Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/22/2000 PUBLIC HEARING MAY 22, 2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Earlene Roach Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Deputy 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 may 22, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioner meeting minutes of May 8, 2000 C) Easement Deed between Eagle County and James Craig Butters and Maria Brunilda Butters D) Agreement between Colorado Department of Transportation, Eagle County and Vail Resorts Development Company for Arrowhead Trail E) Resolution 2000-072 of appreciation for Service to the community by the Times Newspapers and Cliff Thompson F) Community Services Block Grant Application for 2000-2001. Commissioner Gallagher requested item E be read into the record. Chairman Stone read Resolution 2000-072 for the record as follows: "Whereas, since 1982 The Times newspaper (Avon Beaver Creek Times 1982-1992 and The Vail Valley Times 1992-2000) has served the community by diligently reporting the news and advocating positions it felt were in the best interest of the people in the community, and; Whereas, for all the years that The Times was published, Cliff Thompson was the founder and moving force behind that newspaper, and; Whereas, The Times informed, entertained, amused and on occasion aggravated the citizens of Eagle County and its public officials to the betterment of the County and its people. Now, Therefore, in honor ofthe efforts of Cliff Thompson and The Times newspaper, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Cliff Thompson and The Times for all their efforts to keep the residents of Eagle County informed and to make Eagle County a better place. Further, we note that Eagle County will miss the Times". Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1 05-22-2000 Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00207. Arrowhead at Vail- Filin~ No. 11 - A Resubdivision of Lot 31. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 31 to create two residential lots, Lot 31A and Lot 31B. There is a duplex split caveat that states only one two-family residence may be built on the combined area of the two lots. 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-00207, Arrowhead at Vail, Piling No. 11, a resubdivision of Lot 31, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00216. Arrowhead at Vail Filin~ No. 10. A Resubdivision of Lot 9. He stated the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 9 into two residential Lots, Lot 9E and Lot 9W, and to create an access easement for Lot 9W. 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 Phillips moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00216, Arrowhead at Vail, Filing No. 10, a resubdivision of Lot 9, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. VIS-0007, Blue Ridge PUD John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number VIS-0007, Blue Ridge PUD, variance from Improvement Standards. He stated the applicant would like to make a request. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, introduced Yancy Nichol, Sopris Engineering, Kevin and Tammy Tucker, Glenn Ault and Walt Sasser. He stated he believes it would make more sense to go through the PUD Land Use and have a decision by the Board on the overall use of the project because if that is not acceptable the variance would not make sense. The Board concurred. 2 05-22-2000 PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD Amendment Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD Amendment. He stated the following represents the bases for Staff findings as they have been previously presented, a brief discussion of new information provided by the Applicant since the April 17, 2000, Board hearing, and where applicable, revised findings: He stated he has submitted a letter from Steve Howard, the Fire Chief for the Basalt Rural Fire Protection District. He stated it addresses access by emergency equipment. He stated the primary question that came out of that hearing was the findings and the basis for those findings. Mr. Forinash reviewed those findings the applicant and staff are in agreement with: Pursuant to Section 5-240.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 ARE consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development. As noted below and discussed elsewhere in these Findings: The proposed development would result in density greater than that provided in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The proposed development does not satisfy the policy stated in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan specifying a 200 foot building and parking setback a4jacent to Highway 82 in the El Jebel/Basalt area. It remains unclear how this proposed development and that to the east (Kodiak Park PUD) will ensure that Blue Ridge Lane, which would run through both developments, will be coordinated. A sufficient right-of-way may not exist at the intersection of Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Road for necessary intersection improvements which meet the requirements of the "Colorado State Highway Access Code ", as required in the Land Use Regulations. It has not been demonstrated that, if Blue Ridge Lane is not extended through the proposed Kodiak Park development to the east, the intersection of El Jebel Road and Highway 82 would have sufficient capacity to handle additional traffic coming out of this development. The Fire Chief from the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District has noted that the intersection at the west end of Cedar Hill Court, at the intersection with Cedar Ridge Drive, may not allow fire apparatus to make the turnfrom either direction without driving into the oncoming traffic lane or driving curbs. The Applicant has stated that snow storage areas are shown on engineering drawings. The engineering drawings, specifically with respect to the legend pertaining to snow storage, is incomplete. It is not clear which areas are designated for snow storage. In any event, no calculations have been provided which either indicate that the minimum required area has been provided, or that a lesser area is warranted. Given that the proposed amendment does not satisfy required Findings for reasons listed above and as discussed below, it follows that the items listed above detract from the efficient development and preservation of the existing Planned Unit Development. Consequently, Staff is not able make a favorable finding in this regard. (2) The modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest. As noted below and discussed elsewhere in these Findings: The proposed development would result in density greater than that provided in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The proposed development does not satisfy the policy stated in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan specifying a 200 foot building and parking setback a4jacent to Highway 82 in the El 3 05-22-2000 Jebel/Basalt area. It remains unclear how this proposed development and that to the east (Kodiak Park PUD) will ensure that Blue Ridge Lane, which would run through both developments, will be coordinated as to location and engineering specifications. A sufficient right-of-way may not exist at the intersection of Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Road for necessary intersection improvements which meet the requirements of the "Colorado State Highway Access Code ", as required in the Land Use Regulations. It has not been demonstrated that, if Blue Ridge Lane is not extended through the proposed Kodiak Park development to the east, the intersection of El Jebel Road and Highway 82 would be sufficient to handle all traffic coming out of this development. Consequently, Staff is not able make a favorable finding in this regard. (3) The modification, removal, or release ofthe provisions ofthe plan is NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any [one] person. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. Pursuant to Section 5-240.F .3.e, Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for PUD, Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) Unified ownership or control. The title to all land that is part of the PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. (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 ofthe 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 application for the PUD Amendment. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. (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. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. (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.) Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. (5) Landscaping. Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. (Changed to a favorable finding.) As discussed in the Staff Report Addendum, on March 1 the Applicant submitted a revised Landscape Plan. This Plan replaced previously submitted landscape plans and does show the types, sizes, amounts and locations of landscape materials to be installed on the site. Also, the Plan identifies certain areas where existing vegetation will be preserved. However, the Plan was not sufficient in that it did not address the following, as required by Section 4-220. C, Detailed Landscape Plan. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 1. Identification of all existing deciduous and coniferous trees of 6 inches in caliper or greater, and other areas of existing vegetation, indicating which trees and other vegetation will be preserved and which will be removed or relocated; 2. Where and how irrigation is to be provided; 3. The percentages of grass and/or wildflower mixtures and seed application rates; 4 05-22-2000 4. Summary of all calculations used to determine the landscaping requiredfor the site; 5. Estimate of the cost of supplying and installing the materials depicted in the Landscape Plan; or 6. Description of the proposed program to maintain the landscaping after it has been installed Consequently, Staff determined that the Applicant had not provided sufficient information to permit a favorable finding in this regard At a meeting on April 18, 2000, the Applicant responded that the information relating to the identification of existing vegetation, and by implication which of the trees and other vegetation will be removed or re-Iocated (Item 1 above), is shown elsewhere in the materials submitted. This has not been made a part of the current Landscape Plan itself The Applicant acknowledged that Items 2 through 6, above, were not provided. In correspondence received on April 24, 2000, from Terra Firma, the landscape architecture firm for the project, much of the required additional information was provided If this Preliminary Plan were to be approved, and if a complete Landscape Plan being required at the time of submitting the Final Plat were to made a condition of approval, Staff would be satisfied that this standard has been substantially met. A favorable finding may now be made in this regard (6) Signs. The PUD sign standards ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. (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 demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided with adequate fire protection and roads. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement with this finding. The fire chief has submitted that letter indicating he is satisfied the requirements have been met. (8) Improvements. 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. The condition of emergency vehicles and snow storage have been met: (c) Emergency Vehicles. It HAS been demonstrated that the roadways are designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. This finding has been met. (e) Snow Storage. Plans HAVE been provided showing adequate areas for snow storage. The condition has been met. (12) Common Recreational and Open Space. The PUD DOES comply with the following common recreation and open space standards: Given the sub-findings related to this standard, this has been changed to a favorable Finding. and Staff and the Applicant are in agreement. a) 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. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. b) 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. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. It HAS been ensured that all privately owned 5 05-22-2000 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. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. d) Organization. Adequate provisions for organizational controls of maintenance, administration, operation, and insurance ARE provided. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication of premature extension of public facilities, or result in a 'leapfrog" pattern of development. Given the sub-jindings related to this standard, this has changed to a favorable finding, and Staff and the Applicant are in agreement. a) Utility and Road Extensions. The proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan and road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines will be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Utility extensions ARE such that the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Staff and the Applicant are in agreement about this finding. Mr. Forinash stated these are the findings in which staff and the applicant are in agreement. He stated there are those findings that are dependent upon the variances as follows: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. It has NOT been demonstrated that there is safe, efficient access to all areas of the proposed development. This finding is dependent upon the variances which will be heard after this file. The County Engineer received revised engineering drawings on March 2, 2000, and reviewed them, specifically with respect to comments made in a memorandum dated September 2, 1999. The County Engineer has determined that the Land Use Regulations require that Cedar Ridge Drive be designed to conform with the road standards set forth in the Regulations. Engineering plans for Cedar Ridge Drive do not meet County road standards. The County Engineer has also pointed out to the Applicant that the Land Use Regulations require that adequate off-street parking must be provided, and that the head-in parking proposed on Cedar Ridge Drive should be eliminated The most recent engineering drawings continue to show this head-in parking. Variances to these road standards may be granted by the Board Information submitted relative to requested variances is required to identify the specific section of the Land Use Regulations, the specific location, and the specific reason and hardship for each variance. Initial requests for variances were incomplete. Additional information related to these variances was received on April 21, 2000, but have not been completely reviewed by the County Engineer. Consequently, Staff has determined that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to permit a favorable finding in this regard (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways do NOT form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian accesses with appropriate linkages off-site. This finding is dependent upon the variance requests to be heard after this file. The Eagle County Trails Planner has made a number of recommendations regarding the pedestrian and bike trails within the proposed development. Trail standards (per LUR Section 4-630.A. 6 05-22-2000 Trail Standards) specify a minimum 10 foot width, paved surfacing, and appropriate grades and drainage. In addition, the Trails Planner has recommended that construction of the trails be collateralized, and that responsibility for on-going maintenance be identified The Trails Planner has suggested that variances might be appropriate in this development. Variances may be granted by the Board pursuant to LUR Section 5-260. G., Variance from Imvrovement Standards. Since the proposed trails do not meet the requirements of the Land Use Regulations, and complete applications for variances had not been received, Staff had been unable to make a favorable finding in this regard In correspondence dated April 21, 2000, from Sopris Engineering, LLC, the Applicant has requested variances to [1] reduce width of the trail from 10 feet to 6 feet, and [2] use aggregate base course rather than asphalt. The variances may be granted by the Board by balancing the hardships to the Applicant of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected (See Land Use Regulations, Section 5- 260. G., Variance trom Imvrovement Standards.) Mr. Forinash reviewed the following findings: (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. Based on the review of the revised engineering drawings received on March 2, the County Engineer has determined that the traffic study prepared by Matthew J Delich, P E, addresses traffic issues at the Blue Ridge Lane/El Jebel Road intersection. However, the County Engineer has noted that there are other traffic issues per the memo dated September 2, 1999, that have not been resolved In the memo of March 2, 2000, the County Engineer has noted that it was unclear how developers of Blue Ridge PUD and Kodiak Park PUD will coordinate their plans to ensure that Blue Ridge Lane appears seamless. The two plans have different names as well as different design elements. This Finding reflects that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed termination of Blue Ridge Lane will line up with afeasible alignment for a continuation of the road onto the adjacent property to the east. At a meeting on April 18, 2000, the Applicant indicated that an agreement was under review with the property owner to the east that it appears would resolve this issue. A copy of the proposed agreement is not available. There is an additional question whether, if Blue Ridge Lane is not extended through the proposed Kodiak Park development to the east, the intersection of El Jebel Road and Highway 82 is sufficient to handle all traffic coming out of this development. In correspondence received on April 24, 2000, the Applicant and the Applicant's traffic engineer have suggested that the phasing of the proposed Blue Ridge development be limited to 50 % to 75 % of the total number of proposed units until either Blue Ridge Lane is extended to the east or the El Jebel Road / Highway 82 intersection is upgraded This alternative has not been evaluated by the County Engineer. In the memo of March 2, 2000, the County Engineer has noted that a sufficient right-of-way may not exist at the intersection of Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Road for intersection improvements which meet the requirements of the "Colorado State Highway Access Code ", as required in the Land Use Regulations. The applicant has agreed to phase the development but there is no detailed phasing plan. He stated this is conceivable to be resolved at final plat stage. Further, the County Engineer points out that acquisition of additional right-of-way mav be required This issue has not beenfully addressed by the Applicant. Consequently, StcifJ has determined that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to permit a favorable finding in this regard Mr. Isom stated Resolution 96-46, was adopted by the Commissioners and states "when the level of service from Blue Ridge Lane to El Jebel Road reaches a level of service D, as determined by County Engineer, and when the level of service for Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Road intersection reaches a 7 05-22-2000 level of service E, as determined by County Engineer, and in both cases Blue Ridge Lane through Kodiak Park to Highway 82 at the realigned intersection of Willits Lane has not been constructed, the subdivider shall secure all right-of-way, easements for the construction ofthe remaining portion of Blue Ridge Lane and have those deeded to the County. Should subdivider be unable to secure the land, rights-of-way or easements for the construction of the remaining portion of Blue Ridge Lane, the subdividers shall schedule a meeting with the Commissioners to discuss the subdividers inability to secure such property and should the Board determine such property is required it shall assist the subdivider in fulfilling its obligation under the contract by using its power of eminent domain". Mr. Isom stated Yancy Nicole is working with Ace Lane to secure the right-of-way. He stated if that is not possible then they could fall back on the resolution. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated that resolution is based on the original PUD and not on this proposal. Commissioner Phillips stated taking out the commercial will be less traffic and less impact. Chairman Stone stated if they are going to continue with this amendment to the file it would be in everyone's best interest to change how they should resolve this situation in the future. There needs to be an agreement on how to resolve this issue. Mr. Isom stated Mr. Lane is trying to start the development on his property. Chairman Stone stated it is a concern if and when the other access point does happen. He asked how the applicant would resolve that issue. He stated if there if only one access point it would not work. Mr. Isom stated they would like to continue with this resolution as a basis. Chairman Stone stated before they proceed onto the next issue, he would like to get an agreement or disagreement on these issues. Commissioner Gallagher questioned at what phase of the development will the intersections be overwhelming and need a solution. Mr. Vengrin stated the offer on the table from the applicant states they have relied heavily on a traffic report prepared for the County as part of their Tree Farm renovation. In that report it recommends extensive improvements to the intersection of Highway 82 and EI Jebel Road, with the anticipation that the connector road from EI Jebel Road to Willits Lane will also be in place. He stated he cannot say exactly when but the traffic reports, The applicant has related they would consider phasing the project so only 50 to 75 percent ofthe units would come on line before this was in place. The Engineering Department would support the 50% number. Commissioner Phillips stated the Board needs an updated resolution. She stated if the time frame is as Mr. Vengrin stated and the County is doing their improvements to the tree farm, then the road may come together at just the right time. Mr. Forinash stated the right of way at the intersection ofEI Jebel Road and Blue Ridge Lane can be handled like the road issues.. Mr. Isom stated EI Jebel road is not a dedicated right of way but rather a prescriptive right of way. He stated there is now a definition problem in does it include the right of ways or is it just the platform. He stated there is a problem with the language as used in the road issues. Mr. Forinash stated ifthe project is to be phased it would be appropriate to require a detailed phasing plan at final plat. The Board concurred the findings listed above have been resolved and can now be considered favorable. (2) Consistent with the Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. As pointed out elsewhere in this discussion of Findings: Information had not been provided in the required Landscape Plan regarding [a] where and how irrigation is to be provided; [b] the percentages of grass and/or wildflower mixtures and seed 8 05-22-2000 application rates; [c] a summary of all calculations used to determine the landscaping requiredfor the site; [d] an estimate of the cost of supplying and installing the materials depicted in the Landscape Plan; and [e] a description of the proposed program to maintain the landscaping after it has been installed has not been provided. (Additional information was provided by the Applicant on April 24, 2000, and the related Finding has been revised to be favorable.) This has been satisfied. Based on comments from the Basalt Fire District, the Applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed development will be provided with adequate fire protection and roads. This has been satisfied. The County Engineer had determined that the engineering drawings do not meet the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations, and that complete applications for necessary variances had not been received. (Additional information regarding these variances was received on April 21, 2000, but have not been completely reviewed by the County Engineer.) Dependent on the variances. The proposed trails did not meet the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations, and complete applications for necessary variances had not been received. (Additional information regarding these variances was received on April 21, 2000.) Dependent on the requested variances. The County Engineer has noted that a sufficient right-of-way may not exist at the intersection of Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Roadfor intersection improvements which meet the requirements of the "Colorado State Highway Access Code ", as required in the Land Use Regulations. This has been resolved. The County Engineer has also determined that if Blue Ridge Lane is not extended through the proposed Kodiak Park development to the east, the intersection of El Jebel Road and Highway 82 may not be sufficient to handle all traffic coming out of this development. In correspondence received on April 24, 2000, the Applicant and the Applicant's traffic engineer have suggested that the phasing of the proposed Blue Ridge development be limited to 50 % to 75 % of the total number of proposed units until either Blue Ridge Lane is extended to the east or the El Jebel Road / Highway 82 intersection is upgraded. This alternative has not been evaluated by the County Engineer. This has been resolved. As discussed in the earlier Staff Report and back-up materials, the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to permit the County Engineer to determine: That the calculations and preliminary design information related to drainage facilities, such as inlet and dry well capacities, details for the detention basin, and proposed reclamation seeding and maintenance measures for the retention basin satisfY the Land Use Regulations. Whether appropriate best management practices will continue after construction as well as during construction. The method of conveying the runoff from the 100-year storm event to, through, and from the detention basin. The methods proposed to remove pollutants from storm water runoff The drainage system, as it relates to the combined use of impervious and grass buffer strips to convey storm water runoff, has been properly designed. An adequate phasing plan exists for the Erosion Control Plan. At a meeting on April 18, 2000, the Applicant indicated an intention to provide the required information. That information has not yet been received. Consequently, Staff determined that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to permit a favorable finding in this regard. The Applicant has committed to incorporate many of the changes required by the Land Use Regulations and noted by the County Engineer. However, not all of these issues have been resolved and complete engineering drawings provided for review. Consequently, Staff has determined that the Applicant has provided sufficient information to permit a favorable finding in this regard if the variances are granted. Commissioner Gallagher asked what level of application this is. 9 05-22-2000 Mr. Forinash stated it is preliminary plan. Commissioner Gallagher stated the necessary information is required at preliminary plan but for this application we are going to ignore that and collect that information at final plat? Mr. Forinash stated this is a PUD Amendment but is required to meet preliminary plan standards. Sometimes applications have ended up at this stage with not all the engineering details that are required and the Board has chosen to allow that detail to be submitted and approved at final plat. Yancy Nichol, Sopris Engineering, stated quite of few of the issues listed by the Engineering Department he has no problem with. He feels comfortable with those items. Mr. Forinash stated he would now like to review those findings that are based on Master Plan considerations as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development, Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) The modification, removal, or release ofthe provisions of the plan are NOT consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development. As noted below and discussed elsewhere in these Findings: The proposed development would result in density greater than that provided in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The proposed development does not satisfy the policy stated in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan specifying a 200 foot building and parking setback adjacent to Highway 82 in the El Jebel/Basalt area. It remains unclear how this proposed development and that to the east (Kodiak Park PUD) will ensure that Blue Ridge Lane, which would run through both developments, will be coordinated. A sufficient right-of-way may not exist at the intersection of Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Road for necessary intersection improvements which meet the requirements of the "Colorado State Highway Access Code ", as required in the Land Use Regulations. It has not been demonstrated that, if Blue Ridge Lane is not extended through the proposed Kodiak Park development to the east, the intersection of El Jebel Road and Highway 82 would have sufficient capacity to handle additional traffic coming out of this development. Given that the proposed amendment does not satisfy required Findings for reasons listed above and as discussed below, it follows that the items listed above detract from the efficient development and preservation of the existing Planned Unit Development. Consequently, Staff is not able make a favorable finding in this regard. Mr. Forinash pointed out the reason for the adverse finding is the density. In the Mid Valley Community Master Plan 4 to 8 units per acre is considered appropriate and the Land Use Map is 3 to 12 units per acre. This PUD has a gross density of 8.8 units per acre and a net density of 12.8 units per acre. In addition the Mid Valley Community Master Plan requires a 200 foot set back along Highway 82. This has not been satisfied. Mr. Isom stated their overall density is 8.8 units per acre. He stated this growth anticipated residential and commercial as a mixed use. He stated with the commercial built across Highway 82, it does not make sense to keep this as a mixed use. He stated it was decided to go with residential. He stated no one in this valley can do a 200 foot setback off of Highway 82. Chairman Stone stated the applicant does agree they are over the maximum allowed in the Mid- Valley Community Master Plan but believes they do conform to the Eagle County Land Use Regulatios. Mr. Isom stated under the original plan there were 50 residential units plus five single family lots. He stated there were 80 units in the hotel. He stated they had a total of 130 units and they are now at 115 units. Chairman Stone stated they are looking at the impacts that are associated with density. He asked where the density numbers came from. 10 05-22-2000 Mr. Isom stated the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District. Chairman Stone asked if the Board was satisfied with the density. Commissioner Phillips stated she believes the change was a positive one, including the removal of the hotel. She stated that number of units is more dense than she would like to see. She stated 6.5 units per acre would be better. Commisisoner Gallagher stated he would also like to see a reduction in the number of units. He questioned if the Mid-Valley Master Plan was a product of the Planning Commission. Ms. Black answered yes. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like to see the number of units reduced. Mr. Isom stated that would come out to about 88 units. He stated that type of decision would force the applicant back into a hotel, which they already have a buyer for. Chairman Stone asked what number of units would the applicant be willing to reduce to. Mr. Isom stated they would like no less that 100 units. Chairman Stone stated he would like to see the applicant below the 8 units per acre. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the 200 foot parking and building setback. Commissioner Phillips questioned staffs decision for the 200 foot set back. Commissioner Gallagher stated if other properties are under a 200 foot setback he would see it as asking a lot from this applicant and would be a hardship. Mr. Isom pointed out on a map the set backs for current landowners. Mr. Forinash continued with staff findings. He stated all items have been dealt with previously. (2) The modification, removal, or release of the provisions ofthe plan DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest. As noted below and discussed elsewhere in these Findings, all issues are tentatively resolved: The proposed development would result in density greater than that provided in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The proposed development does not satisfY the policy stated in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan specifying a 200 foot building and parking setback adjacent to Highway 82 in the El Jebel/Basalt area. It remains unclear how this proposed development and that to the east (Kodiak Park PUD) will ensure that Blue Ridge Lane, which would run through both developments, will be coordinated as to location and engineering specifications. A sufficient right-ol-way may not exist at the intersection of Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Road for necessary intersection improvements which meet the requirements of the "Colorado State Highway Access Code", as required in the Land Use Regulations. It has not been demonstrated that, if Blue Ridge Lane is not extended through the proposed Kodiak Park development to the east, the intersection of El Jebel Road and Highway 82 would be sufficient to handle all traffic coming out of this development. (9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. The development proposed for the PUD IS OR WILL BE compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Mr. Forinash stated all these items have been discussed and somewhat resolved. (10) Consistency with Master Plan. The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plans, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). A policy of the Master Plan is to "protect, maintain and enhance critical wildlife habitat areas", with avoidance of critical wildlife habitat areas by development being the preferred option. Where avoidance is not feasible, preservation of the functions of the critical habitat, such as providing food supply or cover, production areas, nesting or roosting sites or areas for migration and travel, is required. The proposed development lies within mapped areas of Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area 11 05-22-2000 and Elk Severe Winter Range. No mitigation has been proposed The Staff Report prepared for the February 17, 2000, public hearing before the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission indicated that a preliminary response from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) expressed an intention to fully review this proposal and provide comments and recommendations. Apparently due to staff turnover and work load in the Basalt office of CDOW, a response has not been received At a meeting on April 18, 2000, the Applicant has indicated that he will provide a copy of correspondence from CDOW indicating that CDOW has no concerns regarding this proposal. Mr. Forinash stated there has been no response from the Division of Wildlife. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant has submitted a letter from the Division of Wildlife. Mr. Isom stated they have called the DOW twice and cannot get an updated letter. He stated as part ofthe original application they submitted letters from the DOW indicating the they had no problems with the development. Chairman Stone questioned mass transportation. Mr. Isom stated they tried to have a bus stop on the property but RAFTA does not want one in this location. The applicant agreed to help out with a stop at a later date when RAFT A sees the need. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like a letter from RAFT A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: 1) Consistent with the Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan. Mr. Forinash stated each of these issues is the same as what the Board has just discussed, having to do with critical wildlife area, the 200 foot building setback, the mass transportation issue, the mitigation to the wildlife habitat and the density. (13) Natural Resources. The PUD HAS considered the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendation received by responding referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. As discussed in the Staff Report, the proposed development: 1) Lies within mapped areas of Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Elk Severe Winter Range. 2) Would significantly alter or remove native grasses, trees or other shrubs or other vegetative cover. 3) Would significantly alter local traffic patterns and cause an increase in traffic volume or transit service needs. Mr. Forinash stated some of this finding has been discussed but the Board would need to decide if the proposal for removal of native grasses, trees or other shrubs has been adequately addressed. Chairman Stone asked about the plant and trees and shrubs and the natural traffic patterns. Mr. Isom stated they had submitted a complete wildlife report by Rick Thompson. Chairman Stone stated the Board spoke to a reduction, yet to be determined, in the density from the current 8.8 units per acre to a number less than that. Secondly they discussed the variances, which will take care of a number of the items. Thirdly, there will need to be a resolution or agreement concerning phasing of the plan and how that phasing creates a trigger point regarding improvements to EI Jebel Road. Commissioner Phillips questioned updating the current resolution. Chairman Stone stated he mentioned updating the resolution. Commissioner Gallagher stated this area does not seem to be a critical wildlife area. Mr. Isom stated there are no impacts on wildlife therefore no mitigations are proposed, as per the DOW. 12 05-22-2000 Chairman Stone stated that is not an issue. Commissioner Phillips asked about the 200 foot setback. Chairman Stone stated that has been resolved as adjacent buildings have less of a setback than what is proposed in this application. Commissioner Phillips stated 7.9 gives 100 units and she recommends the Board approve that number. Commissioner Gallagher agreed with that number. Chairman Stone closed public comment. He stated in looking at the old resolution it appears the whole heart of the resolution is "the level of service of Blue Ridge Lane through Kodiak Park". He read the portions of the resolution as follows: "when the level of service from Blue Ridge Lane to EI Jebel Road reaches a level of service D, as determined by County Engineer, and when the level of service for Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Road intersection reaches a level of service E, as determined by County Engineer, and in both cases Blue Ridge Lane through Kodiak Park to Highway 82 at the realigned intersection of Willits Lane has not been constructed, the subdivider shall secure all right-of-way, easements for the construction of the remaining portion of Blue Ridge Lane and have those deeded to the County. Should subdivider be unable to secure the land, rights-of-way or easements for the construction ofthe remaining portion of Blue Ridge Lane, the subdividers shall schedule a meeting with the Commissioners to discuss the subdividers inability to secure such property, the subdividers shall secure, after consultation with County Attorney, an appropriate appraiser and conduct the appraisal, and should the Board determine such property is required it shall assist the subdivider in fulfilling its obligation under the contract by using its power of eminent domain". Chairman Stone stated he would not like to exercise eminent domain if at all possible. Mr. Isom stated since the Board would be reducing the number of units to 100, he would like to build to 75 % and not build any more until there is a through road to the realigned Willits Lane. If anything needs to be done at EI Jebel Road that would be discussed at that point. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like it to be 60% rather than 75%. The Board concurred to continue with file VIS-0007 before making a motion. VIS-0007, Blue Ridge John Vengrin continued with the variance file number VIS-0007. He stated the reduction in density has some impact on some of the findings. The property on which the Variance Permit is requested is located northeast of Highway 82, and east ofEI Jebel Road in the area commonly referred to as El Jebel, in Township 8 South, Range 87 West, Section 46 in Eagle County, Colorado. He stated per Section 5-260.G: Variance from Improvement Standards, The Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides on variances from the improvements standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated Mr. Vengrin stated this is a petition for a Variance Permit from the Geometric Standards established in Sections 4-620.J, and 4-630.A ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations (LUR) for the design of roads and trails in the Blue Ridge PUD. The Variance Permit petition is in accordance with Section 5-260.G and Section 4-61O.A.2 of the LUR. The applicant is proposing to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Blue Ridge subdivision under a separate planning file, PDA-00021. Some aspects of the design for File PDA-00021 do not comply with the LUR. Therefore, variances have been requested. The applicant believes variances to the road and trail standards are required due to constraints imposed by the terrain, preservation of existing vegetation, right-of-way limitations, and/or because the proposed design meets or exceed the intent of the standards. A more extensive discussion of the issues is contained in the applicant's request for variance, and is attached to this staff report. 13 05-22-2000 Mr. Vengrin reviewed staffs concerns and issues as follows: In previous applications for variances from the road standards, the Eagle County Attorney's Office has requested that the application be very specific concerning the section of the LUR for which a variance is requested, the location of the variance, and the reason for the variance, including the hardship caused by attempting to comply with the LUR. The applicant has provided this specific information in Exhibits "A" which is a letter from Campbell Meyer to Isom Associates, "B"which is a letter from Yancy Nichol to Mr. Isom, and "c" another letter from Yancy Nichol to Steve Isom. Should the Board of County Commissioners decide to approve the request for variance, Exhibit "A", "B", and/or "c" will be incorporated into the Resolution. The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610.A.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards... ." For the purpose of my evaluation, I interpreted the standards in the LUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values", since the LUR were adopted after extensive work and comment by the community. The Board of County Commissioners' responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260.G.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. Hardship is not defined in the LUR. However, the definition of hardship in Webster's Dictionary implies that hardship is derived from some sort of privation or deprivation. The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the applicant will be deprived of some or all of their right to use the land if the LUR is strictly followed. Chairman Stone asked staff to show the nature of the variances requested are. He stated the applicant must show the hardship and the next issue would be for the roads. Mr. Vengrin stated on Exhibit A, the applicant has asked for three variances. One is on the lane width of Blue Ridge Lane. Blue Ridge Lane does meet the requirement of a suburban residential collector road, which is a 15 foot lane width and the applicant is requesting a 12 foot lane width. Mr. Vengrin stated the next variance request is for a detached 4 foot bike lane and the reguations call for an attached 4 foot bike lane. The applicant does not want to provide the attached bike lane as they have provided other trails and such in other areas. Mr. Vengrin stated the applicant is requesting the six foot sidewalk be attached right up to the curb and gutter rather than set back with a buffer and landscaping. Commissioner Gallagher questioned what the code required as a buffer between the sidewalk and curb. Mr. Vengriun stated usually they use a 4 to 5 foot strip. He stated there are a number of other exemptions. Exhibit C shows several other areas where the road design does not comply. He stated the Tucker site is not immediately adjacent to EI Jebel Road. He stated there is a document the Crawfords produced which grants a 50 foot right of way through their property. He stated some of the consessions requested can only be granted by the Commissioners. He stated the next variance is for a 50 foot right of way rather than 60 feet. The area through the Crawford property requires 15 foot lane width and the applicant is proposing 11 foot lane widths with 3 foot shoulders and ditches. Mr. Vengrin stated concerning radius curves, the standards require 200 feet radius and the applicant is proposing 110 feet. Mr. Vengrin stated on Exhibit B, there are 9 variances for design of the roadway and 2 for the trails within the subdivision. He stated one of the arguments for not being able to meet these standards is not enough room in the lower portion of the site. They would have to remove a lot of native plants 14 05-22-2000 and trees. He stated if the density were reduced that may eliminate some of the problems. There is also on street parking needed to meet the parking requirements. If the density was lower there may no longer need to be parking on the street. Chairman Stone summerarized and asked the applicant why there are requesting the variances and how they are being harmed. Mr. Isom stated from EI Jebel Road going east, on the parcel ofland going through the Crawfords property, at that time this road was adequate. Crawfords wanted some additional parking. He stated there would not be curb and gutter. He stated there would be drainage swales. Chairman Stone questioned what was originally approved. He stated they agreed to go with curb and gutter through the property. If forced to widen the street they would have to take out the trees. Yancy Nichol stated there is one road with curb and gutter that has 12 foot lanes. It drops down to 11 foot lanes with four foot shoulders, which does not have curb and gutter. Mr. Isom stated from EI lebel Road going east, the parcel of land that goes through the Crawford property, 50 feet was adequate. There was also additional parking off of that road that has changed to place the bike path along the highway. He spoke to access to the residential units at the end of the project. He stated this development will have a private access road. Chairman Stone questioned the maintenance of the road. Mr. Isom stated he will always belong to the Homeowners Association. Mr. Isom stated this is a 15 mile per hour road. He stated the hardship is as follows: 1) the 50 foot right of way that was deeded by the Crawfords and the character of the road is what was worked out with the Crawfords. To change that would be a hardship. 2) the hardship for Blue Ridge Lane is on the adjacent property. In taking down the trees and irrigation ditch system, it could be put underground, but the applicant believes it would be a hardship on the neighborhood in widening out the platform and doing damage to the site 3) deals with the interior roads of the project dealing with a multi family project. He stated this is the first application the Board has seen since the change in County regulations. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant has given enough of a presentation to deal with a hardship. Ms. Black stated that is a Board decision. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the speed limit on Blue Ridge Lane. Mr. Isom stated it is public right of way and will be a dedicated County Road. He stated the portion through the Crawfords property will be a dedicated County Road. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it can be accepted without meeting County standards. Mr. Vengrin stated if an applicant came to the County with a pre-built road that did not meet the standards, it would have to be upgraded. If the Board grants a variance during the planning process the Engineering Department would sign off on the application and it would be accepted. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the number of vehicles or daily trips that would trigger the requirement for both the inside road and Blue Ridge Road. Is it the number of vehicles anticipated. Mr. Vengrin stated the number of vehicles, number oftrips and density. He stated the major road should be a collector. Mr. Isom pointed out on the map the location of the roads. He stated this is a County collector road and the applicant would prefer not to have this road. He stated it has been a hardship to accommodate this road all the way through the subdivision. In the beginning it was a parking road. They agreed with the County to help them out. Mr. Vengrin stated just the traffic generated from this development would kick it into the collector status. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the hardship and the cutting and planting trees. He asked why the applicant decided to cut down the trees on and move the ditch rather than move the other way. Mr. Isom stated the right of way is contiguous to the south boundary. It would be a hardship to move it into the residential area forcing them farther back into the hill. 15 05-22-2000 Commissioner Gallagher questioned the bike path and the difference in the width. Mr. Isom stated it would be the difference from 15 feet to 12 feet. It would be a total of 8 feet. Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny file number VIS-0007, Blue Ridge PUD, variance from Improvement Standards. There was no second to the motion. The motion failed. Commissioner Phillips stated she believes some of the variances requested will not decrease any services of the level for traffic. She stated she believes the trees need to be maintained. The request for a smaller bike path and a 12 foot lane makes sense. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number VIS-0007, Blue Ridge PUD, variance from Improvement Standards, with a 50 foot right of way with a 12 foot lane and 6 foot bike path. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion for discussion. In discussion, Commissioner Gallagher stated in preparing for this hearing and reviewing staff recommendations, he has to believe the potential hardships are exaggerated perhaps by the applicant, but there are safety concerns that he believes is the reason they should not approve the variance request. He stated he believes those concerns could be mitigated by meeting County Standards. Staff has related the variances are not equally durable or equally safe to those required in the standards. Staffhas stated the portion of the road design for which the variances are requested in Exhibit B, are not equally durable or equally safe. He believes safety is one of the issues the Board needs to be concerned with. Chairman Stone asked if there were any variances Commissioner Gallagher would approve of? Commissioner Gallagher stated he believes at a low speed, lane width is not as critical. A good functional bike path system is a safety concern and providing a good pedestrian path is a concern. If those could be met he could go along with the variances. The internal roads, if there is a bad regulation, perhaps it should be changed. They are dealing with new regulations. He does not see a hardship and no reason to grant a variance. Commissioner Phillips stated the original application came under the old regulations but this amendment falls under the new regulations. She believes with lower density it does not create as much of a problem as it would if the original density were there. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this application enjoys privilege because it started under the old regulations? Commissioner Phillips stated she believes it should but it does not. Chairman Stone asked when staff stated the portions of the road design are not equally durable, what is meant by that. Mr. Vengrin stated if you are talking about lane width, an 11 foot width can be equally durable to a 15 foot lane. He stated a detached path would have greater durability than an attached path. He stated the durability question does not apply to most of these. He stated in Exhibit B, the trail system that goes to the upper part of the site, the applicant is proposing to use crushed stone rather than asphalt. In that case the durability issue would fall into place. Commissioner Gallagher stated it appears as though there area total of 3 plus 11 plus 6 variances requested. Should they deal with them in a lump sum. Chairman Stone stated that is how they are dealt with. He stated what the County is ending up with is a better subdivision than what was proposed under the old Land Use Regulations, because ofthe decreased density. He stated he believes it is in the best interest of the community to come up with a plan that meets the needs of the community. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion for file number VIS-0007. Commissioners Phillips and Stone voting aye and Commissioner Gallagher voting no. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD Amendment with the following conditions: 1) An updated Resolution shall be prepared to address the intersections of Blue Ridge Lane and El Jebel Hill 16 05-22-2000 2) The proposed development shall result in a density no greater than 1 00 units total 3) The proposed development shall specify a 100 foot building and parking set back adjacent to Highway 82 and the EI Jebel and Basalt area 4) Once the applicant has built 60 units the improvement to the intersection and extension of Blue Ridge Lane shall be implemented. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Executive Session Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn into "Executive Session" to discuss legal issues in negotiations at the Airport concerning Terminal B. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from "Executive Session" and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDF -00045, Final Plat, Cordillera Filing 37 Resubdivision Jean Garren, Planner, presented file number PDF-00045, Final Plat, Cordillera Filing 37, resubdivision. She stated the applicant seeks by this Final Plat to develop 19 ofthe 40 single family lots allowed in this Planning Parcel U-l. Ms. Garren reviewed the chronology of the property for the Board: Approval by the Board of County Commissioners in late March of this year of the Cordillera Sixth Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document (File No. PDA-00025; Resolution No. 2000-054), and the Preliminary Plan for Planning Parcel U-l (File No. PDP-00014; Resolution No. 2000-055), created this particular small lot cluster of single family homes around the future clubhouse of Cordillera's "Mountain Tract" golf course. Related files (1041-00026 and VIS- 00006) were likewise approved by the Board, thus allowing an expansion of the Cordillera Metro District to service these small lots and a Variance from Improvement Standards to construct roads similar in design to those presently existing. Ms. Garren spoke to referral responses as follows: Eagle County Engineering. Construction drawings are satisfactory; an SIA should be prepared. Eagle County Surveyor. The Surveyor had five comments, which have been addressed. Eagle County Assessor. The Assessor had no comments. Ms. Garren reviewed staff concerns and issues as follows: The following conditions of Preliminary Plan approval have been met: 1. 1041 Approval. Prior to or concurrent with any adoption of this Resolution by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners, the Board shall adopt and execute the Resolution approving File No. 1041-00026. Resolution 2000-050 was recorded on April 13, 2000. 2. VIS Approval. Prior to or concurrent with any adoption of this Resolution by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners, the Board shall adopt and execute the Resolution approving File No. File No. VIS-00006. The Resolution approving this file was approved by the Board on May 1, 2000; recording information is not available as of the writing of this Staff Report. Ms. Garren reviewed staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b.(3) Final Plat for Subdivision - Action by the Board of County Commissioners: This Final Plat for Subdivision CONFORMS to the approval given to the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 17 05-22-2000 Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan; Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines SHALL BE sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Compatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Matt Dean, representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00045, Final Plat, Cordillera Filing 37, resubdivision, incorporating Staffs Findings, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ASD-00005, Appeal of Staff Decision, Jerry & Sharla Nelson Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, presented file number ASD-00005, appeal of staff decision, Jerry & Sharla Nelson. He stated the historical Joe Tract and Schaefer Tract, subjects of this Appeal, were recognized as non-conforming legal lots in the Resource Zone District, exempt from subdivision regulation by action of the Board of County Commissioners on May 26, 1992 under Resolutions 92-168 and 92-169. These Tracts were then, and are now, held under single ownership. Upon inquiry, applicant was advised via letter of April 24, 1995 that altering the lot line between the parcels would constitute an illegal subdivision of land pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. On or about February 22, 1999 Applicant made application to amend the lot line via Amended Final Plat. After careful and detailed consideration of the request, it was determined that it was not legally possible to alter the lot line between the two exempted parcels pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; and that, further, since their legal ownership had remained unchanged since 1992 the parcels were one parcel for the purpose of subdivision. Specific Response to Applicant's Letter of Appeal (1) The merger provision was settled as legal and valid in Wilkinson v. Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, 872 P.2d 1269 (Colo. App. 1993). Eagle County's Section 6-120.B. Contiguous Parcels Under Single Ownership is based on this decision. In March, 1997, Eagle County adopted a temporary merger regulation; in July, after public hearing, same was incorporated as a 18 05-22-2000 permanent measure into the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. It was further refined - and specifically narrowed to apply solely to nonconforming properties -- during the extensive public hearings leading to the current Regulations, effective January 1, 1999. The fundamental purpose of Section 6- 120.B is to bring non-conforming lots into conformance with County zoning. (2) Eagle County acknowledged pre-existing lot status by granting the original Exemptions. Changing the lot line between them creates new parcels of land that do not conform to zoning. Wendell Porterfield, Attorney representing the applicant, stated in 1992 the Nelsons were granted an exemption from the Land Use Regulations and the Commissioners approved the exemption plat, recognizing the Shaeffer and Joe tracks. He stated these are not the only lots recognized as being exempt from the LUR. He stated the King and Flemming tracts lie to the west and were also recognized as being exempt in 1994. To the east of these tracts there are two additional tracts known as the Martin tracts and were recognized as being exempt in 1993. He stated the County found that these lots were in existence prior to 1984. The applicant requested the lot line be moved due to their residence and a rental property. The property is held in the same name but there are two separate mortgages. Chairman Stone asked other than the applicant not wanting to have the lot line so close to their deck, he believes these folks are caught between a rock and a hard place. Mr. Porterfield stated the issue is no longer moving the lot lines. He stated they approached Community Development and submitted an application in February 1999. He stated County staff then proceeded to instruct them and what to do, made calls to their surveyor and had additional work done then issued a denial letter 13 months before they received a letter from the County indicating the application would not be processed and the County had taken the position the application is a request for either an amended final plat or a new subdivision exemption application. Under the new Land Use Regulation and the merger doctrine in the regulations, because these people own these two lots under the same name, they now have one lot. That is not something they ask for nor were advised of. He stated there are four other lots who do not have the problem because of how the title is held. Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, asked what was the application for. Mr. Porterfield stated to move the lot line, in essence an amended final plat. Mr. Loeffler questioned not moving the lot line. Mr. Porterfield stated if they have to they will go back and resubmit the application. Mr. Loeffler stated they are appealing the denial of an application for an exemption. Mr. Porterfield stated it goes a little bit further than that. They now have the County's ruling on their application. He stated the Nelson's have a right to apply for a subdivision exemption. He stated he does not believe the LUR were designed to apply to a situation like this. He stated section 6.12.0.b states this merger provision is not intended to lots in the Fulford historical zone district. Also it is not to apply to any lot shown on any subdivision plat, if said subdivision plat has been approved and signed by the Commissioners. He stated in applying the strict language the merger doctrine is intended to apply to a situation such as this, where the applicants have already been granted subdivision exemption. He does not think this can happen without giving them the right to be heard. Mr. Loeffler stated he does not agree. If you made an application for an amended final plat, then the only thing that was denied was the amended final plat. He stated whether the merger doctrine applies to the property or not does not seem relevant. Mr. Porterfield stated after 13 months, the County finally issued a letter stated they were treating this as a subdivision exemption. He stated they believe the County's decision is incorrect. Mr. Montag stated the letter that was sent indicated that the application submitted was an amended final plat. In addition the letter went on and referred to the exemption process. The reason an exemption is not available to move lot lines is the same property boundary must be maintained as was described on the deed. In order to change the legal description they would have to create a subdivision. Mr. Loeffler stated this was the way ofnotif)ring the Nelson's. Mr. Garren stated the Planning Division was trying to find a way to legally help the Nelsons. 19 05-22-2000 She stated at one point the planners felt the Nelson's might be able to submit a new exemption with a new lot. Mr. Loeffler stated the denial has to be treated as to what was applied for, which was an amended final plat. He questioned if the applicant wants to appeal that denial or if they are satisfied. Mr. Porterfield stated the first item in the letter states that staff is not able to process the application and in the next paragraph the application is denied. He stated he just wanted to make a record on exactly what the County has ruled on. Mr. Loeffler stated if the application applied for is a final plat, that is what was denied. Mr. Porterfield asked if staff is stating the merger doctrine does apply to this. Mr. Loeffler stated as best he can tell, it does not relate to the amended final plat process. Mr. Porterfield stated is it the County's thinking that binds these applicants. Commissioner Phillips asked why it is determined that any two contiguous parcels of land under a single ownership shall constitute a single lot? Why can the applicants not do something like a Minor Type B Subdivision? Mr. Loeffler stated the Minor B process is not available. Mr. Porterfield stated there are several other ways to obtain what they want to obtain. He stated he believes the County is taking away a property right not to be heard. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there exists a lot line that mayor may not be moved. Mr. Loeffler stated that is a good question. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the merger doctrine apply to these two lots. Mr. Loeffler stated yes it applies to these two lots which means there is no lot line. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the zoning. Mr. Montag stated these lots are zoned resource along with all the other lots. He stated on the South side of Highway 6 there is smaller lot zoning which is RR zoning and RSL zoning. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the lot size was. Mr. Montag stated most of the lots are 2 acre in size. Commissioner Phillips wondered what the Assessor would have said about these two lots. Chairman Stone stated it appears there are a number of issues. He stated Mr. Clarkson came up with a similar result at that time that these parcels did not meet the zoning and the process was to apply for a zone change first and proceed further. Sharla Nelson, applicant, stated in October 1998 they heard the County wanted to make small land parcels into 2 acre parcels. They made an appointment with Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Hunn. She stated Mr. Clarkson guided them through the process and they contacted a surveyor. Chairman Stone stated Mr. Clarkson in 1998 lead the Nelson's to believe there could be a remedy. He questioned what the change was that lead them to believe they could change the lot line. Ms. Nelson stated they got a surveyor to pin the property and draft a new map. She stated changes were made to the map. She stated after all that they received a letter from the County indicating things were not going to happen. Chairman Stone apologized for not doing things in a business like manner. He stated he does not understand why Mr. Clarkson would say no in 1995 and then yes in 1998. He stated he believes it to be unfortunate but does not know what remedy there might be. He asked if the applicant was still interested in moving the lot line. Ms. Nelson stated if they cannot move the lot line then the lot line stays where it is. Her complaint is they were led down the wrong path by County staff and spent quite a bit of money for nothing. Chairman Stone agreed the applicants were not treated fairly. Mr. Montag stated in his assumption the reason the application took so long is to try and find a way to allow this to happen. Chairman Stone stated he does believe Mr. Clarkson is a kind person and was trying to help the 20 05-22-2000 applicants out. Mr. Porterfield stated the reason they are here is not that they cannot live with a denial. He stated it is because the County feels these applicants own one lot rather than two. He stated they are here to defend that idea. Mr. Loeffler stated if it should be the Board's choosing to define exactly what its deciding and support the department, it could be added to the resolution. He stated the resolution could say there is no final plat available. Commissioner Phillips asked about tax notices on one or two lots. Ms. Nelson receives one tax notice for two separate lots. Chairman Stone stated that is not the issue before the Board. Ms. Garren stated often the Assessor combines the tax notices which include descriptions of different parcels. Commissioner Phillips asked if they want to move the lot line why would it not be available to these applicants as they have two lots. Mr. Porterfield stated there are six lots that have been recognized. Only the Nelson's lose the two lots and have it become one lot because of how the property is titled. He does not understand how this could happen to these people. Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny file number ASD-00005, Appeal of Staff Decision for Jerry & Sharla Nelson, incorporating staff findings. That is upholding the decision they are not eligible for an amended final plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Phillips stated she believes these applicants were asked to do certain things, at their own expense, which was done and believes this applicant deserves some sort of refund. She stated she has a real problem with taking two lots and turning them into one. Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees there should be a remedy for the Nelsons. He stated he believes they should look for a solution. Chairman Stone stated they all agree there has been unjust treatment. Mr. Montag stated they can refund all or part of the application fees at that time. Commissioner Phillips stated they were directed in a way that cost them undue expense then were denied. Commissioner Gallagher questioned refunding the cost of the surveyor's fees, etc. Chairman Stone stated all they have the capability of refunding is the application fee. Mr. Loeffler suggested this matter be discussed during an executive session. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. Commissioner Gallagher voting aye and Commissioner Phillips and Stone voting no. Chairman Stone questioned what happens now. Mr. Loeffler stated there could be another motion. Chairman Stone stated if the Board does not deny the appeal to the staff decision, or that the staff decision was wrong. Mr. Loeffler stated that would mean the applicant could process an amended final plat. He stated the Board cannot legally approve an amended final plat under the circumstances as the regulations do not allow it. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there was a solution outside of this appeal, could it take the form of a zone change and then subdivision. Ms. Nelson stated they are not concerned with moving the lot line. They just want to assure they have two pieces of property. Chairman Stone asked how the applicant would go about determining that. Mr. Loeffler answered he is not at liberty to discuss that. Mr. Porterfield stated his dilemma is there is nothing of record that says they can not sell one of 21 05-22-2000 these lots. The only time it comes up is when they are applying for a building permit. Commissioner Gallagher asked about selling one of the lots, would they be denied Mr. Montag stated if a building permit was applied for, staff would do research and if they found there was a merger on those lots and the building permit would be denied. Commissioner Phillips moved to deny the decision for the request for appeal, file number ASD- 00005, with the restitution of the fees that were paid to the County of $625.00. This limits the effect of the appeal they cannot process an amended final plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned until May 30, 2000. ~~ Attest: Clerk to the Bo 22 05-22-2000