaco development ended up with road concerns they didn't look at. He would like a fuller traffic study. 18 12-13-1999 Commissioner Johnson moved to remand this file PDA-00021 back to the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 99-221, Adoption of the 2000 Budget Chairman Phillips stated they would continue with the budget approval. Commissioner Stone stated he would like to look at the first supplemental to earmark or fund a study for potential affordable housing on the soon to be old Road and Bridge site. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve and adopt the resolution for Eagle County for budget year 2000. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared uannimous. Resolution 99-222, Setting the Mill Levy Chairman Phillips introduced the resolution to adopt the mill levy . Terry Lowell stated that the mill levy will decrease from 7.463 to 7.079 and the dollar amount increasing from $9.9 million to $11.4 million. Commissioner Stone moved to approve and set the mill levies for the year 2000. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until December 16, 1999. 19 12-13-1999 Attest: