HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/27/2000
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 27, 2000
Present:
Tom Stone
Johnnette Phillips
Michael Gallagher
James R. Fritze
Jack Ingstad
Sara 1. 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 Stone stated the first item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for the week of March 27,2000, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval ofthe minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of March 13,
2000
C) Quit Claim Deed
D) 2000 Colorado Division of Aeronautics Internship Contract
E) Approve and sign Change Order #2 for the Eagle County Maintenance Center
F) Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Gallagher asked on item E, Change Order #2 for the Eagle County Maintenance
Center, did the fire department do a plan check?
Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, stated they did. They initially approved
the fire flow, but subsequently Gamba Associates reviewed the requirements and stated it was not up to
the appropriate standards. He stated they then required the two additional buildings be included.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested it doesn't make sense to him that if they have reduced fire
flow they are adding pressure reducing valves.
Mr. Cunningham stated those are for back flow prevention.
Chairman Stone asked where they are with overall contract costs and what they have for
contingency. He spoke to the initial change order which was substantial regarding structural fill.
Mr. Cunningham stated they are still well within the contingency. He stated he anticipates
another 0 & E order related to mechanics and drawings to comply with ADA.
Chairman Stone asked if they have been in contact with ECO Transit and the buildings they will
be using.
Mr. Cunningham stated they have been in close contact with ECO and Road and Bridge and that
the occupancy date is October 2. He stated ECO would like to get in there earlier if possible. He stated
the contractor will try to allow for that but the contract has not been modified.
Chairman Stone asked when it would be appropriate to tour the facility.
Mr. Cunningham stated they could do so now, but within the next two months they will be able
to see walls and equipment going in.
Chairman Stone asked Mr. Cunningham to work with Mr. lngstad to schedule a visit when
appropriate.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about item D, airport intern, and what length oftime they will be
I
03-27-2000
there.
Jim Elwood replied it is a twelve month internship.
Commissioner Phillips stated she had some corrections to the minutes. On page 24, next to last
page, number 5 item A correct golf coursed to golf course. On item C it refers to employee housing
please take the "at" out. On page 25 where it speaks to sprinkling it should read sprinkler systems not
sprinkled systems.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented with the changes to
the minutes as noted.
Commissioner Gallagher 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:
Resolution 2000-047. PDS-00017. A Resolution for the Approval of the Sketch Plan of The
Red Sky Ranch Planned Unit Development. The Board originally recommended approval of the
Sketch Plan for the Red Sky Ranch PUD, with certain conditions, on February 2nd, 2000; and a public
hearing was held by the Board on March 13th, 2000.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about page 10, paragraph 8 and the clustering of the additional
three lots.
Mr. Gennett stated he has substitute pages for the Board that do not include that provision.
Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, asked if condition 8 is gone.
Mr. Gennett stated it is substituted by language to be incorporated.
Jean Garren, Planner, spoke to Mr. Gallagher's motion and the discussion about the additional
units being included. Ms. Garren stated they were not sure what the Board's intent was on that as it
allowed the option to cluster with an additional density. That was not anything that they saw as the
sketch plan option.
Chairman Stone clarified the applicant was trying to get three more home sites added in that had
been taken out by the Planning Commission. The Board's answer was no.
Ms. Garren stated the Planning Commission gave two alternatives, one to add three units to the
enclave or should they agree to cluster, they could have an additional three units. That was not reflected
on the sketch plan. She stated it was their understanding with the adoption of the Planning Commissions
conditions their intent was not to have those included.
Commissioner Gallagher read his motion for that hearing. He stated it was not his intention to
include any Planning Commission condition giving them the additional three lots.
Ms. Garren stated in that case the substitute pages are those that should be included.
Commissioner Gallagher questioned the inclusion.
Rick Plyman, Peter Jamar Associates, stated the Planning Commission included an option for the
Plath lots. He stated they came to the Board and asked for three other lots. He stated those were not the
Plath lots and those were clearly not approved. He asked if what they are saying is they don't want to
include the option for the Plath lots.
Chairman Stone understood the three additional Plath lots had nothing to do with the three
additional lots. He stated the confusion is they both are groups of three lots.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees with the Chairman.
Ms. Garren suggested they get three lots period.
Mr. Plyman stated the original resolution provides for the three Plath lots, the revised does not.
Ms. Garren questioned if they cluster the Plath lots, the three additional lots are an option.
Mr. Plyman stated the Plaths understand the option but they haven't related a decision.
2
03-27-2000
Commissioner Gallagher retrieved the file. He stated the map attached to the resolution
accurately shows the map that reflects the approval. The addition of the three lots in the Plath
development area in exchange for the clustering should stand.
Mr. Loeffler stated it was their intention that the developer have the option to cluster the Plath
lots with the reward being they could have three additional lots in the Plath section of the development.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-047, file number PDS-OOO 17,
approval of sketch plan ofthe Red Sky Ranch Planned Unit Development and the attached plat in
conjunction with the conditions by the Planning Commission, approving the condition if the Plath lots
are clustered that an additional three lots can be had within that section of the development.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Fourth Quarter, 1999 Quarterly Interest Report
Karen Sheaffer, Eagle County Treasurer, presented the Fourth Quarter, 1999 Quarterly Interest
Report. She explained the report to the Board saying the report shows they came in almost $17,000 over
budget with the total investment income for 1999 being $1,916,926. She stated they have been able to
keep the interest income at a steady rate. They did their own tax notices in house which is a cost savings
for the County. She stated an outside vendor charges $10,000 to $15,000. She stated they have seen a
significant collection thus far. She stated the goal this year is to get to the bank everyday by 3:00 giving
them more use of the money in advance.
Chairman Stone complimented Ms. Sheaffer on her efforts. He stated even though she is a very
quiet entity, she is very much appreciated.
Commissioner Gallagher reiterated that and asked she carry their thanks to her staff as well.
Final Settlement, Cat Construction
Jim Elwood, Airport Manager, presented final settlement for Cat Construction, for grading and
drainage improvements to the Eagle County Regional Airport, AlP Project No. 3-08-0020-25. He
reported this came in on time and on budget. He stated it was challenging but a positive project.
Bob Loeffler stated this matter has been published and no claims have been received.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final settlement for Cat Construction for grading and
drainage improvements to the Eagle County Regional Airport, AlP Project No. 3-08-0020-25.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Bid Protest, East Edwards Trail Project
Bob Loeffler stated the next item before the Board was the continuation of the bid protest for the
East Edwards Trail Project. He stated it is his understanding that at the conclusion last week, staff was
to speak with Searl Construction to see if they would agree to do the water line work only. If not, the bid
would be awarded to Searl Construction as previously decided. Searl Construction was not convinced
but did try to make it work. The bid award went to Searl Construction and the documents have been
signed accordingly.
Chairman Stone thanked Mr. Loeffler for his efforts and concluded they may have learned a
lesson about the bidding process.
AFP-00086, Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 13
Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number AFP-00086, Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 13. She
stated the intent ofthis plat is to: Re-subdivide Lots 26 and 27, Tract H and Tract G.
3
03-27-2000
Commissioner Gallagher asked Ms. Skinner to show the location on the plat.
Ms. Skinner pointed out on a map the location of the property.
Staff recommended approval.
Ms. Skinner reviewed staff findings as follows:
Pursuant to Section 2-90.G.2. Standards for Amended Final Plat:
a) Adjacent property. Review ofthe Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment does not have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners.
b) Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat.
c) Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has
determined that the proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable
regulations, policies and guidelines.
d) Improvement Agreement. Proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements
agreement are adequate.
e) Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. The amendment has an alteration of a restrictive plat note
and has met the following criteria:
1) The area for which the amendment is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use density in the area; and/or
2) The proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated
community need.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve file No. AFP-00086, Arrowhead at Vail,
Filing 13, incorporating staff findings. The Chairman shall be authorized to sign the plat.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion for discussion.
Chairman Stone asked for any public comment. There was none.
Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
ZS-00061, San Isabel Telecom
Jena Skinner presented file number ZS-00061, San Isabel Telecom. She reviewed the
deliberation by the Planning Commission as follows:
The Eagle County Planning Commission was supportive of San Isabel Telecom's application to
place a cellular repeater box adjacent to, and an antenna on the side of, the Town of Eagle Water Tank.
Further it approved File No. LEA-00024 as required by the State of Colorado. Discussion centered on
whether property owners along the access driveway should have been notified (they are not adjacent
property owners). Although not legally required to do so, Applicant agreed to have notified them prior
to this hearing of the Board of County Commissioners (see condition no.2).
Brent Wagner, representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated this is a integral
part of building out the coverage outside ofthe 1-70 Corridor. He stated they are trying to utilize
existing tower locations.
Commissioner Gallagher asked again what they are doing.
Ms. Skinner responded it is a twelve square foot slab.
Mr. Loeffler stated there is also something hanging from the water tank.
Mr. Wagner stated the thing hanging from the tank is a repeater site that picks up the signal and
sends it to the top.
Commissioner Phillips noted the tank is right out her window.
Mr. Wagner stated they will be painting the add ons shortly which will make them almost
invisible.
Ms. Skinner reviewed staff concerns as follows:
4
03-27-2000
Access to the site. San Isabel must demonstrate legal access to the site. Although it has a lease
which allows them to use the Town of Eagle Water Tank location, a new private easement may have to
be recorded between access easement property owners and San Isabel Telecom (see condition no. 3).
Ms. Skinner read staff findings as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review
of a Special Use Permit:
Section 5-250.B.l Consistent with Master Plan.
The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be 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.
Section 5-250.8.1 Finding
Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be
appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies
of the Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities
and densities, and intensities of use.
Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility.
The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the
character of surrounding land uses.
Section 5-250.B.2 Finding
Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS
compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards.
The proposed Special Use shall 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.
Section 5-250.8.3 Findings:
Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the
zone district in which it is located and the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in
Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses.
Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact.
The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact
of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall 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.
Section 5-250.B.4 Finding
Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize
adverse impacts, including visual impact ofthe 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 DOES NOT create a
nUIsance.
Section 5-250.B.5 Design Minimizes Environmental Impact.
The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant
deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Findine:s
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.
5
03-27-2000
Section 5-250.B.6 Impact on Public Facilities.
The proposed Special Use shall be 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.
Section 5-250.B.6 Finding
Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities
and services, such as roads. Pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools,
police and fire protection, and emergency medical services are not required for this proposal.
Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards.
The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development
Standards.
Section 5-250.B.7 Findings
Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate
standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards.
Section 5-250.B.8 Other Provisions.
The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable
provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics.
Section 5-250.B.8 Findings
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.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the conditions.
Ms. Skinner stated that San Isabel has met the conditions except for #1.
Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, explained all representations the applicant
has made at this hearing and all materials submitted relating to the application will be incorporated in the
file. The applicant must follow through on those representations.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve ZS-00061/Special Use Permit for San Isabel
Telecom including the following condition: 1) Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material
representations of the Applicant in this application and public meeting shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
1041-0026, Cordillera Summit Enclave
VIS-0006, Cordillera Mountain Tract, Filing 37
Tambi Katieb, Planner, presented file number 1041-0026, Cordillera Summit Enclave. He asked
if they should open up all of the files making separate motions in the end.
Chairman Stone agreed that was a good idea. He introduced the other files being VIS-0006,
PDA-00025, PDP-00014, Cordillera Filing 37.
Jean Garren spoke to the map and showed the northern parcel. She spoke to the history of the
parcel the addition of the Divide, the southern parcel and the Ranch portion. She stated when this was
added to the Cordillera PUD the southern parcel was added without a preliminary plan. In 1998 , the
Mountain Track was added. Cordillera has 910 planning units. When the Mountain Tract was approved
it was allocated for dwelling units with a minimum of two acres. Most has been platted. Cordillera is
proposing to move 5 units from Village Center and 20 units from the Southern Parcel, increasing the
density in Ul. The minimum lot size will go below two acres with 40 lots. She stated that is the
primary reason for amending the PUD. She stated the change in lot size is reason to do that. She stated
they have submitted a preliminary plat and they are prepared to final plat the first phase of the additional
6
03-27-2000
lots. She stated one of the things that must be done is move the density on to a wastewater system and a
variation of road standards. She stated the Planning Commission was supportive to take the lots and of
the open space. They recommended approval.
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the application as recommended by
staff. There was minimal discussion regarding the water tank size as it related to the increased density
for the area, as well as the NWCCOG comments regarding post-development storm water flows.
This proposal is being submitted for the approval of water and wastewater extensions to the
Summit Enclave planning tract of Cordillera PUD. The application proposes a wastewater conveyance
line to service 40 residences, and, an extension of the current centralized water distribution system to
service an additional 25 residences planned for the 'Summit Enclave' area, within the Mountain Tract of
Cordillera. Originally, this area of the Mountain Tract was approved for a centralized water distribution
system and individual sewage disposal systems for only15 residential lots in the 1998 Mountain Tract
1041 permit. This permit application also proposes to serve (in addition to the 40 dwelling units) the
Golf Course Club House and the Golf Course Maintenance Area with both water and wastewater
servIce.
A prior 1041 permit application was approved for the entire Mountain Tract PUD in 1998, then
amended just prior to this submittal to allow for several line adjustments and minor water system
variations. Subsequent to that permit of 1998, Cordillera received additional land use approval to add a
golf course and clubhouse, and in so doing, reconfigure several lot layouts.
Of the 40 dwelling units being proposed for water and wastewater service in the permit
application, twenty units from the 'Southern Parcel' and five units from the 'Estada at the Village
Center' are being reallocated to the Summit Enclave and pending approval in the accompanying PUD
amendment applications (PDA-00025 & PDP-00014).
Mr. Katieb reviewed the referral responses as follows:
County Engineer: No comments on the application as proposed.
NWCCOG: Concern about the apparent post-development increases in storm water flows as
discussed in Attachment K. The Drainage Plan in 'Appendix A' show post-development storm water
peak flows 142% to 167% greater than historical flows. It is not clear(Comments attached) how the
post-development storm water flow increases in the Summit Enclave will be kept to historical flows.
Recommends that soil stabilization practices be implemented on disturbed areas within 14 days of
disturbance. Also, NWCCOG finds that the proposal to provide centralized sewer to the Summit
Enclave is appropriate and is beneficial to overall water quality in the Eagle River drainage. NWCCOG
is supportive of the proposal of water and wastewater service being provided by existing special districts.
Colorado Geological Survey: Site reconnaissance conducted on February 15,2000. No
significant problems associated with this proposal, and we(CGS) concur with findings presented by HP
Geotech regarding suitability ofthis tract for this density shift. Find that this plan is a substantial
improvement to the overall Cordillera PUD.(Comments attached)
Mr Katieb reviewed staff concerns and issues as follows:
Staffhas no major issues or concerns with this permit amendment application as submitted. The
impacts of the said wastewater extension and increase of 25 eqr's in water service are minimal and do
not create any anticipated higher level of environmental impact in staff's opinion.
There was some concern with the discrepancy that NWCCOG had noted regarding post-
development storm water flows. The applicant, once made aware of the inconsistency, responded with a
letter to both Eagle County and NWCCOG staff. Staff conversation with NWCCOG indicated to us that
the responses provided by the applicant in the February 29, 2000 memo were adequate and substantially
resolved any of the inconsistencies that were identified.
It should be noted that none ofthe 'legal' water rights considerations to supply this system have
changed since the applicant's testimony during the original 1041 permit hearing (1041-0014) for the
7
03-27-2000
Mountain Tract. The overall Cordillera PUD density (910 units) has not been increased and to staffs
knowledge the original water augmentation plans from 1992 have not been altered. The water sources
for the system are a combination of well-fields, Homestake reservoir, and Green Mountain reservoir
sources. At the original permit hearing, there was extensive discussion regarding potential Eagle River
depletions caused by this development and the subsequent augmentation by Homestake Reservoir.
Additionally, while the extension of sewer service to these 40 lots further moves such a utility to
a rather rural area not necessarily envisioned by the Eagle County Master Plan, it is staffs (and
NWCCOG's)opinion that since these high density lots are already served with municipal water, the
extension of a sewer 'return' line to them may be less impactive on the water resources than clustered
ISDS systems.
Staff recommended approval with the following condition:
1) Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the applicant in
this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number VIS-0006, Cordillera Mountain
Tract, Filing 37, variance from Improvement Standards. Per Section 5-260.G: Variance from
Improvement Standards, The Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides on variance
from the improvements standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated He
related this is a petition for a Variance Permit from those requirements of Section 4-620 of the Eagle
County Land Use Regulations ("LUR") as noted in the attached Exhibit "A" which was submitted by the
applicant. These variances will be within the area know as Cordillera Mountain Tract, Filing 37, The
Summit Enclave.
Cordillera continues to develop their Mountain Tract Parcel. Due to constraints imposed by the
terrain and the style of prior approved development, variances from the road standards are necessary to
maintain consistency with the road network that is currently in place. A more extensive discussion of
the issues is contained in the applicant's request for variance is attached to this staff report.
In previous applications for variances from the road standards, the Eagle County Attorney's
Office has requested that the application be very specific concerning the section of the Land Use
Regulations for which a variance is requested, the location of the variance, and the reason for the
variance. The applicant has provided this specific information in Exhibit "A". Should the Board of
County Commissioners decide to approve the request for variance, Exhibit "A" will be incorporated into
the Resolution.
Jim Fritze, County Attorney, suggested if the Board is going to approve the finding they must
find that the hardships to the applicant outweigh the adverse impacts of health, safety and welfare of
persons affected and the adverse impacts on the land is affected. The Board may oppose such conditions
as necessary to assure compliance. If they are going to deny the variance they will need to find that the
impacts outweigh the hardships of the developer.
Matt Dean, representing the applicant, did a brief introduction of the project. He spoke first to
the evolution of the Cordillera PUD. He stated the purpose ofthe comparison is for the benefit of the
new Commissioner and to impress on the Board the efforts of Cordillera over time. He stated as the
Cordillera Community has grown they have always maintained a total of910 free market single family
residential lots. He spoke to the color photos in the packet.
The northern parcel, planning parcels, B, C and D are those shown in blue. He stated the area in
planning parcel B was for recreational facilities and a park. Next he spoke to planning parcels C and D.
These two were originally programed for duplex, a helicopter pad and emergency facilities. A golf
course was really a better plan. It was then downsized. The site has been developed as park recreation
and open space. Planning parcel F, along Squaw Creek Road was originally planned as a fishing facility,
bar, employee housing. It was, however, dedicated as open space. Planning parcel P, the Bearden
parcel, was maintained as open space. Planning parcel I was originally programed as 18 single family
8
03-27-2000
units. It was dedicated as open space only in order to keep the Squaw Creek Valley Floor as contiguous
open space. Planning Parcel K, the intent was to cluster town homes in the golf course area. The
density was reduced in order to create more open space between the units. Single family residential is all
that is allowed. He stated the point of the examples is to show why flexibility is allowable within the
PUD. This responds to changing conditions and allows for better use. Mr. Dean stated Cordillera is
nearly sold out of single family lots and will be by the end of the summer of 2000. The only projects
carrying on beyond 2001 will be Planning Parcel Ul, Planning Parcel 02, the Southern Parcel, Chevino,
Planning Parcel E, and the Village Center, Planning Parcel A. They are in the process of quickly
finalizing the Cordillera project. He then went to the shift of density. He stated the total will remain at
910 residential units, 46 caretaker units and 29 employee units. He stated 20 parcels will be coming
from Ul some from 01 and caretaker units. 5 units will be transferred from the Village Unit. The
density is another step to closure. It is a multi-golf course facility.
Mr. Dean spoke to the Southern parcel, planning parcels 0,01 and 02. In 1991 the Board
concluded all areas east of the ridgeline were to remain undeveloped. The proposal today is to reduce
density from 24 single family units to four single family units and provide four caretaker units. All four
units will be restricted to a development zone. In addition, a second restricted development zone is
being considered by the applicant. There are two existing wildlife corridors. As such, Cordillera has
dedicated this area for the wildlife enhancement plan. 416 acres out of the original 480 acres is
dedicated for wildlife enhancement. He spoke to the Village Center and reviewed the original planning
concept. The 900 acre area was planned to be a destination ski resort. The founders realized the little
demand for this concept and they went through a repositioning. There are four arguments to transfer the
units out. The density shift is a better land plan. Secondly, the Village Center and Lodge areas are no
longer the core. He spoke to the other core areas. Thirdly, this allows flexibility to the market demand.
He stated the strongest market demand are bigger homes. All 50 units can not be developed with the
square foot size in demand. Finally, this application responds to homeowner concerns. They have been
opposed to high density development below the lodge. He spoke to the letters of support.
New planning parcel Ul is located at the northwestern most tip of existing parcel U. He stated it
is appropriately located adjacent to the club house. He stated all building envelopes are outside the
wildlife corridors and contained in the original area. He stated this is for large single family lots ranging
from .6 to 1.4 acres. He spoke to the infrastructure. All roads and utilities already exist and the
applicant believes this location is appropriate. They are not proposing to transfer 25 units to the
southern area but to where there are already utilities.
In regards to the 1041 it proposes both central water and sewage for U 1, the golf course and the
maintenance facility. He stated there are significant benefits of the 1041. The are proposing to take 15
units off ofISDS and placing all 40 units on central sewer. A total of 20 units of the southern parcel
won't be relying on well water. Since both water and sewage are provided through this track they will
be owned and operated by one entity. He spoke to the signed and approved decree by the judge for the
augmentation plan. This plan was approved on March 23 as related to this density shift.
In conclusion, the numerous benefits are protection of open space, wildlife habitat enhancement,
mitigation of impacts, environmental health improvements, appropriate land planning and appeasing
prior homeowner concerns.
Chairman Stone asked for an explanation about the variance from improvement standards.
Mr. Dean asked if the question could be restated.
Jim Fritze stated the regulations ask the Board to see whether the effects on the health welfare
and safety of the public as well as the affect on the land are outweighed by the hardships that would be
created to the developer by complying to the standards. You have to show that whatever harm is being
done by not complying is outweighed by hardship.
John Altoff, Johnson and Kunkel stated they asked for a variance because with the new standards
they will have to clear more land and more vegetation. They would like to stay with the old standards
9
03-27-2000
rather than going with the new standards. He stated this is the last major development in this
subdivision to be done.
John Vengrin, Engineering Department, spoke to the road standards and the considerations of the
County Engineer being whether the alternative will provide for equivalent level of public safety and the
equivalent in durability. He stated it is his opinion this proposed road design will be durable and safe he
believes the applicant has demonstrated some hardship as suggested in staff findings 3 and 4.
Mr. Fritze stated he sees the impact on the land being less but questioned the impacts to the
health, safety and welfare to those effected. He asked how those balance against the hardships of the
developer.
Chairman Stone asked if there is any discussion from the public. There was none.
Chairman Stone went on to explain in a similar file, Miller Ranch, where they were trying to
service a number of units there should be two roads going into the subdivision and that there were
alternative ways of servicing the homes. He suggested Mr. Vengrin argued that there wasn't a hardship
to the developer. To the applicant, he explained that what is needed for a determination of hardship is
for the developer to give a reason of why they should be granted a variance from the road improvement
standards.
Mr. Dean asked for a moment to confer. A five minute break was called.
Chris Williams, Johnson & Kunkel and Associates, stated in the beginning of Cordillera they set
some standards always looking out for the welfare and safety. What they have proved to date is that it is
a safe place to drive, everything seems to function well and they have minimized impacts. The benefits
outweigh the standards. There are a number of things they are asking for a variance on. He suggested
they have worked well with Mr. Vengrin on this and have done so with the Land Use Regulations in
mind. There are really no adverse impacts to speak of. They are not trying to change any of the safety
implications especially from the standpoint of human safety. They have used these design standards
which have been very successful. Some of the impacts allowed by granting this are less cuts and fills,
meaning less impact. Maintenance will be allowable, the scaring is minimal without creating a lot of
unwanted cuts or fill slopes. He spoke to the discussions with the fire service providers. They are trying
to be consistent with what they have done in the past.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they agree with staff finding 3 that the road design is equally
durable and equally safe.
Mr. Williams responded yes.
Chairman Stone asked for anything more on the VIS file. He stated a lot of justification is
located in the applicants exhibit A which is part of the record. It says consistently there has been an
apparent change in the County's standards and most ofthe roads in the development were constructed
under the older standards. The desire is to minimize the environmental disturbances. He asked to speak
now to the 1041 permit.
The Commissioners had no comments on the 1041 permit.
Lastly was the consideration of the transfer of density.
Commissioner Phillips asked if the caretaker units are separate or attached.
Mr. Dean responded they are 1500 square feet and can be attached or not.
Mr. Katieb reviewed staff findings:
In accordance with Section 6.04.15 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more
specifically described in the amendment application for the Cordillera Summit Enclave Water &
Wastewater System.
a. Major extensions of domestic water or sewage treatment systems shall be permitted in
those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such
extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the
development area and source development area to sustain such growth and development;
FINDINGS: The proposed water and sewer uses can be accommodated within the financial and
10
03-27-2000
environmental capacity of the 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 water and sewer line extensions do not conflict with the Eagle County
Master Plan, the Eagle County Open Space Plan, The Eagle River Watershed Plan, The 208 Water
Quality Management 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. The applicant has sufficient legal water rights for the
proposal.
d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are
available for efficient operational needs;
FINDINGS: Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, will
be available for efficient operational needs.
e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near
operational capacity;
FINDINGS: Not Applicable.
f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater
than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity;
FINDINGS: Not Applicable.
g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water
and sewage services or create duplicate services;
FINDINGS: The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing
water or sewage services.
h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level
of treatment is such that replacement is warranted;
FINDINGS: Not Applicable.
i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for
such development;
FINDINGS: Area and community trends demonstrate clearly a need for increased domestic water
supply and wastewater conveyance systems in the development proposed.
j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit
conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division;
FINDINGS: Not Applicable.
k. Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution
system that will serve existing and proposed needs;
FINDINGS: All easements required for the proposal are owned by the developer.
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: The benefits ofthe proposed water and wastewater system extensions outweigh the
losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result ofthe project.
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: Not applicable.
n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new
11
03-27-2000
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 owner of the proposed development.
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,
snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rock slides or other disasters which could cause a system
operation breakdown;
FINDINGS: The development sites of the proposed water and sewage extensions are not subject
to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, landslides, avalanches, rock slides, or other disasters
which could cause a system operation breakdown, according to the information submitted by the
applicant.
s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing
water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health;
FINDINGS: The proposed development and associated distribution system is capable of
providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health.
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 development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
In accordance with Section 6.05.15 (Efficient Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Water
Projects)ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, approval of the Permit application:
12
03-27-2000
a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated;
FINDINGS: The need for the proposed water system can be substantiated based on historic
growth rate and prior land use approvals.
b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with Federal, State, Regional,
and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources;
FINDINGS: The proposed development does not conflict with The Eagle County Master Plan,
The Eagle County Open Space Plan, The Eagle River Watershed Plan, The 208 Water Quality
Management Plan, or other applicable Regional, State ofPederalland use or water plans.
c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water,
including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban
development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation
systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge
areas;
FINDINGS: The proposed project will, through its water conservation plan and associated
protective covenants, implement policies and practices that will assure the efficient utilization of water
resources delivered through the domestic water system, as well as the efficient use of water. The
potential to pollute aquifer recharge areas was not identified as a potential problem.
d. Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water
resources;
FINDINGS: Provisions have been proposed to insure that the proposed water project will not
contaminate surface water resources;
e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the
Colorado Department of Health;
FINDINGS: The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of
the Colorado Department of Health;
f. The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the
quality of peripheral or downstream surface water resources in the source development area
below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May 22,1979, and
effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted;
FINDINGS: Not Applicable.
g. The proposed development and the potential diversion of water from the source
development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands, and wetlands,
groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical
wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting area and
the habitats or rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique 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, forests and
woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds,
nesting areas, recreational areas, and unique areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archeological
importance.
h. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Section 6.05.13
(16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith,
if any, have been paid;
FINDINGS: Not applicable
i. 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 he
13
03-27-2000
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area. Chairman Stone asked if they will need to grant the
waiver of the special use permit at the same time.
Jim Fritze stated it can be part of the same motion.
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.
Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. 1041-0026, Cordillera Summit
Enclave, incorporating the findings and approve the waiver of the special use permit:
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Mr. Vengrin reviewed staff findings for file number VIS-00006, Cordillera Mountain Tract,
Filing 37 as follows:
1. The applicant has filed a petition a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in
conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G of the LUR.
2. The petition has been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners.
3. The road design proposed by the petitioner will provide a road design that is equally durable
and equally safe to the Residential Collector and Residential Road designation standards but would be
considerably less expensive, use less land, and blend in better with the environment and land form.
4. The applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict
adherence to the Residential Collector and Residential Road Functional Classifications for the roads in
Filing 37 of t~e Cordillera Mountain Tract.
Mr. Vengrin suggested that the Board consider a fifth finding.
5. The Board of County Commissioners has determined that hardships to the applicant of not
granting the variance, exceeds any currently perceived impacts on the health, safety & welfare of persons
affected or adverse impacts to the affected lands.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve the request for a Variance Permit from the
strict interpretation of the Road Improvements Standards in Section 4-620 of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations incorporating staffs five findings as noted above and the attached Exhibit "A". These
variances will be within the area known as Cordillera Mountain Tract, Filing 37, The Summit Enclave.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Jean Garren spoke to condition #2 for file PDA-00025, the wildlife mitigation plan. She stated
through further reflection and anaylsis staff determines that it is probably not in Eagle County's best
interest to proceed in that manner but to simply amend the final plat. She suggested language as follows:
"Prior to any recording any resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, approving file
PDA-00025, a fully executed amendment to the Wildlife Mitigation Enhancement Plan, for Cordillera's
Mountain Tract Planning Parcel Ul, incorporate the following language;
a) no portion of any building envelope associated ..... etc.
Ms. Garren reviewed staff findings as follows for both files:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards. The Sketch
Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall comply with the following standards:
Section 5-240.F.3.e (1). Unified ownership or control.
14
03-27-2000
The title to all land that is part of a PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person.
Section 5-240.F.3.e 0) Finding
Unified ownership or control. Title to all land IS owned or controlled by one (1) person in the
sense that a corporation is a "person."
Section 5-240.F.3.e (2) Finding
Uses. The reference to Table 3-300 and Table 3-320 as stated are inappropriate for these
applications since no new land addition is proposed. Subject property is currently zoned PUD and the
residential uses proposed ARE uses that are allowed in the PUD.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (3) Findings:
Dimensional Limitations. The reference to Table 3-340 and Table 3-320 as stated is
inappropriate for these applications since dimensional limitations are governed by the PUD Guide.
Variations of the dimensional limitations set forth in the PUD Guide may only be authorized pursuant to
Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between
buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt
between buildings. In determining: whether a Variation to allow lots less than two acres in Planning
Parcel U should be granted, the following are found:
(b) Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. By removing most ofthe density
in Planning Parcel 0 ("The Southern Parcel"), the proposed PUD DOES avoid valued environmental
resources (wildlife habitat) and natural hazard lands as identified in Section 3-31O.B.1., Purpose.
Section 5-240.F .3.e (4) Finding
Off-Street Parking and Loading. It HAS previously been demonstrated that off-street parking
and loading provided can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and
Loading: Standards. It IS NOT anticipated that a reduction will be requested for either Shared Parking or
Actual Needs.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Findings
Landscaping. It HAS previously been demonstrated that landscaping provided in the proposed
PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Finding
Signs. A comprehensive sign plan for the Cordillera PUD that is determined to be suitable for it
EXISTS with the Cordillera PUD Guide.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (7) Findings
Adequate Facilities. It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed development will provide
adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, or fire protection.
Same HAVE previously been demonstrated to be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and
fire protection, and emergency medical services.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (8) Findings
Improvements. It CAN be demonstrated that all of the improvements standards applicable to
the proposed development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, as varied by the Board of County
Commissioners in approval of a variance from improvements standards (File No. VIS-00006).
Section 5-240.F.3.e (9) Finding
Compatibility with surrounding land uses. The transfer of density to a location around the golf
course clubhouse IS compatible with the resort nature of the surrounding resort land uses.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (10) Findings
Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed PUD HAS ALREADY BEEN shown to be
primarily consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and Future Land Use Map, as well as with the
Eagle County Open Space Plan and the Edwards Sub-Area Plan. The proposed density shift does not
affect the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) Finding
15
03-27-2000
Phasing. The Preliminary Plan for Planning Parcel U-l of the PUD DOES include a phasing
plan for the development, and guarantees WILL BE provided with the Final Plat for those public
improvements and amenities not previously collateralized 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, ifthis is not possible, then as early in the project as is
reasonable.
PDA-00025 Cordillera. Filin~ 37 Section 5-240.F.3.m. Finding
(1) Is consistent. The proposed PUD Amendment to transfer 25 lots from Planning Parcels A
and 0 to Planning Parcel U-l (a part of Planning Parcel U) IS consistent with the efficient development
and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development;
(2) Does not affect in a substantially adverse manner. 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) Does not grant special benefit. The proposed PUD Amendment IS NOT granted solely to
confer a special benefit upon any person.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve file number PDA-00025, incorporating the
staff findings, with the following conditions:
1) Lot Transfers. No more than 5 lots shall be moved from the "Village Center"
(Planning Parcel A, Tract X), and no fewer than twenty lots from the "Southern Parcel" (Planning Parcel
0), shall be allowed to be transferred to new Planning Parcel U-l in the Mountain Tract."
2) Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Prior to recording of any Resolution of the Board of Eagle
County Commissioners approving this file PDA-00025, a fully executed amendment to the Wildlife
Mitigation Plan for the Cordillera Mountain Tract, Planning Parcel Ul, incorporating the following
language;
a) "No portion of any building envelope associated with any of the 40 residential units on
the 36 acres composing Planning Parcel U-1, nor any clearingfor wildlife mitigation (as further
described in Section 7.13 below), shall encroach into any designated wildlife movement corridor. "
3) Legal Description of "The Southern Parcel" (Planning Parcels 0, 0-1, 0-2). A
full legal description of the entire "The Southern Parcel" (Planning Parcels 0,0-1, and 0-2) shall be
recorded as part of any Resolution approving this File No. PDA-00025.
4) 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 Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Ms. Garren reviewed the following for 2-B PDP-00014 ONLY
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards the
Preliminary Plan for Subdivision shall comply with the following standards:
Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) Findin~
Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed PUD CAN be shown to be primarily consistent
with the Eagle County Master Plan and Future Land Use Map, as well as with the Eagle County Open
Space Plan and the Edwards Sub-Area Plan. The proposed density shift does not affect the Eagle
County Comprehensive Housing Plan.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (2) Findin~
Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle
County Land Use Regulations under Variance from Improvement Standards (File No. VIS-00006) and
1041 Amendment (File No. 1041-00026) as approved by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) Finding
The proposed subdivision HAS NOT created spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the
16
03-27-2000
delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in
a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
a) Atility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's
service plan according to a Variance from Improvement Standards (File No. VIS-00006) and 1041
Amendment (File No. 1041-00026) as approved by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners.
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.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (4) Finding
Considering its site constraints, the property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for
development under zoning .
Section 5-280.B.3.e (5) Finding
The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the golf course and resort character of existing land
uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
Commissioner Phillips moved the Board of Eagle County Commissioners approve file number
PDP-00014, incorporating the staff findings, with the following recommended conditions:
1) 1041 Approval. Prior to any approval of this file by the Board of Eagle County
Commissioners, Applicant shall receive the Board's approval of File No. 1041-00026.
2) VIS Approval. Prior to any approval of this file by the Board of Eagle County
Commissioners, Applicant shall receive the Board's approval of File No. VIS-00006.
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 Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDS-00018, Adams Rib, Frost Creek
Chairman Stone introduced this file saying that it was determined at the last meeting that more
information regarding wildlife concerns was needed. They have decided to have this meeting to hear a
presentation from the applicant specific to the wildlife concerns.
Mr. Montag pointed out they are in receipt of a couple of letters one from the Town of Eagle,
town manager Willy Powell, and one from Bill Andree with the Division of Wildlife.
Fred Kummer, applicant, stated at the last meeting Commissioner Phillips stated "the only
question you need to answer for me is that these lots will not impact wildlife and the riparian area." He
stated Dr. Crockett has spent two full days with our staff studying this area. He has, with their planners,
developed a solution that responds to your concerns.
Allen Crockett, senior ecologist with Shepard Miller, Incorporated, stated he was here
representing the applicant. He reviewed his accreditations for the Board saying a large percentage in the
last 25 years has involved residential and golf developments. He stated he is very familiar with this
project and this part of the State in general. He spoke to the site specific investigations of wildlife use of
the site. He spoke to the mapping and aerial photographs. He stated this presentation today is to
respond to Commissioner Phillips concerns with wildlife.
He showed an aerial photograph depicting the Frost Creek corridor. He stated when they did
their work up there previously he identified three areas. The lower part was converted to agriculture
about a century ago. He showed the intermediate area with trees and shrubs but lacking water. From
that point up, it becomes densely drained with much vegetation. He suggested that it would benefit
17
03-27-2000
wildlife if they didn't go too far up. He showed the fence line on another photo. He stated they have
pulled the cul-de-sac back to keep it from the more in tact area.
Chairman Stone asked if the plan they showed the last time and the plan they showed today are
different.
Dr. Crockett responded yes.
Commissioner Phillips asked how many lots they have eliminated.
Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, replied two lots in that area.
Chairman Stone asked how many lots there were originally.
Randy Cloid, Adams Rib, stated there were seventeen lots and they have reduced that to fifteen
lots. Mr. Cloid showed those through an overlay. They pulled the road out and have moved it down.
Dr. Crockett stated previously the road went 600 feet into the plain and now it stops short of the
denser portion of the forest.
Chairman Stone asked for the reasoning behind coming back 600 feet and the reduction of the
two home sites.
Dr. Crockett stated the purpose for moving the road 600 feet is the drainage is basically in tact, it
has more trees, more water in the channel and the under shoring is in better condition as it is too dense
for the cattle. The most important use of the area is for the birds that like the aspen forest. Because of
the denser trees it is a much more diverse and abundant bird habitat. He stated it is close to being
pristine from that point up. They also worked on the water series through ditches to the meadow. The
historic natural channel will carry more flows. They have also moved the lots farther from the historic
channel. He stated it looks as if the road as shown on the original plan might not be where it was
initially planned. It is now moved farther into the pasture allowing for the residential units to be shifted
farther from the creek. The goal is to make it a more natural setting. He stated there will be no fencing,
smaller lots, no dogs outdoors overnight unless within an enclosed kennel. He mentioned as well, one of
the mitigation measures goes to the public lands and protection of Frost Creek from grazing.
Dr. Crockett showed the portion of Frost Creek within the PUD. He stated where it narrows is
the intermediate area effected by grazing. He stated much of it is on public land and he suggested they
might work with the BLM and Forest Service to mitigate grazing on public lands. Next he spoke to
transition from pasture to sage brush. He stated their suggestion is to put all of the building below the
road. He showed the area for seven proposed lots along the quality slope area. He stated this is a place
he disagrees with the DOW. He explained his mapping. He stated they have previously spoken to
sensitive areas. He stated the fringe is dominated by sage brush, about 90%, very few shrubs, but very
dense. He stated the grass between is very poor because that area is within the area grazed. It has been
grazed heavily. Beyond that road, the slope starts up and is very good winter range. He spoke to the
good tasting shrubs. He stated the cows avoid it. He stated it is 1800 feet long with seven residential
lots. He suggested that critical means if that area were lost it would effect the survival of the population.
He believes it is native, but it is not critical. The area around it being preserved is critical. He stated the
area that remains between houses will be useable. He suggested mitigation measures that might be
appropriate for winter uses would be to improve the quality of the winter range areas. He spoke to
improving the oak, the prescribed burns that have taken place reducing the shrub density. Coupled with
the fact there will be no grazing, it will come back.
He asked Mr. Knight to hand out a summary of the changes as they relate to wildlife and a
summary of the mitigation plan. Lastly is a list of the native trees, shrubs and wild flowers they use to
mitigate the site. He stated they are all native and commercially available.
Chairman Stone asked if they could pass around a sign up sheet for those who wish to speak to
the wildlife issues.
Dr. Crockett stated the approach that has been used on Frost Creek is really the same as on the
Ranch. He stated the vast majority of native habitats have been avoided. He stated he does not view the
intermediate area to be critical. The Brush Creek corridor has mostly been avoided but some aspects of
18
03-27-2000
the development will be in the riparian corridor. He stated a few golf course holes are not much
different than the grassy areas. There are some places along Brush Creek where there are no trees. They
have planned all along to plant trees and replace cottonwoods. There are some plans for road crossings.
He stated lastly he wanted to point out that on all of the properties is the transition to land corridors that
are off site. He showed all of the green area on a map by DOW as winter range for deer and elk. He
showed the Frost Creek PUD and the Salt Creek area as well as the Ranch. They have avoided all of
that. He spoke again to the mitigation measures and the use of the mitigation fund. He commended the
DOW for that. He stated a group of mitigation measures to benefit wildlife by avoidance of conflicts
with humans will be applied. He stated any time there is something that changes, it will impact the
wildlife. It is important to look at the whole picture. He stated the species that use the area will still use
the area. There will be a movement pattern switch, just because of the development. He stated they will
ultimately see this as a refuge and it will become a beneficial habitat. On balance, he believes the
impacts will be neutral. He sees the project as not having a significant adverse effect beyond the initial
construction phase.
Terrill Knight stated they did eliminate two lots from the Frost Creek area and moved them to the
lower areas.
Chairman Stone asked where they moved to.
Mr. Knight stated to the pasture land area. He stated they are here to respond to questions and
issues the Board may have. They have devoted effort to working with Dr. Crockett to meet their goal of
no net loss to wildlife. He suggested this detail is usually appropriate at preliminary plan.
Chairman Stone opened the floor to public comment.
Rosie Sherwood, area resident and owner of eight acres very near Frost Creek, stated she does
have two letters from her neighbors and asked that she be able to read them into the record. She began
reading her letter which questioned wildlife being the only issue to be discussed.
Chairman Stone suggested the public comment was stopped.
Jim Fritze stated the Board felt the need to reopen the testimony on this one issue only and that
all other issues will be taken into consideration.
Ms. Sherwood stated she believes this is being given special treatment. She further read her
letter speaking to the narrowing of the valley. She stated she has lived there for 31 years and has noticed
the animal activity within. She spoke to the lion, bobcats, coyotes and bear. Because of the geological
configuration she believes the wildlife will be destroyed. She stated this proposal does not belong in this
very sensitive area. She suggested it be tabled or denied.
She read a letter from John Shidow who is the caretaker of the Whittaker Ranch on Bruce Creek.
She spoke to the pressure on wildlife from Cordillera and suggested if this area is developed another part
of Eagle County will loose its wildlife. He spoke to the Dana Ranch and that development of this
magnitude does not belong in this wildlife area.
The final letter was from Bruno Sartu who has been a resident of Brush Creek for 21 years. He
suggested Adam's Rib development belongs further down valley.
Ms. Sherwood stated EI Oyler is traveling. He manages a large parcel owned by the Pollit
Company and is also concerned about the wildlife.
Tom Hamed, County resident and real estate agent, stated this like some other issues are
impassioned. He stated he feels it is only fair after visiting the site, reviewing the plat map, the
wetlands, the riparian corridor. This is not going to remain a ranch. A 300 unit plan on 1100 acres is the
least density on a golf course in this valley. He spoke to Cotton Ranch and it being home for many
geese. He stated these kinds of improvements may improve the feed and give a more desirable outcome.
He has been an outdoors man all his life and thinks the golf course will be an improvement. He stated
there will be some impacts, but they may not all be negative. As long as they aren't fenced, and don't
block access, they provide more feed for a greater number of animals. He suggested to hold this
applicant to a different standard wouldn't be fair. He suggested if it was his deal, he couldn't do it for
19
03-27-2000
that number of units.
Bill Whittaker, area resident, is fourth generation in the valley and lives right across the street
from this proposed project. He stated last summer he walked the sites. He thinks they have done
everything they can to mitigate the wildlife concerns. He spoke to the distances between the building
sites and can see the animals moving through there better than in other sites. He stated he has been a
landscaper up valley and has seen a whole lot more animals there than he has at Frost Creek recently.
He stated it may be unnatural, but the animals are there. He stated once the initial building is done, the
animals will return. He stated there is no doubt there will be problems with the construction but over the
long haul, it is probably a better environment than what is there now. He stated getting the cattle off
there will improve the ground. He stated the biggest herds have been closer to town and where Eagle
Ranch now is. He suggested the impacts are less at Frost Creek than at Eagle Ranch. He stated as
uncomfortable as he is about saying it in public, he believes that this is the best possible use.
Jack Cornell, area resident and a neighbor of Mr. Whittaker's, stated he is an avid antler hunter.
He stated they do not go onto Adam's Rib property as there are no antlers there. He stated they are all
down on the other side Hardscrabble Road. He stated when they do come in there it is because of the
pressure of the hunting season.
Bill Andree, Colorado Division of Wildlife, referred to the letter of March 22, 2000. He stated
they did not have full agreement with Adam's Rib when they were going through the Town. He stated
they had a number of issues they were still working on. He stated they have studied the Arrowhead elk
heard for fifteen years. The elk heard did not cross 1-70 until three years ago when Bachelors Gulch
came in. They now are crossing 1-70 frequently. He spoke to the personal damages on private property.
He stated if it were good habitat, they wouldn't be moving. He spoke to the fox and the geese loving
golf courses, but the golf course hating geese. He spoke to Vail mountain and the summer use and how
it has effected the deer and elk range. He stated winter range is critical winter range and it is not
provided in the ski areas. People see more wildlife in Arrowhead as they have no where to go. He
stated 1-70 has been closed four times to allow elk to cross. He spoke to the 1998 sketch plan approval
one ofthe requirements was a 75 foot stream set back. He spoke to the golf course in Wolcott that has
no homes and believes it is feasible to do so. He apologized for missing the applicants experts
comments. He stated they have been flying the deer counts for a number of years. He stated in mild
years the deer and elk do fine, it is when there are major snow years the habitat is extremely critical.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if Mr. Andree could look at the modifications that Frost Creek is
proposing and asked for comments.
Mr. Andree stated he would be happy to do so but has not seen them before today.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he had not either.
Commissioner Phillips spoke to the letter received this morning and the need for a decision from
the County to determine where development will occur.
Mr. Andree stated if they stay out of all critical area, there will be no mitigation.
Fred Kummer stated the plan they presented with the Town was what was presented last week.
Mr. Andree stated they were still walking the property where the houses were going to be and
whether they were going to place or pull them out of critical habitat.
Chairman Stone suggested, according to Mr. Andree's letter, that it will be difficult to determine
a specific plan until they know exactly where things are going to be.
Anne Eagan, area resident one and a half miles up Brush Creek, read a quote from the paper from
Commissioner Gallagher about the wildlife, which read, "I am inclined to give credibility to our expert
(CDOW), there are large chunks oflots in critical wildlife habitat". She suggested that Dr. Crockett has
an agenda in that he does work for Mr. Kummer. She suggested that Bill Heicher works for CDOW and
has no bias or personal agenda. She spoke to the map she submitted and the golf holes that are in
wetland, riparian or critical wildlife areas. She stated she appreciates the fact they share a common
concern of the critical wildlife habitat She believes the Board should deny this application today based
20
03-27-2000
on the invasion of the critical wildlife habitat.
Ed Criller, an area resident for fifteen years, spoke to the elk crossing the Interstate ten years ago.
He spoke to the water tanks in the riparian area and the Town of Eagle's tank located next to Brush
Creek. He spoke to the 35 acre lots and the loss of control. He suggested there can be fencing and the
wildlife will be locked out.
Chairman Stone closed public comment for the second and final time.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he appreciates Mr. Kummer bringing his wildlife expert back but
he has heard nothing to cause him to change his concerns from a week ago.
Chairman Stone asked about the main road, Brush Creek Road, leading up to the project. He
asked what potential upgrades are they talking about. He spoke to the new Brush Creek road through
Eagle Ranch. He spoke primarily to Capitol Street.
Mr. Kummer stated they met with the Town Manager of the Town of Eagle this morning and
they are working towards hopefully solving the road problem where the Town of Eagle will complete to
Highway 6 and they will connect in on the east side of Brush Creek Road and the Ranch PUD. They are
very cognizant of their responsibilities where they have high density on that road. The overall plan is the
ultimate solution with Eagle Ranch.
Chairman Stone asked if they will be raising the level of service and straightening out the road.
Mr. Kummer stated on the Ranch project they are completely eliminating and limiting the service
of the road. He stated until they pass the Ridgway property there will be no access directly on to Brush
Creek Road. He stated at the Moser subdivision there are a half dozen properties that will access the
road.
Chairman Stone asked what the applicant has to share at this time and when is the more detailed
oriented plan required.
Mr. Montag stated those would be submitted at preliminary plan. Sketch plan is a concept and
they would like to know what the applicant is proposing to do. He suggested with the Frost Creek
project there are no proposed road improvements for Brush Creek Road at this time.
Chairman Stone asked Staff's concern with that.
Mr. Montag suggested by looking at this as an individual application they have lost the concept
for the entire plan. Based on the information that was submitted at sketch plan, it appears as though they
are meeting the level of service required.
Boots Ferguson, representing the applicant, stated section nine ofthe study collaborates Mr.
Montag's conclusion that there will be no adverse impacts to the road at this time.
Chairman Stone asked Willy Powell to speak to the traffic issues and trying to get people off of
Capitol Street. He spoke to the Eagle County facility that will be moving and the Forest Service
property. He asked what benefit will it have to construct a road through the current County Maintenance
Facility property and would it connect to Brush Creek Road.
Willy Powell, Town of Eagle, stated they have a number of road projects with current and up
coming build out. The Bull Pasture Road is one of those projects and brings it to a higher level of
service. Traffic predictions at time of build out of Eagle Ranch and Adam's Rib at its current proposal,
Capitol Street will go up to the same level of service it is now as part of the agreement with Eagle Ranch
and the extension of the road, they have contracted with Eagle Ranch and will take into account the
Jones property planning and the Adam's Rib planning on the Ranch parcel along with the intersection of
Brush Creek Road. The last part is Frost Creek and if it is taken alone, if it is developed first, how will
they design it so that people will use the new Brush Creek Road. He suggested they need to get the four
parties together, The Town, The County, Eagle Ranch and Adam's Rib. He stated at the time Adam's
Rib declined to participate. He spoke to the change in the way the road will work with the old Brush
Creek Road going into the Jones property. He stated the traffic will be forced to go into the new Brush
Creek Road though there will still be the ability to gain access through the old Brush Creek Road. He
suggested they need to make sure the intersection works correctly to avoid people from using the old
21
03-27-2000
Brush Creek Road.
Mr. Kummer stated they did decline to meet with the four group party. They boarder the Jones
property. They don't see a relationship with Eagle and have seen them as less than receptive. He stated
in their discussion there has been no absence of them wanting to bring this thing together.
Chairman Stone stated that he has no additional comments and asked the other Board members
as well.
Commissioner Phillips thanked everyone for coming today and thanked Dr. Crockett for coming
back. She stated she did revisit the site after the request she made last week. She stated her husband has
been here for many years, his family having had saw mills in various locations. She read a poll in the
Denver Post yesterday and 86% of the polls stated that Counties and government need to provide
housing to keep up with the industry. She suggested that residential does not pay for itself and that this
developer has provided adequate facilities. She suggested she is frustrated that the Eagle Area Plan is
referred to when this is outside of the three mile area. She spoke to the approval of plans in Cordillera
and believes the plan is in conformance with surrounding land uses. She spoke to the Master Plan and
that staff must check the details but the Board must provide a balance. She stated she prefers the facts.
It appears to her the applicant can meet all ofthe detail requirements and this meets the Land Use
Standards. She spoke to redrafting the Master Plans. She spoke to the needs of the community and that
perhaps this developer will take many of those into consideration. She suggested they don't have the
amenities to be provided. She encouraged the developer work with the Town of Eagle on water and
hopes there will be cooperation between the developer and the Town. These issues should be resolved
during the preliminary plan process. She believes the developer has shown sensitivity to the wildlife and
nparIan areas.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number PDS-00018, Adams Rib, Frost Creek,
incorporating the following findings and subject to the following condition:
1) The two lots at Frost Creek and surrounding riparian areas shall be reconfigured.
The findings are as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-204-F-3.e, standards for a sketch plan
pud, as presented earlier by staff, 1,2,34,5, & 6,
(1). Unified ownership or control. It IS represented that title to all land is owned or
controlled by one (1) corporate entity.
(2). Uses. The uses that may be developed in the proposed PUD 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, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320,
"Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedulell, for the zone district designation in effect for
the property at the time of the application for PUD. Should this proposal proceed, a request for
Variation pursuant to Section 5-240.F. 3.f Variations Authorized shall be submitted.
(3) Dimensional Limitations. The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the
proposed PUD ARE NOT those 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. Should this
proposal proceed, a request for Variation pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f Variations Authorized shall
be submitted.
(4) Off-Street Parking and Loading. It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking
and loading provided in the proposed PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Standards.
(5) Landscaping. It HAS been demonstrated that landscaping provided in the proposed
PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards.
(6) Signs. It HAS been demonstrated that the sign standards applicable to the proposed
PUD can be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. Applicant HAS submitted a
22
03-27-2000
comprehensive sign plan for the PUD pursuant to Section 4-340 D, Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit
Development (PUD, that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area
necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
(7) Adequate Facilities. It HAS been demonstrated sufficient the sketch plan process for
the PUD will provide adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal,
electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police
and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Water and sewer will be revisited in detail at
Preliminary Plan and the 1041 review.
(8) Improvements. It HAS been demonstrated that the improvements standards
applicable to the proposed development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements
Standards, nor that as a result of deviation from the County's road standards, the development achieves
greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of
development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum
design principles are followed:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient
access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access
shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement.
No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more
of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO)
for that functional classification of roadway.
(b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and
convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages
off-site.
( c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency
vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility
vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing
emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
(d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to
provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a
PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from
individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be
directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are
necessary to maintain the County's road network.
(c) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the
internal street network and from off-street parking areas.
(9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. The development proposed for the PUD IS
compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
(10) Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan,
including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which shows the area ofthis PUD as
part of a future resort. The proposed PUD is also consistent with the Eagle Area Community Plan and to
the extent the pud is deemed not consistent with either of these plans, such inconsistencies is warranted
by changed circumstances since the adoption of these plans. Some of these circumstances being the
increased demand for residential property in the Eagle area. The purchase by State Parks of a large
portion of the property formerly included in the Adams Rib, for a state park. The annexation and
approval by the Town of Eagle for a large planned unit development within the Town of Eagle, known
as Eagle Ranch in the Brush Creek Valley. The sketch plan approval of the Ranch development, by
Eagle County.
(11) Phasing. Inasmuch this Standard is a requirement of the Preliminary Plan for PUD it
23
03-27-2000
does not apply. A Phasing plan HAS been submitted.
(12) Common Recreation and Open Space. The proposed PUD DOES comply with the
following common recreation and open space standards:
1) Minimum Area. A minimum of25% of the total proposed PUD area WILL be
devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public, and the proposed PUD
DOES provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for
every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the proposed PUD.
2) Improvements Required Inasmuch this Standard is a requirement of the
Preliminary Plan for PUD it does not apply.
3) Continuing Use and Maintenance. Inasmuch this Standard is a requirement of
the Preliminary Plan for PUD it does not apply.
4) Organization. Inasmuch this Standard is a requirement of the Preliminary Plan
for PUD it does not apply.
13. Natural Resource Protection. The proposed PUD HAS considered the recommendations
made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as
specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of
a Sketch Plan for Subdivision should be the same as number 10 just read.
(1) The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
(2) The spatial pattern IS efficient. The project 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 leap frog pattern of development.":
(a) Utility and Road Extension: It HAS been shown that 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: It can HAS been shown that 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."
(3) The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development.
(4) The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area
and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion for discussion.
In discussion, Commissioner Gallagher stated he has to disagree with Commissioner Phillips.
While he has not had the benefit of her longevity in the County, he disagrees with her proposed findings.
He does not believe it is in conformance with the Master Plan. He suggested they may need to revisit the
Master Plan of Eagle County. He spoke to building from the outside in rather than the inside out. He
stated he finds the density inconsistent with the surrounding uses. The applicants use of riparian area
within the building envelopes and some of the golf course holes are inconsistent with the plans. He
spoke to the avoidance of wildlife which is also inconsistent with the plans.
Commissioner Phillips suggested that people sitting in that chair often disagree. She stated that
perhaps the Master Plan needs to be revisited. She believes to deny this they could end up with
something worse. She has heard many people say this is a good plan. She suggested that they may need
to change the Master Plan.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he believes the Master Plan serves the purpose of giving notice
to the public and to the developers of what is expected of the Board and of the developers.
24
03-27-2000
Chairman Stone stated that first of all, regarding the wildlife, it is impossible to come up with a
final agreement with CDOW regarding mitigation as a requirement, assuming this is approved, that they
will come up with some good mitigation to enhance wildlife rather than make it worse. If they can't
agree, they should come up with an explanation in writing so the Commissioners can make the final
decision. The final agreement would then be signed by the County and Mr. Kummer Regarding
housing, he asked where they are regarding housing on the Bluffs.
Mr. Cloid stated they met with the Town and believe they will be working with them.
Chairman Stone suggested, should they get approval, his concern is that they look at Eagle
County globally and believes the housing should be adjacent to the development.
Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion as presented by Commissioner Phillips.
Commissioners Stone and Phillips voting aye and Commissioner Gallagher voting no.
Jim Fritze reminded all those present the final action will be the adoption of the written
resolution which they will contemplate presenting to the Board next Monday.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
April 3, 2000.
~~
Chai an
Attest:
Clerk to the Boar[l
25
03-27-2000