Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/17/2000 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 17, 2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the first item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of April 17, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for April 20, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for April 3, 2000 D) Human Service Grant Agreement with Asistencia Para Latinos E) Human Service Grant Agreement with the Basalt Family Resource Center F) Human Service Grant Agreement with Northwest Legal Services G) Human Service Grant Agreement with Mid-Valley Buddies Program H) Human Service Grant Agreement with Garfield Youth Services I) Human Service Grant Agreement with Mountain Valley Developmental Services J) Human Service Grant Agreement with Casa of the Continental Divide K) Human Service Grant Agreement with Vail Eagle Valley Rotary L) Human Service Grant Agreement with Response M) Human Service Grant Agreement with the Resource Center N) Human Service Grant Agreement with the Family Visitor Program 0) Human Service Grant Agreement with Aspen Basalt Health Care Clinic P) Human Service Grant Agreement with The Salvation Army Q) Human Service Grant Agreement with Eagle Care Clinic R) Human Service Grant Agreement with Colorado West Mental Health for Crisis Intervention Services S) Human Service Grant Agreement with Colorado West Mental Health for indigent mental health services T) Notice of Award for the 2000 Centerline Marking Contract U) Resolution 2000-051 applying for funding from various sources to provide home ownership housing assistance V) Resolution 2000-052utilizing funding from the Colorado Association of Realtors Housing Opportunity Foundation to provide assistance for home ownership W) Resolution 2000-053 utilizing funding from 1 st Bank to provide funding to assist persons to become homeowners X) Agreement with Safety Kleen to conduct household hazardous waste collection event. Chairman Stone asked if there were any items to be pulled. 1 04-17-2000 Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated there were not. Commissioner Gallagher asked about item X. He questioned the addendum and the price for services. He stated he does not see a cap in the agreement. Ron Rasnic, Eagle County Landfill, stated he has $25,000 in his budget. He stated they never know until they hold the event what it will cost. He stated based on experience it typically costs around $12,000. Commissioner Phillips asked how many years they have been doing this. Mr. Rasnic stated twelve years. Commissioner Phillips stated she has a minor correction to the minutes on page 8 in the middle of the page one of the "thes"needs to be eliminated. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented with the corrections to the minutes as stated. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the items to come, plat and resolution signing, could be done as a consent agenda in the future. Chairman Stone stated he would be against that as they are all items that may require some further discussion. He stated they have had occasion to discuss things in the past. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated with regard to plats, the answer would be no as they should be done individually. He stated the resolutions could be done as consent as they are the result of previous Board actions. Commissioner Phillips stated in the past there were some legal occurrences which gave cause to do review on the record. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00214. Bachelor Gulch Village. Filing No.3: A Second Re-subdivision of Tract D. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Tract D, Bachelor Gulch Filing No.3, into Lot D2 and Tract D, as well as to create and vacate certain easements as shown on the plat. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00214, Bachelor Gulch Village, Filing No.3, a second resubdivision of Tract D, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00221. Miller's Creek on the Eagle River: A Re-subdivision of Lot 12. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 12, Miller's Creek, in order to 2 04-17-2000 create two lf2 duplex lots, Lot 12A and 12B. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00221, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, a resudivision of Lot 12, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00222. Miller's Creek on the Ea~le River: A Re-subdivision of Lot 7. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 7, Miller's Creek, in order to create two lf2 duplex lots, Lot 7 A and Lot 7B. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00222, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, a resubdivision of Lot 7, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00225. Miller's Creek on the Ea~le River: A Re-subdivision of Lot 16. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 16, Miller's Creek, in order to create two lf2 duplex lots, Lot 16A and Lot 16B. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00225, Miller's Creek on 3 04-17-2000 the Eagle River, a resubdivision of Lot 16 and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00226. Miller's Creek on the Eagle River: A Re-subdivision of Lot 15. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 15, Miller's Creek, in order to create two Y2 duplex lots, Lot 15A and Lot 15B. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00226, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, a resubdivision of Lot 15, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00227. Miller's Creek on the Eagle River: ARe-subdivision of Lot 14. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 14, Miller's Creek, in order to create two Y2 duplex lots, Lot 14A and Lot 14B. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00227, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, a resubdivision of Lot 14, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00228. Miller's Creek on the Eaele River: A Re-subdivision of Lot 13. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 13, Miller's Creek, in order to create two Y2 duplex lots, Lot 13A and Lot 13B. He read staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. 4 04-17-2000 a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final number 5MB-00228, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, a resubdivision of Lot 13, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-054. PDA-00025. Cordillera Subdivision Sixth and Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document. He stated this was a Resolution to approve an amendment to the Cordillera Planned Unit Development Guide. Eagle County accepted for filing the application submitted by Squaw Creek Realty Corporation on or about November 22nd, 1999. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-054, file number PDA-00025, Cordillera Subdivision Sixth and Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-055. PDP-00014. A Resolution to Approve the Preliminary Sketch Plan for Plannint: Parcel U-l of the Cordillera Subdivision SIXTH Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document. He stated Squaw Creek Realty Corporation filed an application with the Eagle County Department of Community Development on or about November 22nd, 1999, and Agreement to approve the Preliminary Plan of Planning Parcel U-l. A Part of Cordillera "Mountain Tract" Planning Parcel U, concurrently. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-055, file number PDP-00014, Planning Parcel U-1, Cordillera Subdivision, 6th amended and restated PUD Control Document and Agreement and approval of Preliminary Plan for parcel U-1, Cordillera Mountain Tract, Planning Parcel U., approval of Preliminary Plan for parcel U-1, Cordillera Mountain Tract, Planning Parcel U. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-056. ZS-00061. A Resolution to Approve a Special Use Permit for San Isabel Telecom. He stated on or about January 27t\ 2000, San Isabel Telecom filed an application with the Eagle County Department of Community Development for a Special Use Permit for a telecommunication facility consisting of a cellular repeater box adjacent to, and an eight foot antenna attached to the side of, the Town of Eagle Water Tank. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-056, file number ZS-00061, approval of a special use permit for San Isabel Telecom. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-057. PDS-00018. A Resolution to Approve the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for Adam's Rib - Frost Creek. He stated Eagle County accepted for filing an application submitted by Adam's Rib on or about September 15th, 1999. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-057, approval of the PUD Sketch Plan for Adams Rib, Frost Creek. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. Commissioners Stone and Phillips voting aye and Commissioner Gallagher voting nay.. Mr. Gennett referred back to PDP 00014 and related it included two files under the same file number.t 5 04-17 -2000 Chairman Stone stated he believed the intent was to include both under one motion. Commissioner Gallagher stated that was his intent. Roaring Fork Valley, Discussion Jim Fritze spoke to the Board and the County Clerk regarding the discussion concerning a tax on open space for an area in the Roaring Fork Valley. He stated he has learned they are planning on forming a regular type special district that will be within all three counties. He stated this mayor may not be proposed at this November's election, and that it more likely will be in May. He stated the applicant must receive approval from the Courts before coming to the County. Commissioner Phillips asked ifthis can all happen by the deadline for this year's election. Mr. Fritze stated logistically it would be almost impossible to have it happen this year. He stated from the standpoint of those putting it together, it will be quite an effort. Chairman Stone asked if this is something that can be done legally at this time. Mr. Fritze stated it can be done either in November or next May. Resolution 2000-058, April 17th - 23rd as Earth Awareness Week Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, presented Resolution 2000-058, declaring April 17th through the 23rd, 2000 as Earth Awareness Week. He spoke to the importance of the program and read the resolution for the record as follows: "Whereas, there has been an increased awareness of actions having direct and indirect impacts on our local environment; and Whereas, the citizens of Eagle County and the surrounding areas are concerned that steps be taken to preserve the quality of the environment for present and future generations; and Whereas, April 22, 2000 marks the thirteenth anniversary ofthe first Earth Day, a day established to increase people's awareness of their environment and the effect their actions have on the environment; and Whereas, there is an international, national and local effort to involve as many entities as possible in this anniversary celebration of Earth Day through special events, media coverage and local efforts; and Whereas, the purpose of Earth Awareness Week is to bring into focus within Eagle County the understanding that the preservation and improvement of out environment is the responsibility of each individual; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County recognizes the importance of addressing environmental issues. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Board of Commissioners, Eagle County, State of Colorado, do hereby designate the week of April 17 - 23, 2000 as Earth Awareness Week. Moved, Read & Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 17th day of April, 2000." Chairman Stone thanked Mr. Merry for his efforts and spoke to the Youth Conservation Board that will be available for youth to help clean up our environment. He stated the keystone to this is education. If we don't educate our youth now they will spend their lives cleaning things up. He invited Mr. Merry to become involved in that organization. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-058, declaring April 17 through 23, 2000 as Earth Awareness Week. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher asked in the absence of the press if they could put a press release together. 6 04-17-2000 Mr. Merry stated he believes that a release is on its way out as well as one to celebrate the awards to be given next Monday at 4:15 for the poster contest. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The Boaters Bar Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a new application for the Boaters Bar, LLC, dba/The Boaters Bar. She stated this matter was tabled from April 10, 2000 for the applicant to submit detailed plans. The neighborhood and the needs of the neighborhood have been established. She stated after reviewing the new map, staff is recommending the applicant be approved for a stand alone Optional Premise License rather than a Tavern License. The biggest difference between the two licenses is the licensing of the outside area. An optional premise license does not need a building per se, is strictly for recreational purposes and food does not have to be prepared on site. The applicant must notify the County when they plan on using their license. It does not have to be open all the time only when the applicant notify's the County they are turning it on or off. The applicants business will be derived strictly from recreational uses. They do not plan on being a tavern license per se and open every evening. When expanding their services in the area the applicant may also expand his outside area to include those items. He could at some point license the entire property with the exception of the rental units. Included in the Board's packets are copies ofthe definitions of a tavern license verses an optional premise license and the requirements for both. Ms. Roach explained as a stand alone optional premise it must be used for recreational purposes only. She stated food service is limited. She spoke to the special use permits that are all recreational. They basically will serve lunch to the rafters. She stated the applicant would have to notify the County of the dates of operation and when the premises will be in use. Shane Beaty, applicant, was present for the hearing. Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Beaty is in agreement with Ms. Roach's recommendation and if he understands the consequences. Mr. Beaty responded affirmatively. Chairman Stone asked what actions have taken place thus far. Ms. Roach reiterated they have approved the neighborhood and the needs of that neighborhood. Chairman Stone asked if at this point in time if there is any legal concern for approval. Renee Black responded she has reviewed this change with Ms. Roach and the plan for the location has not changed. She believes that this is more restrictive and actually a better plan. Ms. Roach explained on the map the kitchen is in the building, the seating area is not enclosed. She stated in time they may come in for a modification and attempt to license the entire property. Chairman Stone asked if at this point in time they intend to enclose the kitchen. Mr. Beaty explained there would be a painted concrete slab with a deck that would have a railing all the way around with a north and south entrance. The kitchen is enclosed, the slab is not. Maybe in the fall they will enclose the slab. Chairman Stone asked about having two exits/entrances and if it is a manageable plan. Ms. Roach stated she thinks it is manageable and they know the consequences. She stated if they license the whole property, that will exclude the licenses that are already there. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the location of the existing wall and if they will have a bar on the slab. Mr. Beaty responded yes. They will have a bar on wheels that they can secure in the kitchen wen not open. 7 04-17-2000 Commissioner Gallagher asked about hours of operation. Mr. Beaty stated it will basically be a lunch business for now. If there is a need or desire for breakfast they will change their hours to accommodate that. They are trying to establish a lunch business for the rafters. He stated in the evenings they don't intend on staying open much after 9:00 or 10:00 if they are open at all. Commissioner Gallagher questioned definition #22 of optional premise meaning it is located on or adjacent to a hotel or restaurant. Ms. Roach explained there are two different types, one a stand alone which is what they are doing here and one that is connected with a hotel or restaurant. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve a new optional premise license for The Boaters Bar LLC, dba/The Boaters Bar. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00009, Adams Rib Ranch PUD Sketch Plan Extension Keith Montag, Director of Community Development of Community Development, presented file number PDS-00009, Adams Rib Ranch PUD Sketch Plan Extension. He stated on April 13, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 98-50 reflecting approval of a Sketch Plan for Adam's Rib Ranch (with 23 conditions). The approved Sketch Plan generally consists of 1569 acres containing four golf courses (two 18-hole and two 9-hole); two clubhouse sites; a 120 unit hotel with athletic facilities; 125,000 square feet of commercial space; 1320 residential units; a school/fire and ambulance/park and recreation parcel; and open space. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations allows for extension of Sketch Plans (both PUD and Subdivision) by the Board of County Commissioners, not to exceed two years in length, if the applicant can demonstrate the following (Findings): 1. Failure to obtain approval ofthe Preliminary Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) was beyond the applicant's control. 2. The Sketch Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) is not speculative in nature 3. The Sketch Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) still complies with these Land Use Regulations and the Master Plan. 4. There is reasonable likelihood the Preliminary Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) will be developed in the next two (2) years. The Applicant has submitted a letter (dated February 22,2000) which requests an extension of PDS-00009 and explains their position and justification regarding the Sketch Plan extension. Public Notice: This request for Sketch Plan extension has been published in the Official County Newspaper (Eagle County Enterprise) and adjacent property owners notified pursuant to Section 5-210 E. Notice of Public Hearings. Discussion of Findin2s: The Board must consider and take action on this request based on the four Findings as listed: 1. Failure to obtain approval of the Preliminary Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) was beyond the applicant's control. The applicant has stated in their letter that an attempt has been made over the past two years to work with and through the Town of Eagle for land use approval as well as obtaining water and sewer services. This has not been accomplished and therefore, the applicant wishes to move forward with the 8 04-17-2000 Ranch development by submitting a Preliminary Plan to Eagle County. 2. The Sketch Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) is not speculative in nature. The applicant states in their letter they are "very much anticipating developing this project". 3. The Sketch Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) still complies with these Land Use Regulations and the Master Plan. The Sketch Plan, based on the findings made by the Board of County Commissioners in Resolution 98-50, remains in compliance with all applicable master plans for this geographic area. In addition, the approved Sketch Plan remains in general compliance with the Sketch Plan Land Use Regulations (both PUD and Subdivision). 4. There is reasonable likelihood the Preliminary Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) will be developed in the next two (2) years. The applicant states in their letter they "will be submitting the Preliminary Plan for this PUD within the next year". It should be noted that in addition to the Preliminary Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) needing approval, a 1041 Application, a Service Plan (Special District), and a Zone Change will need to be submitted, reviewed and approved and a subsequent Final Plates) approved prior to development occurring. Mr. Montag stated staff has reviewed the necessary findings and has also read the applicant's letter. Based on our review, staff suggests that the absence of a Preliminary Plan (for both PUD and Subdivision) was not beyond the applicant's control. An application could have been prepared and ultimately filed within the two (2) year time frame. Staff therefore recommends this request be denied. However, they would point out to the applicant Section 5 -210.1. Consolidation, ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations which offers the applicant an opportunity to submit a request for a "consolidated" Sketch and Preliminary Plan application for the Ranch proposal. Randy Cloid, representing Adams Rib, read a letter from Fred Kummer as follows: "We disagree with the Community Development Director's recommendation for denial of our Adams Rib Ranch PUD Sketch Plan extension. We did not prepare and submit our Preliminary to Eagle County during the time we were pursuing, per Bud Gates' instruction, an effort to work out an agreement with the Town of Eagle for this development. However, we were not able to accomplish this agreement during the two-year process with the Town. We firmly believe that it was beyond our control to submit a Preliminary Plan to Eagle County and that we are deserving of an extension, however, we hereby withdraw our Adams's Rib Ranch PUD File No. PDS-00009. As per the Community Development Director's recommendation and permission, we will resubmit this Sketch Plan and the Preliminary Plan, simultaneously, as a consolidated plan per Eagle County Land Use Regulations section 5-210.1, on May 16,2000. Signed Fred S. Kummer." Chairman Stone asked if the Board accepts the withdrawal. The Board concurred this application has been withdrawn. Mr. Fritze stated the Board will accept the withdrawal and there will be no decision on the extension request. He stated when the application is filed they will look at the issues. Chairman Stone thanked the applicant and related the Board looks forward to a consolidated application. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the applicant submitting a combined application. Mr. Fritze stated the Director of Community Development has recommended the applicant combine those applications. Commissioner Phillips stated the Board has heard the sketch plan and recognize that plan will not change. She questions this extension request being filed before the application expired. She stated the planning staff apparently do not agree that if the request is filed before the application expires, it is still under consideration. She wonders if the applicant files a request before the application expires why 9 04-17-2000 would the extension request not be considered. Mr. Montag stated the applicant did comply with the time frame requirements of the regulations. They requested an extension prior to the application expiring. He stated the Regulations do allow for consideration to occur if the letter has been filed. Commissioner Phillips stated then the recommendation for denial is solely because staff believes the applicant could have moved forward. Mr. Montag answered yes. Commissioner Phillips stated she believes most applicants do not file two plans at one time but rather one plan at a time. Chairman Stone stated he does not believe this withdrawal will slow the applicant down as they will have to submit a preliminary plan anyway. He stated it was partially Eagle County's fault that the applicant went back to the Town of Eagle to try and work out some details. Commissioner Phillips stated the County Attorney believes the applicant should start with a new plan and she concurs. PDS-00020, Abrams PUD Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDS-00020, Abrams PUD. He stated the proposed PUD which would subdivide a 14.85 acre parcel and create two residential lots of 5.24 acres and 9.86 acres, respectively. Permitted uses would include a primary and a secondary residential unit on each lot. Water would be provided by existing taps from the Town of Eagle; sewage disposal would be by ISDS. Access within the site would be by way of a driveway easement. No common areas or common open space is proposed. Mr. Forinash stated the referral responses are a part of the record. They are as follows: Eagle County Engineer · Access to the northern building site is not shown. · Width and grade of the proposed driveway not provided. · An access easement will be required across the lot between the site and Brush Creek Road. · Topographic map with 2 foot contours has not been provided. · Bearings and distances on the site plan do not match those of the Amended Final Plat. · Existing easements are not properly referenced. · The size of the site is not consistent with the sum of the proposed individual lots. Colorado State Forest Service · Vegetation is generally pastureland. Hazards are generally low. · No excessive topographic features exist. · Single access to the site may create congestion in the event of a wildfire. · Adequate water supply for wild land fire fighting is available. · A vehicle turn-around is advisable at the end of the driveway. · Defensible space around each structure is recommended. Colorado Geological Survey · Applicant's geologic report is generally accurate. · Soils ofthe type on the site are typically sensitive to water. · Presence of sinkholes suggests that on-going compaction of soils may be occurring. · Sub grade materials for footings should be uniform. · Shallow water table may be a problem for septic systems, but can be overcome. Additional Referral Aeencies: Eagle County Assessor, Environmental Health; Colorado Division of Wildlife; Greater Eagle 10 04-17-2000 Fire Protection District; Holy Cross Electric; Town of Eagle. Mr. Forinash stated the principal points of discussion by the Planning Commission included the following: 1. Proposed status of water rights. 2. Primary and secondary units: attached or detached? able to be deeded separately? 3. Ownership of3.0 acre triangle between site and Brush Creek Road. (County Attorney advises that it is owned by Eagle County.) 4. Purpose, location and vintage of existing foundation in northwest corner. 5. Justification for PUD process. 6. Precedent which would be established for other properties in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Forinash stated generally the application is consistent with the Master Plan and the FLUM in the sense it is compatible with surrounding uses. It represents a spatial pattern that is efficient and suitable for additional development. He stated there are some areas of inconsistencies which deal with the lack of a common recreation and open space and an increase in density in an area that is not contiguous with the existing community center. This is a provision of the Eagle Area Community Plan. There are a number of standards that have to be met. Staff believes, given the nature of the site and the nature of the development that is proposed, it appears the requirements of the Land Use Regulations can be met. The applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the Regulations at Preliminary Plan. The most significant issue is the use of a PUD as a means of re-zoning and re-subdividing this particular site. This designation should not be granted solely to grant variances. Tom Boni, Knight Planning, gave background relating to the property. He stated the design approach is very well suited to this area. He stated this property is approximately 6 miles from this building but only 2 to 3 miles from the Town boundary. Originally the road formed the boundary of the property then a new alignment for Brush Creek Road was achieved. He stated there was some confusion on who the owner ofthe adjacent property was. He stated after his research and advice from County Attorney, this property was determined to belong to the County. He stated on the southern property there are a number of large out buildings. On the north side of the property there is a foundation that was placed there 15 years ago and has been undeveloped. He stated the purpose of this application is to create two building envelopes. He stated the purpose of locating the homesite up against the hill is to place the building up against a terrace and utilize the current foundation. He stated there is a 15 to 24 foot change in elevation. By placing the new home at this location it will perserve the view corridor for the Brush Creek Valley. The second home is located surrounding the existing home. He stated there are some trees to the north which will be protected. Mr. Boni handed out a letter indicating how the applicant believes they are meeting the criteria ofthe Land Use Regulations. He stated the letter is dated April 14, 2000 and addressed to Joe Forinash, identifying four points that justify the PUD approach. This approach permits a more efficient land use pattern in allowing for one additional homesite to be created on fifteen acres. The building envelope encompasses the existing foundation located on the northwestern corner of the property. He stated there are two different aspects of this statement. It looks at the land and preserves the rural nature of the property by locating the building envelopes in a way that respects the topography and the agricultural use of the property. He stated the FLUM identifies the area for country side development. He stated they were looking for a development pattern that makes sense and they believe this is the way to go. He stated this property has been used for agriculture, primarily horses. OK for densities and two acre zoning. He stated six to seven acres per unit is in keeping with the surrounding zoning. He stated conventional zoning would not achieve the goal of the surrounding area. He stated they will be protecting the trees and go along with the landscaping requirements in the Master Plan. Mr. Boni reviewed the conditions placed on the plan by the Planning Commission. He stated the first condition is a recommended standard. In this case where they have more acreage, of which 92% will remain open, the function of this condition is being met in the plan. 11 04-17-2000 Mr. Forinash stated the required open space would be approximately 3 and Y2 acres. Mr. Boni stated they do not have any objections to conditions 2 and 3. He questioned condition number 4, however with regard to a 45 foot radius turn around at the end of a common driveway. He suggested a turn around would be better served in a hammer head format. He stated condition number 5 & 6 they have no problems with. Condition number 7 has been provided for in the sketch plan. Chairman Stone stated he believes the suggested conditions are valid. It should not be left to the applicant to decide where the conditions apply. He stated he would like to go with the conditions as stated. Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees with Chairman Stone. He stated he is not convinced that condition number seven has been met. He questioned if the hammer head would be satisfactory for the fire department. He stated it seems this application to be a mis-use of the PUD process. Commissioner Phillips questioned who the applicants are. Mr. Boni stated the applicant is represented by Steve Osterfoss. Commissioner Phillips asked who is the owner of the property. Mr. Boni stated Ted Seiple's property is not involved with this subdivision. He stated this property was owned by the Abrams family and is now owned by the Abrams Estate. Chairman Stone stated Mr. Seiple's property was at one time a part ofthis subdivision. Commissioner Phillips stated an entire cul-de-sac for two home sites is extreme. The open space needs to be looked up. Chairman Stone asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Mr. Boni asked if the Commissioners were looking for a common parcel in addition to the two lots. Chairman Stone stated that is correct. He stated if this is a PUD application the applicant should be held to the regulations of the PUD process. He suggested if the property is currently owned by Eagle County maybe that is the place to put the open space. He stated at the next stage they can discuss the cul-de-sac and the hammer head. Commissioner Gallagher agreed if they are calling it a PUD they will jump through the hoops. Mr. Forinash reviewed staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch PUD: FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1) The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE 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" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the 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. However, variations of these dimensional limitations MAY be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It has been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD CAN comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, 12 04-17-2000 Landscaping and Illumination Standards. However, the Conceptual Landscape Plan DOES NOT adequately demonstrate what areas will be disturbed and how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved, replaced or the areas otherwise re-vegetated. FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD SHALL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided 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. However, such demonstration MA Y be provided at application for Preliminary Plan approval. FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles. (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS NOT consistent with the Master Plan, although it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Areas of non-conformance are related to (1) the lack of common recreation and open space, (2) an increase in density and (3) the location of the proposed development away from an established community center. FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT applicable for this development. FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD DOES NOT comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; Improvements required; Continuing use and maintenance; or Organization. FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) The PUD DOES NOT fully demonstrate that 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, have been considered. However, that MAY be demonstrated at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) The PUD IS NOT consistent with the Master Plan, although it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Areas of non-conformance are related to (1) the lack of common recreation and open space, (2) an increase in density, and (3) the location ofthe proposed development away from an 13 04-17-2000 established community center. FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. However, it appears that the Applicant MAY be able to meet the applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shalf Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a 'lleapfrogH pattern of development. FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5) The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. FINDING: PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant has submitted a PUD guide that DOES demonstrate that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. However, the Applicant HAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the purposes of PUD zoning are being served by the proposed development. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PDS- 00020, incorporating the findings, and with the following conditions: 1. The proposed PUD be modified to provide the minimum amount of common recreation and open space recommended in Section 5-240.F.3.e (12), Common Recreation and Open Space, of the Land Use Regulations. 2. The Applicant demonstrate the manner in which 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, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. 3. The application for Preliminary Plan approval incorporate the recommendations ofHP Geotech and the Colorado Geological Society, including they way they relate to foundation footings and septic systems. 4. The application for Preliminary Plan approval incorporate the recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service, specifically as they relate to wildfire protection. 5. Applicant be required to provide evidence, at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval, of adequate easement or other access to this site from Brush Creek Road across any third party's property, sufficient to permit the Applicant to satisfy all of the requirements of the Land Use Regulations regarding access to Brush Creek Road. 6. The Applicant demonstrate efforts to successfully reach an understanding with the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority regarding alignment and financial commitments for a bike path segment along and in the vicinity of Brush Creek Road. 7. In order to justify the use of PUD zoning for this development, the Applicant modify the proposed development sufficiently, (a) by creating a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations, or (b) by making more creative use of any of the performance standards, to demonstrate clearly that the purposes of PUD zoning for this site are being satisfied. 14 04-17-2000 Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00021 Blue Ridge PUD Amendment Joseph Forinash presented file number PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD Amendment. He stated on November 22, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners entertained this application after hearing and recommendation by the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission. At that hearing, the Board determined that there was quite obviously a large number of disagreements between the applicant and staff. The Board instructed staff and the applicant to attempt to resolve those issues and subsequently tabled the application until December 13, 1999. Staff and the applicant's representative met on November 29, 1999 at which time little progress was made. However, the applicant did propose to eliminate one 6-unit building in the northwest corner of the project after staff pointed out that the project didn't even meet minimum parking standards. On December 13, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners remanded this proposal back to the Planning Commission as it was determined that the proposed reduction in density represented a "Substantial Change," as defined in the Land Use Regulations, and that the Board was unable to proceed without a review and recommendation by the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission. This is an amendment to the Blue Ridge Planned Unit Development located in the EI Jebel area. The purposes of this amendment are: 1) to remove all commercial uses from the existing PUD Preliminary Plan; and 2) to provide a 115 mixed residential units consisting of2 and 3 bedroom town homes and condominiums. The anticipated prices for these units range from $150,000 to $250,000. Seventy-four (74) condominiums are proposed at 1,100 square feet each. A total of forty-one (41) town home units are proposed; 9 two-bedroom units at 1200 square feet, 8 two-bedroom units at 1400 square feet, 9 three-bedroom units at 1600 square feet, 5 three-bedroom units at 1800 square feet and 10 three- bedroom units at 2350 square feet. The project also proposes the dedication of approximately 3.56 acres of open space which will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian pathways. Water and sewer service is to be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Roadways are proposed to be either dedicated to the County (Blue Ridge Lane) or will be maintained under private ownership by the Homeowner's Association. The Blue Ridge Planned Unit Development was originally approved in April, 1994 which included a mix of residential and commercial (including a motel) uses. In 1996, an amendment to the Preliminary Plan was approved allowing for phasing of access (Blue Ridge Lane) through the adjacent parcel (Kodiak Park). A two-year extension of the Preliminary Plan approval was also granted at that time. In April of 1998, the Board approved another extension ofthe Preliminary Plan to April 30, 2001. Mr. Forinash stated the referral responses are of record. They are as follows: Engineering - Need detailed traffic analysis. - Application must identify road classifications. - Blue Ridge Lane does not meet the Geometric Standards for Suburban Residential Collector. - Application must identify ultimate ownership and maintenance for roadways. - Provide evidence that Blue Ridge Lane will line up with connection to Kodiak Park. - Provide pavement marking, traffic sign and street sign plan. - Off street parking and loading requirements have not been met. - Information regarding El Jebel Road left turn lane should also include evidence that this intersection will meet the requirements of the Colorado State Highway Access Code. - Rights-of-way which are anticipated along EI Jebel Road and along Hwy. 82 to allow for proposed construction / public improvements should be shown on plat / plans. - Cost of right-of-way acquisition should be included in cost estimates. 15 04-17-2000 - Provide specifications for all construction. - Provide calculations used in design of all drainage facilities. - Provide information on maintenance measures related to B.M.P. - Provide further information on detention ponds / storm water flows. - Provide evidence that drainage plan will meet requirements of ECLURs. - Provide construction details for irrigation ditch piping. - Show easement for water line through the Lane property. - Provide documentation of easement across Crawford property (per agreement submitted)or updated agreement between Tuckers and Crawfords. - Provide design calculations and construction details for all proposed temporary sedimentation basins. _ Provide Erosion and Sediment Control Plan addressing all requirements of Section 4-660. - Erosion Control Plan must show all temporary grading directing water flow to detention basins. - Phasing Plan must be included in Erosion Control Plan. - Provide details for Cross Pan Detail. - Verify location and elevation of sanitary sewer stub out. Sanitary sewer design should be sent to CDOT for review. - Question on direction of storm water outflow at station 14+00. - Comments on intersection of Blue Ridge Land and Blue Ridge Drive (Cedar Hill Drive???) - Must demonstrate compliance with Section 4-620.J.5. regarding intersection grade. - Provide curb return designs and plans. - Flatten the grade at the intersection of Blue Ridge Drive (Cedar Ridge Drive???) and Blue Ridge Run (Cedar Hill Court???) to 3%. 2. Environmental Health - Open space must demonstrate that it meets the intent and standards of Section 5-240. Provide evidence of open space requirements / compliance as it relates to PUD Agreement requirements. - Incorporate site specific geologic design recommendations, as proposed by Applicants consulting engineer, as conditions of approval. - Must provide assessment of atmospheric impacts, prepared by a qualified professional and in sufficient detail, prior to moving forward. Impacts listed only address short-term / temporary effects. 3. ECO - Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority - Difficult to discern which trails and sidewalks are unpaved or paved, and the widths of each type of trail. - Recommend that all paths serving private street residential areas be paved and at least 8' wide (6' wide as an absolute minimum, only per variation authorized by BoCC.) - Paths in open space should be compacted but not paved. - Core trail should be 10' wide. - Need revised site plan showing all details of types and locations of all proposed paths and trails. - All trails need to be collateralized. - Trail system is not shown on the grading plan. This information as well as construction specifications should be incorporated into grading plans. - Maintenance of trails needs to be addressed. 4. Colorado State Geological Survey - Site visit performed on August 26, 1999 to confirm site conditions. - Agree with Hepworth-Pawlak's conclusions and recommendations. - If recommendations are incorporated into development plan, the site can be successfully developed as proposed. - Slush-grouting should be mandatory component of foundation design. 16 04-17-2000 5. Town of Basalt (September 2,1999) - Density as it relates to the Town of Basalt's Master Plan Future Land Use Map will be reviewed in detail - Potential visual and environmental impacts associated with the grading and development (positioning and massing of buildings) proposed is a significant concern. - Issues of "community character" and "neighborhood topology" as outlined in the Town of Basalt Master Plan will be considered. - This project will most likely raise concerns regarding open space and trails, community facilities, wildlife protection, and affordable housing.- - The Town of Basalt Master Plan's Transportation Section and Street Plan should be carefully considered in the review of this proposal. October 5,1999 - Project is too dense. - Project has a negative impact on the natural environment: - Slope and removal of natural vegetation. - Negative impact on wildlife. - Basalt Master Plan calls for a manufactured home overlay on this site. - Negative impact on view plains. - Site planning not consistent with the Basalt master Plan goals: - Bicycle path location crossing busy road. - Accessability of open space to residents. - Items missing from proposal identified by Basalt Master Plan: - Smaller massing of buildings; - Retain existing vegetation; - Parking location; - Architectural treatment; - Shared common areas; - Small town scale at street level; - Incorporate connections to transit & open space. 6. Basalt Rural Fire Protection District - Property is still served by this district, not the "non-existent" EI Jebel Fire Protection District as reported by the Applicant. - What will maximum height of buildings be from the closest access point of apparatus? - Shape of intersection between the west end of Cedar Hill Court (Blue Ridge Run???) and Cedar Ridge Drive (Blue Ridge Drive???) may cause problems / may not allow for apparatus to make turn. Need more detailed drawings before accepting it. May need to use drive-over curbs. - Unable to discern width of road in areas where parking is allowed along road; 24' of clear roadway needed. - Request that County apply Uniform Fire Code provisions recently adopted by the Fire District. Provisions would require fire protection sprinklers in any building with gross floor area over 5,000 square feet and in multi-family buildings that have more than 4 units. 7. RFRHA - Corridor Investment Study considers mainline bus and rail system at either the intersection of Hwy. 82 and EI Jebel Road or at Hwy. 82 and Willits Lane, within 1/4 to yz- mile from Blue Ridge. 8. RFT A - Have assessed impact on transit stops, potential transit trip demand, number of additional transit busses required to serve additional trips, and the additional annual subsidy required to operate service to meet demands. - Total annual costs (minus revenues from fares) = $17,907.00 17 04-17-2000 - Park-and-Ride demand = 11 spaces. - Park-and-Ride construction costs for surface parking (10 spaces) = $55,000.00 - Park-and-Ride annual maintenance costs (10 spaces) = $2,681.00 - RFT A is interested in working with the developer to create a transit oriented project; possibly to create Transit Oriented Development Pass Program. - RFT A is interested in securing / receiving housing units as part of the transit mitigation solution. 9. Roaring Fork School District RE-l - Are requesting cash-in-lieu of fees. - Request that revisions to current land dedication formula be completed prior to approval on this PUD Amendment. Specifically, the per acre land values should be updated. - If not, the developer should agree to contribute a fee based on the per acre market value. 10. Additional Referral agencies: - Surveyor, Eagle County Animal Control, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Housing Division, Rural Resort Region - Garfield and Pitkin Counties, and the Mid-Valley Metro District. Mr. Forinash stated the principal points of discussion and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission included the following: 19. Sufficiency of information provided for this application. 20. Proposed density compared to that reflected in Mid Valley Community Master Plan. 21. Environmental impacts. 22. Topography on the site; amount of dirt moving required for the proposed development; required site disturbance. 23. Location of the proposed bike path. 24. Traffic impacts on US Highway 82 and El Jebel Road. 25. Coordination of access continuity through the proposed Kodiak Park development to the south east. 26. Status of engineering concerns and variances required. 27. Usability of proposed open space. The applicant submitted a request (dated March 6, 2000) for a variance from the Road Improvement Standards of the Land Use Regulations. The County Engineer determined that the application was incomplete (see letter, John Vengrin to Isom & Associates, dated March 9, 2000). No further information has been received, nor subsequent action taken with respect to the request for the varIance. The Planning Commission revised the finding under Section 5-240.F.3.e(4), Off-Street Parking and Loading to be favorable. Staff concurs with the revised finding. The complete set of findings of staff and the Planning Commission are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.A.1.F.3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development, Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) [-] The modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan are NOT consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit development. (2) [-] The modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan DOES 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. (3) [+] The modification, removal, or release ofthe provisions ofthe plan is NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any [one] person. Pursuant to Section 5-240.F .3.e, Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for PUD, Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 18 04-17-2000 (1) Unified ownership or control. The title to all land that is part ofthe PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. (2) Uses. Uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300 or Table 3-320 for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. The uses proposed ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed within the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor the PUD Amendment. (3) Dimensional limitations. The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD are NOT those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations." However, the dimensional limitations ARE those specified for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor the PUD Amendment. (4) Off-Street Parking and Loading. It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. (NOTE: This finding was revised by the Planning Commission to be favorable; staff concurs.) (5) Landscaping. Landscaping provided in the PUD does NOT comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. (6) Signs. The PUD sign standards ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. (7) Adequate Facilities. The applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided with adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply; and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The applicant has NOT demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided with adequate fire protection and roads. (8) Improvements. It has NOT been demonstrated that the improvement standards applicable to the development are as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards; or that the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. It has NOT been demonstrated that there is safe, efficient access to all areas of the proposed development. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways do NOT form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian accesses with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. It has NOT been demonstrated that the roadways are designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. (d) Principal Access Points. The principal vehicular access point is NOT designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. (e) Snow Storage. Plans have NOT been provided showing adequate areas for snow storage (9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. The development proposed for the PUD is NOT compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. (10) Consistency with Master Plan. The PUD is NOT consistent with the Master Plans, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). (11) Phasing. The PUD DOES include a phasing plan for the development. (12) Common Recreational and Open Space. The PUD does NOT comply with the following common recreation and open space standards: 1. Minimum Area.: Recommended "minimum open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public" (as defined) IS 25% and the PUD provides the minimum common and usable open space land. 2. Areas That Do Not Count as Open Space. Areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) 19 04-17-2000 percent shall NOT count toward usable open space. 3. Areas That County as Open Space. The majority of the open space lands ARE NOT conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. 4. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities ARE shown and shall be constructed and fully improved according the development schedule established for each development phase. 5. Continuing Use and Maintenance. It HAS been ensured that all privately owned open space shall continue to conform to its intended use and it HAS been demonstrated that restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance. 6. Organization. Adequate provisions for organizational controls of maintenance, administration, operation, and insurance ARE provided. (13) Natural Resources. The PUD has NOT considered the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendation received by responding referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Staff is recommending denial as they believe the plan fails to conform with key provisions of the Master Plan and fails to satisfy the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. He stated with respect to the Master Plan, some of the significant areas of non-conformance is the proposal does not avoid critical wildlife habitat, including severe winter range for elk and mule deer winter concentration area. This proposal does not mitigate impacts to these areas. It does not provide the minimum of 25% usuable open space, the slope of the open space is the reason. This proposal would permit building heights in excess of 40 feet, which would cause adverse impacts on visual quality. He stated this proposal does not respect the 200 foot separation between buildings from Highway 82 and includes much higher density than is common for this area. Mr. Forinash stated there is also no provision for affordable housing. He continued to review the concerns with this proposal. Steve Isom, Isom & Associates stated they have been working with staff for a year and they have submitted all information requested by staff. He handed out a letter to the Board dated December 6, 1999 and revised April 17, 2000. Mr. Isom stated the Tuckers are not here as of yet as he told them wrong time. Mr. Isom stated the map he is showing is the master plan for the overall El Jebel area. He referred to a second map showing the extension of Willits Lane through Kodiak Park and tying up with El Jebel Road. He stated the project is approved for preliminary plan, the eighty room hotel, 18,000 square feet of commercial in two buildings and sixty residential units. He stated this is currently an approved preliminary plan. He stated since 1986, the character has changed substantially with the commercial in and near City Market. He stated about a year ago they started meeting with Community Development and shared their concerns. They have come back with a changed project of 115 residential units. They went from having a very commercial street to a modified collector road with service to the residential from the back side of the development. The traffic report said they didn't really need this, but they agreed to allocate the space. In deliberation with the County and staff there was no concern with the mix housing and the townhouse units on the upper bench. He showed a character sketch showing the two story units in front and three up above, preserving the upper part for park and residential amenities with bike path and ponds. He stated this is where the project stands today. He spoke to the concern with the County Engineer on the traffic. They took the traffic study done last year and with this development and the increased use ofEl Jebel Road there were changes made to the entrance into El Jebel Road and the intersection. As part of their on going meetings with staff everything was resolved with Environmental Health. They have agreed to cash-in-lieu of fees for the School District. They have hired a landscape architect which they understood was acceptable to staff previously. He thought everything else had been addressed. The one concern that came out in their meetings with John Vengrin, they agreed to provide a urban collector road with a difference of two twelve foot widths with curb and 20 04-17-2000 . gutter. Their attempt was to preserve the irrigation ditches and then connect to Crawfords. He stated they have revised the plan taking out six units. He stated the Planning Commission's major contention was density. They have stayed with the same square footage. They are about eleven units per acre. Yancie Necol, with Sopris Engineering, spoke to the roads and the classification ofthe roads. He stated he understood they were still asking a variance on Cedar Ridge Drive with the upper roads being private. He thought they were in compliance. He spoke to the minor variances. He spoke to approval form the Fire District and the roads are capable of handling emergency vehicles. He understands they are in compliance but will go into greater detail. Chairman Stone asked for public input. There was none. Commissioner Phillips asked if three Planning Commission members are a quorum. Mr. Forinash stated it was determined by Renee Black that it was enough. Mr. Isom stated there was a new Planning Commission member who had not heard the file so the applicant bought the new member up to speed. Mr. Loeffler stated it is his understanding that three was adequate. Chairman Sone asked if Commissioner Gallagher has specific questions. He stated there seems to be some apparent disagreement between Mr. Isom and staff. Chairman Stone stated in order for the Board to move forward they must find the applicant in compliance with the findings. Pursuant to Section 5-240.A.1.F.3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development, Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) The modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan are NOT consistent with the efficient development and preservation ofthe entire Planned Unit development. Mr. Forinash stated he is not completely sure of the reasoning behind this. Chairman Stone stated if staff is going to make assertions they must be able to back them up. If staff is unable to support them, then he will error on the side of the applicant. He stated if they don't go through the appropriate process, it may be litigated at a later date. Mr. Isom stated even though the Master Plan shows the use as being appropriate, the main concept of having City Market and commercial across the road, it was always designated as a major urban area. It has been found previously that it is the appropriate use. Chairman Stone stated there is nothing wrong with being flexible and they must be open in looking at the changing face of the County. There is one of two ways to look at this, either by strict interpretation or if in general they find it to be a better use of the land. He stated he is wrestling with what path to take. He asked Mr. Loeffler which of the standards, guidelines, requirements do they have to address to move forward with the file. Mr. Loeffler stated each of these have to be addressed. Chairman Stone asked if he is saying they have to find some way of changing all the negatives to positives to move forward. Mr. Loeffler stated yes they have to have a positive finding on each of these. He stated there should have been a variation request as well. Mr. Forinash stated that was requested and has not been submitted. Mr. Loeffler stated without the variation they must find it positive or that the applicant explain how the negative can be found as a positive. Mr. Isom was asked to do that and make specific requirements. Mr. Isom stated in this finding he has stated they are consistent with the Mid Valley Sub Area Master Plan and that the provision of the plan does not adversely effect the abutting property. He stated the adjacent development is the Short Stop Bar, the mixed use buildings and the Texaco. City Market is across the street and the Board has recently approved a hotel across the street. Mr. Forinash stated those are amendments to the PUD plan and are not consistent with the 21 04-17-2000 development and the entire PUD. He stated the net impact on the surrounding area is adverse and that is detailed in staffs report. Commissioner Phillips stated if you make these positive, there must be a reason. Mr. Isom stated all the adjacent properties do make it consistent. Chairman Stone asked if Commissioner Phillips is satisfied with the answers for numbers 1 and 2. Commissioner Phillips responded affirmatively. Mr. Isom stated on number 4 they have deleted the six units and it is not an issue. On number 5 they have submitted a detailed landscaping plan and answered all requirements. Commissioner Phillips asked if that was submitted after this application. Mr. Forinash stated it is his determination that all of the requirements of the Land Use Regulations were not in compliance. Mr. Isom spoke to number 7 saying they have met with the Fire Department and they were asked to widen the turning radius which they have done. Mr. Nichol stated it meets all the minimum requirements and he is not sure why the comment is as such. Mr. Isom stated he thought they met with these requirements. Mr. Forinash stated he does not believe the Engineer is convinced that all the documentation is in place. Mr. 180m asked if John Vengrin is available. Chairman Stone suggested they discuss those all together. Mr. Isom stated on number 9, they felt the surrounding land uses adjacent and across the street were adequate proof of compatibility for high density. Chairman Stone asked for an explanation as to why it is not compatible. Mr. Forinash stated the Master Plan for the area recommends a lesser density of 4 to 6 units per acre. Mr. Isom stated the PUD allows for up to 12 units per acre. He stated with the commercial taken out, they increased the density to multifamily density. Chairman Stone returned to item number 7 and the adequate fire protection and roads. John Vengrin, Engineering Department, stated he didn't have any comments to fire protection. If there is a letter from the Fire Department in agreement he will defer to that. Mr. Loeffler stated it was not just fire protection but the roads. Mr. Vengrin stated the applicant has applied for a variance and they are still working on that. He stated when he last saw that application it was not in compliance. Chairman Stone stated the application that Mr. Vengrin is referring to was Cordillera and the defined presentation on the variances. The applicant must show a need for those. He asked if they must make the determination at this point in time. Mr. Loeffler stated he recollects they have been through a number of these and this is the point at which the variation has to be granted to satisfy and meet a standard on which the Board must make a positive finding. Mr. Isom stated they applied for a variance on Blue Ridge Lane and cross referenced the documents and identified the sections on which they are requesting the variance going from 12 foot lanes to 14 foot lanes with curb and gutter with an attached bicycle path. Mr. Isom stated they were looking for a variance from EI Jebel Road which they submitted last week. It did not include the bike path which goes through Crawfords property. He stated they did not feel a variance was needed for all of the interior roads. These are not County Roads and they should not be held to that County standard. It is a driveway, which is private and maintained by the homeowners. Chairman Stone asked about the roads leading to the driveways. Mr. Isom referred again to the curb and gutter. 22 04-17 -2000 Mr. Vengrin stated what they try to do with the variance request is determine it meets the standard or does it need a variance. He stated he doesn't believe they are there yet. He stated the Cedar Ridge Drive that loops back on itself, staff believes if it serves more than three private units it should meet the road standards whether public or private. It would be difficult for the County to take it over at a later date. Chairman Stone stated in the Land Use Regulations if it serves more than three homes it is a road and not a driveway. Mr. Nichol stated it is more of a parking lot than a drive. They allowed the looser part to be a parking lot and therefore didn't see the need for a variance. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the standards are designed for adequacy and safety. Mr. Vengrin answered yes. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the roadway to the recreation area. Mr. Isom stated those are paths, not roads. Commissioner Phillips stated rather than suffering through this and the fact there are a lot of minuses, she doesn't see how the Board can approve this without the applicant working with staff. She asked Mr. Forinash if he has time to review this with the applicant to bring it to positives. She stated landscaping is totally unacceptable to have a negative. Mr. Isom stated they are very surprised to see this as Mr. Hunn had approved it before he left. Commissioner Phillips suggested they will either have to deny this or table it so that they can come to agreement. She believes it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and with the approval of the file next door. She stated she would like to look at less density and that ten acres is more appropriate. Mr. Isom stated they have more than twelve acres. Commissioner Phillips stated they are not meeting the open space requirement. Mr. Isom stated they are. Commissioner Phillips stated Mr. Forinash is going to have to find the time to meet with the applicant and then bring it back to the Board. Mr. Forinash stated he could arrange his schedule. Chairman Stone asked if they can table it or hopes the applicant will request a tabling. Mr. Loeffler stated forty days is the maximum number of days. Mr. Forinash stated if they go through the variance process they will have to go through the Planning Commission. Mr. Isom stated they would request a tabling for two weeks and meet with Mr. Forinash in the next few days. Mr. Forinash stated in order to do this they will have to have ample time. Mr. Isom stated they can meet with Mr. Forinash tomorrow. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table file PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD Amendment, to May 1, 2000, at the applicants request. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00056 Red Mountain Ranch Gravel Pit Jean Garren, Planner, presented file number ZS-00056, Red Mountain Ranch Gravel Pit. She spoke to the information she received today and the sign up sheet that was passed around. Some of the members of the public asked their names be removed from the list for speaking. She stated back in 1982 parcels G and I were permitted for mining with conditions on the permit, approval by the MLRB for the applicants reclamation plan, annual review and compliance with the state access code. She spoke to parcel G permit and the conditions placed on it. She stated those did not carry forward to planning parcel 1. She stated many ofthe objections to the current permit are based on the 23 04-17-2000 problems they have with parcel I and the conditions are a result of the situation on that parcel. She stated planning parcel J is the furthest to the east. Staff recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Commission recommended some changes and approved the application 5 to O. The Planning Commission held to the position of Eagle County that extraction should take place before development. Some ofthe information just received today deserves consideration regarding ground water. When staff reviewed the permit they had no information about any development on the south side of the Eagle River. It is a Senate Bill 35 subdivision and has not been reviewed. She believes staffwould continue to make recommendation for approval with conditions. This is a five year permit with the first three years for extraction, the fourth year for sales and by the end of the fifth year reclamation. If the permit were for a longer duration, staff would not be making the same recommendation. She stated the applicant proposes water solely from Eagle Park Reservoir. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, was present with Dick Stevenson, Claude Gerard and Ed Olcheski, Water Attorney. He stated this is a continuation ofthe mining operations in the Eagle River Valley east of Eagle. He stated they have to get the gravel where the gravel is. This is the last property owned by this property owner. They think this will conclude this portion of gravel in the Eagle River Valley. They propose to reclaim it as it is today. They do propose to mine the gravel, stay above the flood plain, stay above the bench and leave the land in agricultural use. The zoning is in place and is resource. This property has had previous gravel extraction. This would be gravel only and not a batch plant. The only product would be road base and they would restrict it to that. The proposal is to remove the top soil and place it in berms. They have preserved the trees and minimized impact on the neighbors. They have stayed out of the riparian areas. They plan to do this in phases and allow irrigation to continue. There are issues concerning water and water rights. Ed Olcheski spoke to the two primary issues the first being augmentation. There was concern raised about using the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. They are in the process of obtaining a contract from the District using the Eagle Park water. The second issue raised is the ground water and whether this pit will or won't intercept ground water. They do not anticipate that they will but if they do there are several options. One is a condition to cease mining operations or they can go to the State Engineer and get a ground water permit and add a well. He spoke to a letter received today from Diamond S Ranch indicating they believe ground water will be encountered. The applicant believes it is pure speculation. Mr. Knight showed the rivers, flood plain and riparian line on the map. He stated the map shows the area mentioned that they are leaving in the natural shape which is the existing boundary. He stated they are preserving all the vegetation to be good neighbors. He referred to the aerial photo and the areas to be preserved. He stated there were issues about access to steam fishing. He stated the owner has an easement for a fishing access and those will be maintained. He stated in the past they have temporarily relocated access points which they are trying to do here as well. He spoke to the reclamation of the previous sights. He spoke to the Nottingham pit and the reclamation. They are about 75% done there and will be reclaimed in the next few months. He stated parcel G was operated similarly to this with the vegetation retained. The next area, parcel I has no calendar date conclusion as they were not previously required. They will commit today that the operation will be complete before beginning on this sight. They believe that will be within the next month and done prior to some time in the fall. That will be reclaimed prior to the new parcel J. They have made some adjustments based on staffs recommendation. On site water will be used when available. Staff had asked for 12 inches oftop soil be replaced on site. He stated they are not sure how much is there and replace what they move. The other is the height of the berm. Staff recommended a maximum height of eight feet, they have agreed to a minimum of eight feet. They also agreed with the third issue which is the five year term with extraction being done within three years. The fourth year will be sales and reclamation of the site. He referred to the Planning Commission recommendations. They will not ask for the permit until the other sight is reclaimed. They are supporting public access and have worked with the DOW. They changed to Eagle Park Reservoir water. Hours of operation, they have requested to operate year round though it will be less in the winter. 24 04-17-2000 He believes that was accepted in the meeting. They agreed with the wording on 6 (a). He stated they have agreed to 7 (a) and (c). On number 16, that was modified during the Planning Commission meeting and the applicant agrees. This is a necessary resource and they are committed to doing what they have proposed as it is a necessary operation which is consistent with the Master Plan. Chairman Stone opened the meeting for public comment. John Bourassa, principal owner of Diamond S Ranch and representing many of the owners, stated the first question is about the reclamation of parcelL He stated it has to be done. It is an eyesore. He stated when they bought the ranch they were aware of the pits and they understood that was the end. He stated there were two separate permits previously. He stated there was a proposal last year but that was withdrawn. He stated the whole area is zoned resource and a special use permit is available. He stated there could be gravel pits all along Highway 6. That is a privilege not a right. They must take into account the neighbors who have been there well before the application. To claim there is a short term inconvenience to a few outweighs the need for gravel in Eagle County. He stated he has seen no proof there is further need. He stated there seems to be an abundance of gravel. He spoke to the pit in the Edwards area which is more than sufficient to handle the needs in Beaver Creek as well as those to the west. He sees no need to destroy one of the last parts of the Eagle River. To claim they will be back with development is an assumption. He stated even the length of time for the permit will exceed five years. The pit currently there has been there fifteen years. As a back yard this will be it. They sell their property with a two acre building envelope and the rest of the property must remain pasture land. Staff has found that it does not create an nuisance. He stated he does not even have to argue that point. Everyone here knows gravel pits are a nuisance. He spoke to the minimizing of adverse impacts. He stated the other pit is not very pretty. The pit that is there they knew about and have not complained. They were told it would be reclaimed one of these days. He stated on the one that was revegetated there is no grass there. If the applicant was really the good neighbor they would leave the land as it is and develop it appropriately. He stated they should not continue to rape the area. Jim Witwer, Water Attorney with Traver & Raley in Denver, spoke to the history of water problems with the application. He spoke to the April 27th letter from him with the maps. He spoke to the drawings and the letter from Keith Buckley, LRCWE. He stated based on the data received and the need for the well it is clear this pit will intercept tributary ground water. It is at 10 feet. What does it mean if this pit hits ground water? It would violate the temporary plan provided by the State Engineer. In order to remedy the violation the applicant would need to obtain a well permit. In this case it is not a fixable problem as it doesn't comply with the requirement to be less than 600 feet from an existing well. He spoke with Craig Lis, State Engineers Office, who was not aware of how deep this well is supposed to go. He is concerned it may hit ground water and that it is not authorized. He spoke to the applicants proposal and believes it would be an attempt to get a well. He stated the owner of the Diamond S will not consent to allowing this well. The only engineering data in the record is based on two letters from Mr. Buckley. The County Engineer has expressed concerns. He stated the applicants state a previous pit was mined without hitting water. This data is new and not to be questioned. Nothing that has been submitted so far addresses the water data. He spoke to the proposal from the Planning Commission that operations will cease. He stated if that happens, things will stop there and there will never be a permit issued for the gravel pit well. He stated there is a hearing process similar to the variance process. He stated in contrast, there is a condition there be completion of mining in three years and off the property in five years. There is not even an application filed. He stated you are talking years for any type of procedure. The property will visually be unsightly. He stated it simply won't happen that mining will be completed in three years. He added there is a map attached to their handout which shows the elevation and level of the ground of the Diamond S well. He stated he will leave a set with Ms. Garren. Ron Grout, area resident, stated he is concerned having lived here in Eagle about what that will look like for those coming into Eagle. He is concerned with it being that close to the interstate and for those coming down Highway 6. He is concerned about future development where you'll only see 25 04-17-2000 rooftops. They pits are fairly deep and he is concerned about what type of development will go in there and proper sewage. He is concerned about it being a gateway into this town. Jack Olson, a resident of Avon, stated this reminds him of jury duty and told a story about not being able to hear the judge. He stated he was born in Gypsum and travels this road everyday. He stated he sees very little of the Eagle River left as it used to be but this particular piece of ground is one of the few. He does work for Diamond S Ranch but even ifhe did not, he would still feel the same way. He stated we can do more for the County by keeping this the way it is. Susan Christianson, area resident, stated at the Planning Commission meeting she was concerned about the remarks about the second home owners in the County. A member stated if the gravel pit only affected second home owners that was not a concern to him. She stated that sentiment prevailed. She stated as a resident and business owner for seventeen years she believes it is hypocritical. Please stop promoting runaway expansion on the Eagle River. If allowed, the Commissioners are sending a message that they are forced to require gravel permits on the river. She referred to Mr. Lapin's land. She referred to the letter from Mr. Sullivan who used to own Diamond S. Approval will destroy the beauty and safety of this area. There must be a limit. She asked the Board deny this application and show they care. Robert Roscoe, a resident next to the area for eleven years, stated he has run up and down the road and has lost six windshields. He stated he has an eight year old son who has asthma. As soon as they start this pit who will pay for his hospital costs. Whitney Ward, resident in the dark log home to the east of the pit, stated he and many others are tired of seeing gravel pits up and down the valley. He spoke with Rich Barnes who stated about three years ago they approved a pit above Dotsero which is the mother of all pits and should provide the necessary gravel in the valley. It was stated it was hopeful that pit could be cause for avoidance of more pits in the future. He spoke to the Jouflas application which was denied because of the visibility. He spoke with Colleen Hannon, American Planning Association, in Gunnison who related some Counties are adopting stricter regulations for proposed gravel pits in scenic areas. He related both Jefferson and Pitkin County have adopted that legislation. Vicky Ward, area resident, stated she has many issues too and her primary concern is safety. She spoke to September of 1998 when they landscaped their yard. She spoke to an incident on Highway 6 with a gravel truck resulting in serious injuries. She spoke of a bike road to Wolcott and a gravel truck that almost lost control of the truck and hit a couple of fishermen. They are scared to use that road, it is a hazard. The truckers fly down the road. Dan Godec, area resident, deferred to the adjoining property owners. Mary Houston Brown, owner of a home two miles east of the proposed pit, stated the issue she has is with safety on Highway 6 saying the road is not adequate. She spoke to the deer. She stated ninety truck trips on Highway 6 will significantly affect the situation. She stated a gravel truck will travel every 7.3 minutes between 8:00 and 5:00. She asked the Commissioners do whatever is in their power to address the safety issues and until those are addressed she is in opposition of this proposal. Peter Davis, new resident to Eagle County, stated he is here as a concerned cyclist. He stated 1- 70 is safer than Route 6 which is unfortunate. To create some sort of bike lane or extend the lane to allow for recreation needs to happen. Chuck Crist, citizen and cyclist, has ridden both 1-70 and Highway 6. He spoke to the truck traffic and asked the Commissioners consider the safety of this. He stated it is a serious situation and someone is going to die. Chairman Stone closed public comment. Mr. Knight stated they have concerns for safety and they are not trying to make that worse. They hope to have a safe situation but don't have control over all the drivers. The source of the gravel is in the western part of the County and the use in the Eastern part of the County. They don't believe this lessens the safety issue. They don't want to make it worse. They are doing everything they can to lessen the impacts by making this a short term operation. 26 04-17-2000 Ed Olcheski stated they have not been contacted by the State Engineers Office regarding this application. He stated if ground water is encountered they do have several ways to handle this. They can stop operation and obtain a well permit. He spoke to the six hundred feet and the ability to prove non-injury to the adjoining well. He spoke to the quad map on page four ofMr. Witmer's letter. He stated the Eagle River lies between them and the Diamond S Ranch. Secondly, when they refer to the static water level being 10 feet below the surface, that tells him there is water 10 feet below the surface. On the ninth page, the well construction and test report on number 5, the information tells him this well has a direct connection to the Eagle River. The applicant would be able to argue there is no injury to this well. He stated the third option would be to obtain water rights and it would become a legal issue at that point. Mr. Knight stated that concludes their presentation. Commissioner Phillips asked Ms. Garren to elaborate on the ground water. Ms. Garren stated she knows only what was shared today. She stated the new information was received shortly before the hearing. Mr. Loeffler asked if the ground water issue has been the testimony of Attorneys and not Engineers. Ms. Garren stated the Engineer has stated it mayor may not be a problem but they were not able to draw a conclusion. Commissioner Phillips asked if this many people spoke at the Planning Commission meeting or any in favor of this gravel pit. Ms. Garren stated this many or more spoke in opposition but to her knowledge no one spoke in favor of the project. She stated if in fact the Board chooses to go forward they did receive some information from Charlie Brown who owns the bike shop in Eagle and has some positive comments. Chairman Stone stated he is impressed and moved by the civility of the discussion today. He suggested he doesn't know that the ground water is an issue. He stated on a general note he finds it unfortunate that the applicant waited to clean up the mess out there before bringing in a new application. He is a little disappointed they don't want to address the neighbors concerns. He questioned them not interviewing the neighbors first and doesn't see any evidence that they did try to do that. He stated safety is a big concern for him. He does ride 1-70 where someone has been killed and still finds it safer than Highway 6. He questions the real need at this point in time for gravel extraction of this property. He spoke to the mining operations that seem to be way ahead of the demand. He mentioned the fairgrounds pit and the stock piled gravel. He stated the other item that needs to be considered is the visual nature of the gravel pit and whether it is absolutely necessary. He suggested there are other uses that may be more appropriate. Commissioner Gallagher expressed some disagreements with the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission as it refers to impacts. He spoke to the issue of noise and visual impacts. When you cut from the river back it seems it will give an amphitheater effect. The traffic concerns, he understands the trucks go on Highway 6 because they are too heavy to go on 1-70. He suggested cutting down the size of the loads and using 1-70 would have been more appropriate. The issue of compatibility is for uses not for zones. The use is next to residential and he doesn't find compatibility there. Commissioner Phillips singled out Brad Udhall and asked about preserving the area. Mr. Udhall asked to refrain from speaking on record. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the approval of a number of gravel pits that have been approved between Eagle and Gypsum. She spoke to the time limits placed on gravel pits and their recognition of the need for gravel. She stated she believes this pit is a renegade pit as it was abandoned for a few years. It bothers her that they are reactivating a pit she thought to be nearly complete. She believes it is in a residential area, not like those on the other end that are producing a lot of gravel. She is not sure that an accell/decelllane will solve the problem. Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny file ZS-00056, Red Mountain Ranch Gravel Pit 27 04-17 -2000 incorporating the findings by staff and the Planning Commission with the exception of 5.250.B.2 as this application is not compatible with the character of surrounding land uses and 5.250.b.4, it does not avoid adverse impact as stated and it does create a nuisance. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. Ms. Garren spoke to those findings listed on page five and the finding of3.31O.p.2 (b), adjacent land uses. Commissioner Gallagher included section 3.310.p.2 (b) in his motion. Commissioner Phillips concurred. Mr. Loeffler spoke to the impacts on public facilities being road and bicycle paths. Commissioner Gallagher included section 5.250.b.6, impacts on public facilities, in his motion. Commissioner Phillips concurred with the amendments. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone suggested to the applicant the gravel is not going any where and there may be better uses for this property. Mr. Knight stated while he is disappointed he will continue to do the best to secure gravel that is needed for Eagle County. ASD-00004, Two Rivers Village Keith Montag presented file number ASD-00004, Two Rivers Village. He stated on or about November 16, 1999 Eagle County received two separate Final Plat applications for the Two Rivers PUD, one for "Two Rivers Village" (south ofI-70) and one for "Two Rivers Estates" (north ofI-70). A third Final Plat is contemplated, to be submitted by other than the Applicant at some future date. Documents accompanying the current submittals, which were then and are now incomplete, likewise reflect several phases of development, including phased construction of the physical site itself, which must be substantially raised from its present flood plain condition prior to construction. Applicant was formally notified that the Final Plat submittals differed so substantively from the approved Preliminary Plan (and it is staff's understanding that yet more changes are contemplated), and that approval of a PUD Preliminary Plan Amendment would be necessary. Applicant appeals that decision. This hearing is not to debate whether Applicant's changes are appropriate or good ideas, but solely to consider whether these changes, on their face, require an Amendment to the approved Preliminary Plan. Although details of the applications have been so fluid staff can not be sure to what degree the final documents details will ultimately differ from Preliminary Plan, two explicit Preliminary Plan principles and material representations will have changed regardless: (1) a single phase build out of the entire development was specifically approved by the Board of County Commissioners, now multiple phases are proposed; and (2) elements of the approved site plan now differ (the main one being a now park where there was, at Preliminary Plan, a lake). He stated they still have not received the final version of the final plat. These are not new requirements and they are enforcing what was represented and agreed to at preliminary plan. Steve Isom, Isom & Associates introduced Ken Kriz, 2/3 owner of the property, Bill Stephens, owner of 1/3 of the property and Jim Cruts, co-owner of the 1/3 piece. He stated the banking limit is for so much money and what they are looking at doing is financing the area south of Two Rivers Blvd, all of the sewer plant, all of the parks, the water plant and all of the interchanges on 1-70. So there is a complete package. This would also include financing the community building to go in on the lower corner. As that was built, they would use those to land bank and start building from the west end to build phase two and three. They have exceeded the loan capacity. Dan Godec, West Star Bank, stated they are supportive of the project because it provides an element of affordable housing the County needs. They have suggested a phasing solution as that works 28 04-17-2000 for them. They would like to see the project get off the ground and realize its potential. It might be a hardship to the developer. As for the phases, the project would be built out in a orderly fashion. Mr. Isom stated it was staffs decision to go back to preliminary plan. He spoke to the Blue Ridge plan. He stated everything they have done has been done with the new regulations. He stated it makes sense, but the Board must make that determination. He stated they have two parks instead of one, keeping the one where the Sheriffs Office is closer to the community center. It was not part of the approved preliminary plan. The other was a mistake by Johnson and Kunkel concerning the sloping and there not being a need for curb and gutter. If it is required they will include it. Chairman Stone asked if that is their presentation. Mr. Isom spoke to the article in the Denver Post and the need for employee housing. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to a letter dated March 21, 2000 and the outstanding issues. Mr. Isom stated they have reviewed that and answered all of the concerns. He then reviewed the letter and stated he has not seen it. He stated they submitted a final plat on November 15. The regulations call for review within ten days. They got a letter back 72 days later. They responded but he believes they have not been reviewed. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this memo of March 21 5t is after receipt of the 22 item response. Ms. Garren stated this is a beginning review of what was received and does not include items that were not addressed in the final plat. She stated this is a working document. Mr. Isom stated they have not seen it. Mr. Loeffler asked if the question here is what procedure to follow to conclude this file and not that it is complete as they are not in receipt of the final plat. He stated this is not a question of the merits of the file. Mr. Isom stated that is correct and there are two choices, either amend the PUD or that this is not a major impact. This is not particularily their desire but is what the bank is having them do. Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Kriz was aware of the status of the preliminary plan when he made this purchase. Mr. Kriz stated he was not aware it was to be done in one single phase. He stated they have addressed. He stated all of the dirt would be moved to bring it out of the flood plain in the first phase. He spoke to the flood insurance on phase one and related they would move all the dirt as part of that first phase. Commissioner Phillips asked if the commercial has been taken out. Mr. Isom stated they have taken it out ofthe first phase and put it into the fourth phase. Commissioner Phillips asked if they intend to develop the commercial. Mr. Isom stated they do. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the affordable housing and the sheriff having people come in on the day the decision was being made on the preliminary plan. She suggested that was a little late. She believes the changes are positive and that she has no problems with phasing. She does not believe the plan is complete. Mr. Isom stated the issue is whether they can proceed with the final plat tomorrow. Ms. Garren stated even if they decide it can be phased they would have to go back and amend many of the conditions placed on this file including letters and other items that were part of the preliminary plan. They may concur but they will need some evidence from FEMA. Chairman Stone asked if it is in the Boards power, can they move ahead with approval and overturn their own decision. He asked if they can also amend the current preliminary plan and overturn the conditions. Mr. Loeffler stated it is in their power but only ifthey amend the preliminary plan process. He understands that some of the changes proposed can only be amended through the PUD process. He 29 04-17-2000 stated he does not see a lot of options in terms of process. Chairman Stone stated he would like to move this file forward by answering some of the questions. Even though they could do so, they are not legally able. He reffered to the copy regarding the phasing and that all of those issues must be answered before coming to a resolution. Mr. Isom stated there is one line, one document that states the project will be built as a single phase. He stated the resolution adopts all of the documents submitted but that particular one he feels the Board could amend or accept a final plat. He suggested they are only talking about the phasing of the final plat. Chairman Stone stated that is not the case and he is still willing to work for that but disagrees entirely. He stated the legal reality of the situation does not allow them to do what he would like. Mr. Isom asked if they could accept the amended plat. Mr. Loeffler stated he doesn't know how they can do that. Chairman Stone suggested that is not a feasible thing to do. He suggested he is trying to look for solutions and the only one he can come up with is have Community Development work with the applicant on an expedient basis working for a resolution. He believes working together they should be able to accomplish this. Mr. Loeffler stated there will be a hearing by the Planning Commission to consider the application and then it goes to the Commissioners. He asked if a 1041 amendment is pending and would it be heard at the same time. He stated some of those have changed. He suggested it is a relatively common process and they may be able to agree on a common deadline. Ms. Garren stated much of it depends on the applicant submitting all of the information staff needs. Chairman Stone asked if they could make a one time list of all that is required. Ms. Garren asked if they want to stand on the maps received tomorrow as the preliminary plan maps. Commissioner Gallagher asked, at the preliminary plan stage that they are going to revisit, should they have two or three preliminary plans. Ms. Garren stated there are three final plats proposed. She stated it is not necessary to have the final plat for the Board to make a decision. Mr. Loeffler suggested there is enough integration that you could not split the preliminary plan. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the north side of the highway is a different owner. Mr. Isom stated yes but they are interrelated. Chairman Stone asked if the Board is in agreement with his proposal. Commissioner Gallagher stated he is in agreement and staff could work with the applicant to specify the items to be done. Commissioner Phillips stated she is in agreement with the changes but understands the need to come back with an amended plan. Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny the appeal with staffs decision of ASD-00004 of files PDF-00043 and PDF-00044, Two Rivers Village. Staff shall work with the applicant to come up with a final preliminary plan. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until April 24, 2000. Attest: Clerk to the B cf;I~ ~ 30 04-17-2000