HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/30/2000
PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 30, 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 May 30,2000, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of payroll for June 1,2000, subject to review by County Administrator
C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for may 15,
2000
D) Pilot Facility Lease between Eagle County and the Vail Valley Jet Center
E) Telecommunications cabling for the Eagle County Maintenance Service Center
F) Shrine Pass Use Agreement DN13XC412, between Sprint Spectrum and the Sheriffs
Department of Eagle County
G) EPSDT Change Order No.2, Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment
H) Forest Road Agreement between Eagle County and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated item F, is a lease for antenna space for the
Sheriff s radio system on Shrine Pass. He has been asked by the Sheriff to have this approved with
authorization for the Chairman to sign it when the Sheriff gives his approval. Mr. Loeffler stated at the
last minute the Sheriff found a possible location that may be more advantageous. If in fact that can not
happen, he would go with this proposal.
Chairman Stone asked if it would not make better sense then to pull it and have it rescheduled.
Mr. Loeffler stated he believes the Sheriff is concerned about the two week delay in scheduling.
Chairman Stone questioned the actual items indicating the agenda says items A through H but he
has backup for items A through 1. He reviewed them to be sure what was included. He found that item
F in his back up was a Resolution concerning a Letter of Credit for Cordillera. All agreed the Resolution
for Power of Attorney should not be in the book.
Mr. Loeffler suggested this was reviewed and withdrawn the last time.
Chairman Stone verified that it is items A through H.
Commissioner Gallagher asked who were the beneficiaries of the EPSDT.
Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services stated children who are recipients of
medicaid.
Chairman Stone asked about item H and if this is a typical agreement with the Forest Service.
Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge Director, stated it is the review ofthe work to be done on the
roads.
Commissioner Phillips commented on the referral to the uses. She asked about item D, the Pilot
1
05-30-2000
Facility Agreement.
Jim Elwood, Airport Manager, stated it has already been approved at the Jet Center. He
suggested this has not been the easiest path but they are making headway. He stated the RFP has been
finalized and it is ready for Board action.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent agenda as presented authorizing the
Chairman to sign item F, the Use Agreement with Shrine Pass when presented by the Sheriff.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Mr. Loeffler introduced Jackie Crawford who is the new paralegal in the Attorney's Office.
The Board welcomed Ms. Crawford.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Matthew Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
5MB-00234. Berry Creek Ranch. Filin~ No.1. ARe-subdivision of Lot 12. He stated
the intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 12 into two (2) Y2 duplex lots; Lot
12A and Lot 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 Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00234, Berry Creek
Ranch, Filing No.1, are-subdivision of Lot 12, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the
Chairman to sign the same.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDF -00052, Kundson Ranch, Phase 2
Matt Gennett presented file number PDF-00052, Knudson Ranch, Phase 2. He stated the intent
of this plat is to re-subdivide the lands contained within Tract A, Knudson Ranch, Phase 1, according to
the plat recorded in Book 742 at Page 252, under Reception No. 638200, creating Town-home Lots 1
through 6, along with associated Common Areas pursuant to this plat.
Mr. Gennett read staff findings as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
a) This final plat conforms to the of the approval of the Preliminary Plat for subdivision.
b) Required improvements are adequate.
c) Areas dedicated for public use and easements are acceptable and;
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
(1) Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the
Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM ofthe Master Plan
(2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision complies with all of
2
05-30-2000
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.
Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions are consistent with the utility's service
plan or shall be required prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road
extensions are consistent with the Ea~le County Road Capital Imvrovements Plan.
Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of
the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions are 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 shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
area.
Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00052, Knudson Ranch, Phase 2,
incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
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.
Liquor License Consent Agenda
Earlene Roach, Eagle County Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as
follows:
A) Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District, dba/Mulligans at Eagle-Vail
Renewal of a hotel and restaurant license with optional premises, located in Eagle
Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances.
B) Vista Hospitality, Inc., dba/Splendido at the Chateau
Change in Corporate Structure, adding Jerry Campbell and David Mitchell,
replacing James Nicol. The new officers are reported to be of good moral
character. This establishment is located in Beaver Creek.
C) Gwendolyn J. Braatz, dba/Fireside Lodge
Renewal of a hotel and restaurant license, located in Bond. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
D) Eagle-Vail Restaurant Group, dbalPaddy's
Renewal of a hotel and restaurant license, located in Eagle-Vail. There have been
no complaints or disturbances during the past year.
E) Gloria J. Deschamp, dba/El Jebel Liquors
Renewal of a retail liquor store license, located in El Jebel. There have been no
3
05-30-2000
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
F) Equestrian's, Inc., dba/Ranch at Berry Creek
Renewal of an optional premise license, located in Edwards. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
G) Designs by Teresa, Inc., dba/Asia
Renewal of a hotel and restaurant license, located in Edwards. There have been
no complaints or disturbances during the past year.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for May 30, 2000
as presented.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Ristorante Ti Amo
Earlene Roach presented a transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant license for Ti Amo,
Inc., dba/Ristorante Ti Amo. She stated this application is in order and all fees have been paid. All
applicants are reported to be of good moral character. Staff recommended approval.
Steven Negler, applicant, was present for the hearing.
Commissioner Phillips asked if he had purchased the restaurant.
Mr. Negler responded he has.
Ms. Roach explained that the new applicants are family.
Commissioner Gallagher asked who the new owners are.
Mr. Negler responded himself and Masmilliano Peruchinni.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve a transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant
license for Ti Amo, Inc., dba/Ristorante Ti Amo.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Edwards Liquors
Earlene Roach presented a transfer of ownership of a retail liquor store license for Sady Family,
Inc., dba/Edwards Liquors. This application is in order and all fees have been paid. All applicants are
reported to be of good moral character. Staff recommended approval.
Kenneth Sady and Jean Firoamonti, applicants, were present for the hearing.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the persons listed as the representatives are the new owners.
Ms. Roach responded they are.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they have managed a liquor store previously.
Mr. Sady responded he has not.
Ms. Firoamonti replied she has worked at Garton's and in the restaurant business for many years.
Larry Esqwith, Attorney, stated he is very pleased to be selling this establishment to these two
individuals and spoke to their abilities and their experience. He stated Mr. Sady has been at the Saloon
in Minturn for many years. He spoke to the differences between wholesale and retail.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the transfer of ownership of a retail liquor store license
for Sady Family, Inc., dbalEdwards Liquors.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Zach's Cabin
Earlene Roach presented a modification of premises for Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc.,
dba/Zach's Cabin. The applicant proposes to add an optional premises known as Andersons Cabin. She
stated this cabin was attached to another license, Gundy's Camp, which is out of business. This
4
05-30-2000
application is in order and all fees have been paid. The Sheriff s Office reports no complaints or
disturbances during the past year. Staff recommended approval.
Carrie O'Neil, representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. She stated that this is her
last time before the Board as she will be moving to California.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the maps of the locations.
Ms. Roach provided them with a map of the area.
Commissioner Stone questioned the covering of different locations under one license. He
questioned them doing away with Gundy's Cabin and adding Andersons.
Ms. O'Neil explained that they must attach the optional of Anderson's to a different license as
Gundy's is no longer in operation.
Commissioner Gallagher reviewed the sketches of locations. He asked if the optional premise is
serving and storing liquor.
Ms. Roach stated that is correct and that alcohol can not pass between one location and the other.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the modification of premises for Beaver Creek Food
Services, Inc., dbalZach's Cabin.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Boaters Bar
Earlene Roach presented a modification of premises for Boaters Bar LLC, dba/Boaters Bar. She
stated the applicant is proposing to add an outside picnic area to their premise. This application is in
order and all fees have been paid. There have been no complaints or disturbances since opening. Staff
recommended approval.
Shane Beaty, applicant, was present for the hearing.
Commissioner Phillips asked how things are going.
Mr. Beaty stated things are working well.
Chairman Stone asked about the long weekend.
Mr. Beaty stated it was very busy with about two hundred campers. He stated they had no
problems.
Chairman Stone applauded him in that regard. He asked about the boundary of the property.
Mr. Beaty explained the fencing and related there are two entrance/exits. He explained the path to
the bar-b-que and the foot path.
Ms. Roach explained the cinder path has been defined and is differentiated from the road.
Commissioner Gallagher asked how far it is from the bar-b-que to the deck.
Mr. Beaty explained about 25 yards.
Commissioner Gallagher questioned the fencing around the deck.
Commissioner Stone asked if there is a concern with control.
Ms. Roach stated she has been up there and doesn't see a problem. She stated the bar-b-que is
more like 25 feet rather than 25 yards from the current premise.
Commissioner Gallagher asked that signs be posted on both sides of the walkway. He questioned
one person running the bar-b-que being able to police the area.
Commissioner Phillips suggested that if Ms. Roach feels it is a controllable area she will concur.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested with the signs and enforcement he can give approval. If they
are not able to enforce it, they will face the chance of losing their license.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the modification of premises for the Boaters Bar LLC,
dba/Boaters Bar with appropriate signage incorporated as requested by Commissioner Gallagher.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and
5
05-30-2000
reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDS-00016, Ute Creek at Wolcott
Chairman Stone stated the next item on the agenda was file number PDS-OOO 16, Ute Creek at
Wolcott. He welcomed all present. He related this is the third time this file had been heard. He asked
Mr. Knight ifthe applicant had concluded their presentation.
Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, responded they would like to present those items they had
worked on with Staff only.
Chairman Stone asked if there have been some substantial changes.
Mr. Knight responded the adjustments they have made have been fairly minor.
Chairman Stone indicated that Commissioner Phillips had some specific questions, one being
would they consider selling the property for each unit.
Jean Garren, Planner, stated one thing for the Board to be aware of is that the DOW, Forest
Service and Landfill are present for their presentation and questions. The Board has also received a
memo from the Bureau of Land Management.
Jeff Kellogg, representing the applicant, stated they are a corporation organized under a 1960 IRS
rule requiring them to return 95% of profit to shareholders and 95% of income must be leasehold. He
stated under the rules they operate on, they can not sell the property.
Commissioner Phillips stated they talked about density and she recognizes the fact to have
attainable housing it will have to be quite dense. She asked if it is feasible to eliminate some of the
density .
Mr. Kellogg stated as for Ute Creek and the manufactured housing side, 600 units is a reasonable
development. Having it less dense will effect the affordability increasing the cost per unit. They have
an option on 600 acres and were figuring one unit per acre. Density gives you visual open space. He
stated in looking at this project, this is not that dense. On the physical land, it is about 3.5 acres per unit.
Mr. Knight stated this is an integrated project that works together. They are here to have a
cooperative plan. It obviously effects the cost of the public golf and the remaining units. The can make
adjustments physically. They are at 1.76 acres per unit, but they are not inflexible. They tried to do a
plan that fits the land. There are things they can do and are happy to work with the County.
Sid Fox, representing the applicant, stated another important part of the plan is the golf course on
the Catch Creek side.
Chairman Stone asked if they can hold off on discussion on the golf course and wait until there is
a question about the golf course.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the offer of the applicant making some of the lots available
for less expensive homes.
Mr. Kellogg stated the homes do not have to be purchased from them but they must meet the
architectural standards.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they have to be new homes.
Mr. Kellogg answered yes.
Commissioner Gallagher asked ifthe $50,000 units have to be 10% of the project and no more.
Mr. Kellogg stated they can all be $50,000.
Commissioner Gallagher asked for how long that commitment would be viable.
Mr. Kellogg stated for up to four years.
Chairman Stone asked for the basis of each finding that will have to be made.
Ms. Garren began reviewing the findings in which they are in agreement as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards. The Sketch
Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall comply with the following standards:
6
05-30-2000
Section 5-240.F.3.e (1). Unified ownership or control.
The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A
person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent
of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (1) Findin~
Unified ownership or control. Title to all land IS CURRENTLY owned or controlled by one (1)
entity; however. future ownerships of significant components are unclear.
Staff and the applicant are in agreement with this finding.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (4) Off-Street Parking and Loading. An acceptable conceptual PUD
Parking Plan pursuant to Section 4-140.M(I) PUD Parking Plan has been submitted. It is assumed that
the standards of Section 5-240.F.4 Off-Street Loading Required will apply.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) Phasing
The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development
of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements
and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the
entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if
this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) Findin~ Phasing. This finding applies specifically to Preliminary
Plan.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (12) Common Recreation and Open Space.
The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards.
(a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be
devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD
shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every
one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of
residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three
hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle
County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan.
Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and
areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space.
Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas,
riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that
are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable
by or accessible to the residents ofthe PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible
from all occupied structures within the PUD.
Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on
the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development
schedule established for each development phase ofthe PUD.
Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to
conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the
common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or
covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any
common open space.
Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or
nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and
cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance,
administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and
secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be
7
05-30-2000
established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or
nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
Section 5-240.F .3.e (12) Findin~
Common Recreation and Open Space. Over 25% of the total proposed PUD area (approximately
432.5 acres) WILL be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public,
in the form of golf courses and other conforming open space; the proposed PUD DOES provide an
additional minimum often (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one
thousand (1,000) persons who are to be residents of the proposed PUD (approximately 25 acres). The
Improvements Required, Continuing Use and Maintenance, and Organization Standards are
requirements of the Preliminary Plan.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) Natural Resource Protection.
The PUD shall consider 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.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) Findin2
Natural Resource Protection. It is assumed that the proposed PUD HAS considered the
recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of
referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. However,
the proposed PUD does not meet. on a conceptual level. the requirements of the following Article 4.
Division 4 Standards: Section 4-410 Wildlife Protection, Section 4-420 Development in Areas Subiect
to Geologic Hazards (lots are proposed on slopes> 30%), Section 4-430 Development in Areas Subiect
to Wildfire Hazards (insufficient information submitted), and Section 4-460 Environmental Impact
Report (insufficient information submitted).
Section 5-280.B.3.e (4) Suitability for Development.
The property proposed to be subdivided shall be 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.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (4) Findin~
The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development under zoning provided site
constraints identified are honored.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 4-700 School Land Dedication
Standards: The Eagle County School District RE 50J has requested 13.82 acres ofland; Applicant
HAS shown on that "Concept Plan for the Existing Ute Creek PUD Area" submitted to Eagle County on
February 4, 2000 that it intends to donate 14 acres. Therefore, it is found that this Section 4-700
requirement is conceptually satisfied; however it is noted that the School District has not accepted the
site.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Division 4-5 Commercial and Industrial
Performance Standards: This Division of Article 4 does not apply to this application.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 4-710 Road Impact Fees: It is
assumed that any provisions under this Section CAN AND WILL be met at Final Plat.
Ms. Garren stated they received some additional information on Thursday regarding the
landscaping but they did not have an opportunity to make a thorough assessment.
Chairman Stone asked to review those items with which they still have issue. He read the finding
for "Uses" as follows:
TO BE FOUND: Section 5-240.F.3.e (2). Uses.
The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are
allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural
and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts
8
05-30-2000
Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application
for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f.,
Variations Authorized.
Applicant has requested the following Section 5-240F3.e (2) Uses Variations:
(1) That a mobile home park and multi-family dwelling units be allowed in the underlying
Ute Creek at Wolcott Resource Zone District
(2) That an uncertain number of new commercial/industrial/non-commercial/non-
industrial uses be allowed in the area of the existing Ute Creek commercial/industrial PUD, apparently
all as uses-by-right. [Note: The list provided by separate document does not match the list of uses
appearing in the PUD Guidefor Use Areas U-l, U-2, and/or U-3 which constitute the existing Ute
Creek PUD from which a Variation is sought.)
Ms. Garren stated in order to find that the uses are compatible, the Land Use Regulations say they
shall be compatible with the underlying zone district or there must be a finding for cause. Those are
called variations from the standards. Staff has not been able to find any of the reasons for granting the
variations.
Mr. Knight stated there is a direct relationship between uses, variations and dimensional standards
and therefore they are going through the PUD process. He stated they are not proposing one unit per 35
acres so they must apply for a variance.
Sid Fox stated the underlying zoning is Resource. He stated the uses they are requesting are the
manufactured home park/community and the multi-family units around the golf course. Within the PUD
they identified which uses are not included and identified a whole list of land uses for the County. He
spoke to the manufactured home park and the multifamily home units. He read from the regulations that
specify the code. He read from the code, "the County Commissioners shall be authorized to grant the
following variances as part of its approval of the preliminary plan for PUD. There are six criteria for
granting variances: 1) obtain desired design qualities 2) avoid environmental resources and natural
hazards 3) water augmentation, 4) trails 5) affordable housing and 6) public facilities". He spoke to the
affordable housing component. He stated by the variation the Board is providing the incentive of
affordable housing. He stated the last one provides incentives for applicant to provide public facilities
and he believes that is where the applicant is making a commitment to public golf. He continued to read
from the code, the Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to impose such conditions
on the PUD that are necessary to accomplish the purpose of this section of the code".
Chairman Stone asked for response from the staff on affordable housing and public recreation.
Ms. Garren responded that she doesn't know that a long term demonstration has been made
toward affordable housing. She questioned how public is the public golf. She questions for whom is it
affordable, people of the Town of Avon, within the project, what about people from Eagle.
Chairman Stone asked his fellow Commissioners if they can make a positive motion on this issue
or not.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested he doesn't have enough information on the public golf course.
He stated the 62 spaces for him does not seem to be enough to determine if it is affordable. He doesn't
necessarily agree the other 90% is affordable or meets the definition for long term affordability.
Commissioner Phillips suggested the variation of affordable housing could help alleviate some of
the problem but the leased land component is a concern to her. She suggested the house itself is
affordable, but without the land, it is expensive.
Chairman Stone stated he agrees with both Commissioners. He thinks that Chateau Communities
provide a good service to a lot of communities but he doesn't believe it provides the right type of
housing that is needed. He stated the value of real estate is not in the structure, but in the land. If these
people can not own the land they are being deprived of the appreciation value. He spoke to the tear
downs in Vail and the value being in the land, not in the home. He doesn't believe this is a solution for
affordable housing but that it will restrict people forever for getting their foot in the door. He suggested
9
05-30-2000
they continue with the file as there may be some ways to rework the process to make this feasible.
Mr. Kellogg stated he agrees with the Board 100% in that land has a lot of value. He stated one
of the reasons the land lease works is because the land is the most expensive portion and that which they
can't afford. He stated they have given a guarantee that the cost will not increase by more than 5% per
year. If they were to build this and sell it they will see an increase of more than 10% per year. They
have provided a system where they can maintain affordability over a long period of time by providing a
cap.
Chairman Stone stated they have applied other mechanisms that do the same by imposing deed
restrictions which he now believes is a viable solution. In his estimation that is why someone needs to
be able to own the land. He stated the initial down payment is the issue. If they could calculate what
$600 would pay in a mortgage, it could probably support a $50,000 mortgage. He stated providing
housing that different groups can enjoy, they need to fill in some gaps that cost far less than what this
will be and fill in the gaps where people can own the property as well. The reason to own a house is
because your payments don't go up as with a mortgage. He spoke to the calculation they did previously
with an increase over ten years of $300.00. He suggested it supports his belief that people need to get
their foot in the door with a better future.
Mr. Knight stated the costs they have here can not be found other than a land lease. He suggested
if they were going to do this differently, it could not be for this price.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the other projects that raise their costs only at that time the
operational expenses increase. He questioned if Chateau Communities would be willing to do that?
Mr. Kellogg stated the 5% increase looks at the operational expense increases and inflation. He
suggested the lots pegged at about $50,000 spread over 20 years. If they were to sell, they would have to
see that when they complete the development.
TO BE FOUND: Section 5-240.F.3.e (3). Dimensional Limitations.
The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be 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. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized
pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate
distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light,
air and snow melt between buildings.
Applicant has requested the following and Section 5-240.F.3.e (3) Dimensional Limitations
Variations:
(1) That the mobile home park boundary front yard setback be 25' rather than 50' from the
collector loop road. [Section 3-310(Y)4.e.(4)(b)(i)]
(2) That the mobile home park boundary rear setback be 12.5' rather than 20' from the rear
property line where same is contiguous with that ofthe BLM. [Section 3-31O(Y)4.e.(4)(b)(ii)]
(3) That a minimum lot size of 0.30 acres be allowed in the underlying Resource Zone District for
sale lots, with maximum lot coverage for buildings and impervious surfaces be 25%-40% and 35% to
70% respectively. [Table 3-340: Note: Building coverages reflect most closely those of the RSM and
RMF Zone Districts; an impervious coverage of 35% reflects the RSL Zone District; 70% reflects the CL
Zone District. RMF Zone District impervious coverage is 60%; the Resource Zone District has neither
building nor impervious coverage maximums. ]
(4) That sale lot front yard setbacks be by building envelope, with 25' minimum front setbacks
and the greater of 12.5' or ~ the height of the tallest building on the lot minimum side/rear setbacks.
[Table 3-340: Note: These minimum setbacks do not fully reflect the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations which differentiate front setbacks for collector and arterial streets.]
(5) That an uncertain number of new commerciallindustrial/non-commercial/non-industrial uses
be allowed in the area of the existing Ute Creek commerciallindustrial PUD.
10
05-30-2000
(6) That within the existing Ute Creek PUD the maximum square footage of buildings, lot
building coverage, lot impervious materials coverage, and floor area ratios (FAR) be variable depending
on the lot, with a maximum building square footage change from 50% of the total PUD to-be-
determined based on application of the following maximums: lot building coverage increase of up to
30%, impervious coverage increase of up to 5%, FAR increase of from 5% ofthe total PUD area to up to
40% of each lot.
(7) That building setbacks within the existing Ute Creek PUD be increased from 15' to 25'-50'
(front, not further defined), 10' to 12.5' (side/rear); building height be lowered from 40' to 35'; minimum
lot area be increased from 7,500sfto 21,780sf(0.5 acres).
Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Variations from established standards can
only be granted pursuant a finding that one or more of the following Standards of Section 5-240.F.3.f(3)
Basis for Granting Variations has been met, and that "... the granting of the variation is necessary for that
purpose to be achieved":
(a) Obtain Desired Design Qualities. A variation may be allowed that permits the integration of
mixed uses or allows for greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings. Structures shall be
designed to be compatible, in terms of height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration, with other units
in the PUD and the surrounding area, yet shall avoid uniformity of design. Residential and non-
residential uses may be mixed together. Various types of residential uses may also be combined within
the PUD, to promote more efficient land use patterns and increased open space. The Board of County
Commissioners may require minimum yard setbacks, lot widths, and space between buildings of such
dimensions as they are determined to be necessary to provide adequate access and fire protection; to
ensure proper ventilation, light, air, and snow melt between buildings; and to minimize the effects of
transmission of noise between units and between buildings. As a general guide, twenty (20) feet
between buildings shall be considered the minimum appropriate spacing.
(b) Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. A variation may be allowed that
provides necessary site planning flexibility to enable the development to avoid valued environmental
resource and natural hazard lands, as these have been identified in Section 3-31 O.B.l., Purpose. This
shall be accomplished in such a way as to maintain these lands as large, contiguous areas. Such lands
shall not be fragmented into small, unconnected areas by development, unless the applicant demonstrates
that this arrangement is necessary to maintain the underlying density on the property, and the lands
providing environmental resource values have been protected and lands subject to natural hazards have
been avoided. Where applicable, connections of such lands on the site to such lands on adjacent
properties shall be accomplished.
(c) Water Augmentation. A variation may be allowed that creates incentives for applicants to
commit to a water augmentation plan for their development that brings "wet" water into the Upper Eagle
River Basin.
(d) Trails. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for applicants to make
contributions to the County's multi-use trail system, in accordance with the recommendations of the
latest version of the Eaele County Trails Plan, or to provide appropriate forms of access (including
summer and winter parking areas and trail heads) to public lands and to river and creek drainages in
Eagle County. Proposed access shall be consistent with public land management objectives and resource
protection needs for the areas to be accessed. Trails standards are identified in Section 4-630.A.
(e) Affordable Housing. A variation may be allowed that extends an incentive to applicants to
assure that long term affordable housing is provided.
(f) Public Facilities. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for applicants to
develop public facilities, including but not limited to public transportation facilities, public recreation
facilities and similar facilities. The facilities may be located on or off of the PUD site, and shall be
facilities that meet the demands not only of project residents, but also of other residents of and visitors to
11
05-30-2000
Eagle County.
Ms. Garren stated although Applicant suggests that it meets all of the above Standards; when the
Standards are read in full staff can not find that sufficient evidence exists, even at a conceptual level, to
grant a Variation for either Use or Dimensional Limitations for any of the above purposes, particularly
since most (particularly when applied to Dimensional Limitations) could be equally achieved through
modification of site design and/or density, thereby rendering the need for the Variation unnecessary.
Given that staff is of the opinion that the use itself is neither compatible with the surrounding land
uses nor internally nor externally efficient in terms ofland use pattern, it can not find (a) Obtain Desired
Design Oualities. Given a site plan with long roads serving few lots and unaddressed potential if not
actual negative impacts to environmental resources (streams, wildlife, potentially wetlands) as reflected
in referral responses, staff can not find (b ) Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. Given
the imbalance between 174 AF in water augmentation from Wolford Reservoir and but 14 AF from
Eagle Park, staff is of the opinion that (c) Water Augmentation, has not been definitively demonstrated,
even conceptually. Given that the Eagle County Trails Plan does not recognize this area as trails-
appropriate; the need for trails would not exist without this project; and the adjacent public lands have
been cautionary at best regarding trails, staff can not find (d) Trails. Staff is of the opinion that the "long
term" component of ( e) Affordable Housing, has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Given that ECO-
Transit has indicated that this project would have a significant impacts on its ability to serve the area;
that the proposed internal transit stop is not particularly convenient to the 1-70 corridor since access is
via Muddy Creek Road, through the project, then back through the project; that there may be uncertain
public access limitations on the proposed public golf course; that the other proposed recreational
amenities are primarily for the benefit of project residents rather than the public at large; and that the
increase in population the project would cause may, according to referral responses, negatively impact
adjacent public lands, staff is of the opinion that (f) Public Facilities can not be demonstrated.
(3) Landscape Plan. Applicant has submitted additional landscape plan information.
Ms. Garren spoke to the dimensional limitations including the boundaries, minimal lot sizes, etc.,
that the applicant would like to see waived. She stated the mobile home park boundaries is a specific
issue on which staff has concern.
Mr. Fox stated once again the concept is looking at identifying where in the sketch plan you
recognize zoning variations. He stated for example in the for sale lots they are requesting a 1/3 of an
acre minimal lot size. He stated spoke to lot coverage. They would have preferred to have this at
preliminary plan.
Chairman Stone suggested variations can only be granted according to the standards being met.
He asked if there is not one reason they should be able to grant them.
Ms. Garren spoke to the design qualities, avoidance of natural resources, trails do not contribute
to the overall trail plan.
Chairman Stone asked which issue do they feel supports their plan.
Mr. Fox stated the Board can modify each ofthese items to make them more acceptable to the
plan but affordable housing and public facilities are the big issues that supports their plan.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they are dealing with the items on page 3 and 4, he has a real
problem with the set backs that are contiguous with public lands. He suggested 20 feet may be
insufficient and to shorten that to 12 and ~ feet may be a serious issue for the land owner in cases of fire.
Mr. Fox stated the western boundary with BLM is the most developable portion of the property.
He spoke to the two variations and this being the boundary of the mobile home park, not the mobile
home space.
Mr. Knight stated that will not be a sagebrush field and they are committed to grading those
spaces.
Commissioner Phillips stated one issue she agrees with Mr. Fox on is that they have met this
12
05-30-2000
particular portion.
Chairman Stone stated he agrees as well and they can make changes to make it acceptable.
Chairman Stone asked about the landscaping.
TO BE FOUND: Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Landscaping.
Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping
and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant
demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both
within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse
impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area.
The specific Sketch Plan landscaping requirement of Article 4, Division 2 is as follows; Section
4-230 Landscaping Design Standards and Materials contains the specific standards applicable to all
development; Section 4-240 contains Installation and Maintenance Requirements:
SECTION 4-220. LANDSCAPE PLAN
1) Landscape Plan Required. A landscape plan, prepared by a qualified person, shall be
submitted for review as part of an application for development within Eagle County, except that
development specifically exempted in Section 4-210, Applicability. The landscape plan shall address
the following types of issues:
2) Proposed Residential Subdivisions and PUD's. The landscape plan that accompanies a
proposed residential subdivision or PUD is intended to address issues such as where and what type of
trees and other landscaping will be placed along the streetscape, how common areas will be treated, how
areas graded or otherwise disturbed during development will be re-vegetated, and similar concerns. It is
not anticipated that landscaping for individual residential lots will be addressed in the landscape plan.
3) Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Family and Other Development. The landscape plan that
accompanies a proposed commercial, industrial, multi-family or other type of development is intended to
address issues such as how areas that are not covered by impervious surfaces will be treated and how
such developments will be buffered from surrounding land uses and major streets.
Conceptual Landscape Plan. The landscape plan submitted with a ... Sketch Plan for PUD shall
be a conceptual plan illustrating the overall intent of the applicant with regard to landscaping of the
development. Areas where trees, shrubs and ground cover will either be preserved, removed or replaced
shall be identified. Proposed landscape areas shall be labeled, to identify the type of landscaping
planned and the general size and number of plants that are intended to be installed.
For some reason Applicant has included in the PUD Guide what it intends to do at Preliminary
Plan for a portion, but not all, and particularly not for the Cache Creek, of the PUD. Staff recognizes the
difficulty of definitively addressing landscaping for a project this large at Sketch Plan, and had suggested
that "At a minimum staff would have expected to see the required information for at least entrances,
special sites (e.g., clubhouses), and representative streetscapes for both halves of the project." (Staff
Report, December 15, 1999, page 14) To date, staffhas received information on the manufactured
housing area, the existing-to-be-revised Ute Creek PUD, but little or nothing as required in Section 4-
220 above for the rest of the project's Sketch Plan where significant development (golf course, golf
course facilities, multi-family housing, residential lots) is also proposed.
4) Si~n Plan. Applicant has submitted a plan for "Signage."
Ms. Garren stated they have not had the time to review the packet submitted last Thursday so she
can not say that they meet that criteria.
Mr. Knight stated they submitted what they felt was a complete landscaping plan initially and then
submitted additional information.
Commissioner Phillips suggested she has no problem with the landscaping and believes that it is
adequate.
Chairman Stone asked about signs.
13
05-30-2000
TO BE FOUND: Section 5-240.F.3.e (6) Signs.
The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign
Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable
for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
Although Applicant has submitted a "comprehensive sign plan for the PUD," it appears primarily
to be a cut and paste of most of Section 4-340 Sign Standards/All Zone Districts from the Eagle County
Land Use Regulations (absent Section 4-31 O.B Exempt Signs, required Section 4-330.D.l. Safety
Standards, and the diagram used to calculate height/setbacks) and includes signage for categories of uses
that may not represent uses occurring within the PUD, particularly in the "Ute Creek Light Industrial
Area" (e.g. multiple businesses). By requesting that this submitted "plan" supercede the Eagle County
Land Use Regulations, important missing cut-and-paste sections are thereby removed. Staff can not
find such a sign plan suitable as required under Section 5-240.F.3.e(6) above.
Other than signage restrictions and definition for some of the unique features of Ute Creek at
Wolcott (cf page 6 of the "plan," e.g.), a sense for the signage parameters of the project as a whole,
particularly how signage may act to help unify it, remains unclear. The point of a suitable conceptual
comprehensive PUD Sign Plan is not to cut-and-paste sections of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations, but to indicate conceptually desired design features (e.g. to be set into stone walls), theme
parameters (e.g. Western), desired construction materials (e.g. neon), particular requirements for unique
usages (e.g., school, community building) and areas within the PUD (e.g., Cache Creek; multi-family;
golf course), and any placement restrictions (e.g., identifying business signs may be stenciled on
awnings).
As submitted, staff can not find that the Applicant has either conceptually met the requirements of
Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations since portions of these requirements have been omitted and the
submitted sign plan seeks to overrides them, or provided a suitable conceptual comprehensive sign plan
for the PUD.
5) Improvements. Applicant has submitted additional "Improvements" information for roads
and trails.
Ms. Garren based on looking at the information also submitted on Thursday she believes they will
find that it meets the criteria.
Chairman Stone asked about improvements.
TO BE FOUND: Section 5-240.F.3.e (8) Improvements.
The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4,
Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the
County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and
installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to
environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access. (extensive text omitted: see Finding below)
(b) Internal Pathways. (extensive text omitted: see Finding below)
(c) Emergency Vehicles. (extensive text omitted: see Finding below)
(d) Principal Access Points. (extensive text omitted: see Finding below)
(e) Snow Storage. (extensive text omitted: see Finding below)
Article 4, Division 6 includes the following: Roadway Standards (Section 4-620), Sidewalk and
Trail Standards (Section 4-630), Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640), Drainage Standards
(Section 4-650), Section 4-660 (Grading and Erosion Control Standards), Utility and Lighting Standards
(Section 4-670), Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680), and Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards
(Section 4-690). Only the County's Roadway Standards may deviate for the reasons given above;
however, the Sidewalk and Trail Standards also state that they are not "inflexible," provided the
14
05-30-2000
"alternate design, procedure or material can be shown to provide better performance and/or
environmental sensitivity." Staff discussed all of these sections in its original Staff Report (December
15, 1999, pages 20 - 22). See particularly comments regarding Sections 4-640 Irrigation System
Standards, 4-650 Drainage Standards, and 4-660 Grading and Erosion Control Standards; to staff s
knowledge, conceptual information completing these Sections has not been submitted.
Additional Information Fe: Roads. According to referral comments of the Eagle County
Engineer certain roadway dimensions required for submittal of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision were not
received (Section 5-280.B.3.a(2): "Street and pedestrian circulation system with gradients and widths
indicated by note; the relationship of proposed streets and paths to existing streets, and paths, both on
and adjoining the Sketch Plan site, including proposed street access to a public highway, shall be
shown."). Staff also notes that the changes in the site plan for the existing Ute Creek PUD now conflict
with the represented road system. Although Applicant asserts that all Eagle County and CD aT
standards are met, should a Variance from Improvement Standards be found to be necessary at
Preliminary Plan, it would be difficult to find that the requirements for granting a deviation under this
Section 5-240.F.3.e (8) Improvements are met since they can not be found now.
Additional Information Fe: Trails. In the new materials submitted a Variance from the trails
standards for width is requested; a variance from grades and minimum surfacing may also be needed.
Staff questions whether, given the small sites, 20' front setbacks, 4' attached sidewalks, and a request for
22' road widths in the Ute Creek manufactured housing portion of the project, there is also sufficient
room for a "separate 8 foot wide paved" Primary Trail (recommended minimum width is 10 feet plus
one to two feet of clear area graded for drainage on each side of the trail) in the same right-of-way as
shown. Applicant suggests that the use of this trail will be less than, say, that of the Eagle Corridor trail;
however, given the intense development in this location and isolation of the project itself, same mayor
may not be true, and more (rather than less) use could be anticipated as users seek to connect to other
Primary and/or Secondary Trails and/or public lands. It is noted that the drawing submitted does not
show an entire road/sidewalk/trail section; no site plan submitted clearly indicates the relationship
between roadways and trails at a common scale.
(6) PUD Guide Revisions. Applicant has submitted some revisions to the proposed PUD Guide.
(Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use
restrictions.")
Some of the revisions are addressed above re: (2) Variation Requests, (3) Landscape Plan, (4)
Sign Plan and (5) Improvements. Staff finds the changes to the proposed PUD Guide do not address the
Staff Report concerns (December 15, 1999 pages 48 - 50), and that the changes made vis-a-vis the Ute
Creek Neighborhood do not speak at all to those lots that are not part of the manufactured housing
portion of this side of the project.
Ms. Garren stated here they can not make that finding. She stated it says it "shall" meet the
improvement standards including, roadway standards, sidewalk and trail standards, irrigation system
standards, drainage standards, grading and erosion control standards, utility and lighting standards, water
supply standards, sewage disposal standards. She related staff did receive a little bit of further
information regarding irrigation systems and some information was received by the Engineering
Department.
Helen Michaelbrink, Eagle County Engineer, stated as far as she is concerned they have satisfied
the requirements. She understands with their pledge they have and will do what is said. She believes
that portion of this issue has been satisfied.
Commissioner Phillips asked if they find there to be safe and adequate access to the property.
Ms. Michaelbrink stated as far as meeting the criteria, they do meet the standards. She stated she
has a concern with the single access. She spoke to the proposed access going up north and then six miles
to the last affordable housing unit. She stated the landfill road is proposed as a construction exit. She
15
05-30-2000
suggested that portion of the development needs a better and more timely access.
Ms. Garren stated their concern with the cross section of the trails is how they will get a 22 foot
wide road, and an eight foot wide trail and sidewalks.
Tom Boni, Knight Planning, stated in the May 15th submittal they submitted three proposals. One
had an attached bike path. On May 25th their submittal showed that more clearly with the road to CDOT
standards and then an attached section. On secondary trails they believe a gravel cross section to be
most appropriate. The Eagle County standards allow for variations and they believe they meet the
standards for the proposed usage.
Chairman Stone asked if they will be requesting variances from the trails and sidewalk standards.
Mr. Boni stated they envision the attached sidewalks will require them to do so.
Chairman Stone spoke to Knight Planning's involvement with the new Land Use Regulations and
that nearly every new development is asking for variations.
Mr. Boni stated the variations they have been talking to were previously dealt with in the PUD.
He stated the road standards do demand some flexibility.
Mr. Knight stated the trails plan does not call for a public trail. They were proposing a trail plan
suitable for the land. He stated the soft trail does not qualify as an extension to the County system rather
than an interconnecting trail.
Commissioner Phillips stated the trails are not nearly a concern to her. She asked about the road
improvements on Highway 131.
Mr. Boni stated they submitted a reevaluation using Eagle County's model and they have
committed to acceleration/deceleration lanes on Highway 131. He stated the results of the analysis
showed the level of services would be up to Eagle County standards. They committed to those
improvements.
Mr. Knight stated the secondary access was an issue with the Planning Commission. They felt
they had a good solution with the extension of Muddy Creek Road with improvements. They agreed
they would look at the Landfill access. He stated they met with the BLM and related if Eagle County
would prefer another location, they will consider that. They have a concern with archeological/cultural
sights. They are concerned with visual impacts. He spoke to the conditions of approval discussed at the
last meeting and if the Board directs them to look at alternatives, they will do so.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he is also concerned about the access with 13,000 trips per day.
Mr. Boni stated that has been refined to 9,000 trips per day.
Commissioner Gallagher believes with 9,000 they still need additional access. He spoke to the
stop signs and the single lane bridge.
Mr. Knight stated that bridge will be replaced at about this same time.
Chairman Stone suggested that this is one of his biggest concerns and he agrees with the other
Commissioners. He spoke to the development actually forcing/requiring people to use their vehicles and
this is for people who are less likely to be able to afford it.
Mr. Knight stated they are encouraging to make this a transportation sight. He spoke to most
employees driving by commercial services on their way to or from work. They believe anyone who has
gotten to this sight will have driven by stores. This is still closer than Eagle, Gypsum, Dotsero, etc.
Chairman Stone moved forward by addressing compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Ms. Garren stated staff has a difficult time finding it compatible with the unplatted Forest Service
land that surrounds the area. She stated the Bureau of Land Management is concerned as is the Landfill.
Staff does not find it compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Mr. Boni stated there are many developments in the County that butt up against public land. They
think that residential development, particularly affordable housing is appropriate.
Chairman Stone asked why affordable housing is different.
Mr. Boni suggested public interest makes them more compatible. He stated compatibility with
the Landfill has to be planned. He spoke to the staggering of light industrial. He stated there is a
16
05-30-2000
transition of uses.
Mr. Knight stated that is one of the reasons they have extensive trails throughout the sight and not
relying on public lands. They will work with all agencies on closures. These areas are public today and
they are not depending on it for their recreation.
Commissioner Phillips stated the problem with this is the compatibility with having it so close to
the Landfill. She spoke to the Planning Commission discussion. She understands there is a problem
with finding a location that can provide affordable housing.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees and does not find it at all compatible with the adjacent
uses. The impact to public lands may be able to be mitigated, but the Landfill and the sewage sludge
ponds make it incompatible.
Chairman Stone asked ifthey might consider flipping the projects.
Mr. Knight stated the affordable component was placed on the sight as it is the least costly to
develop. He stated they are open to discussion and the owner is certainly willing to make it work.
Commissioner Stone referred to his previous discussion, had the development come first and the
County wanted to put in a Landfill later, there would be a lot of out cry from the public. He suggested it
wouldn't happen. He compared this to the Airport. He then referred to the options and what would be a
compatible use. He suggested it might be their position to visualize with the landowner the options. He
questioned if this is not a compatible use, what would be. He thinks the industrial use they have out
there right now is a compatible use that does not conflict with the enjoyment of the area. He questions if
someone can come back at a later date and argue that this is against the Fair Housing Act. He does not
think this is compatible with the surrounding uses. He suggested the people at the Landfill by in large do
an excellent job in managing the facility. He suggested this sight was picked out as it was away from it
all. He can't convince himself otherwise that this won't be an issue. He spoke to the requirement the
County may have to change their operations. He suggested ifthis isn't compatible they must work with
the land owner to find out what is.
Mr. Knight stated the current landfill operation is well done and has no effect. If they were to fill
up to the current property line as submitted in the BLM plan there may be an issue. If they use the
buffered area it will work. He thinks they can be compatible. He stated they have talked with Ron
Rasnic and believe there are reasonable solutions. He doesn't believe anyone ever talked with Mr.
Jouflas when the Landfill was first put in.
Chairman Stone asked about the next item being conformance with the Master plans.
Section 5-240.F.3.e (10) Consistency with Master Plan.
The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM).
Section 5-240.F.3.e (10) Findin2
Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed PUD IS NOT consistent with the Eagle County
master plans. In particular:
(1) The project does not conform with 3 Eagle County Master Plan goals (FLUM, Environmental,
Affordable Housing) and shows only mixed conformance with the remaining 4 (Open Space/ Recreation,
Development, Transportation, Community Services). The FLUM designates this land as "Rural."
(2) The project meets none of the 5 Wolcott Area Community Plan: Wolcott Area Plan policies
for development outside the Wolcott Activity Center: Maintain the rural/mountain residential character
of the area; Respect the mountain environment and enhance the quality of life in the Wolcott area;
Encourage enhanced lower density residential development; Balance residential development with
provision of appropriate and timely public services; Resolve impacts through design / ensure
compatibility with adjacent land uses.
(3) The project does not conform with 1 Eagle River Watershed Plan goal area (Wildlife), shows
only mixed conformance with 3 others (Water Quantity, Water Quality, Land Use); the 5th (Recreation)
17
05-30-2000
is not applicable.
(4) Conformance can be found with only 1 of 5 applicable Eagle County Open Space Plan goal
areas (Avoidance of Geological Hazards); it does not conform with 2 (Preservation of Visual Quality
and Appropriate Development Patterns); and there is only mixed conformance with the last (Open Space
Preservation). Land Use Cooperation and Unique Character Preservation are not applicable to this
project.
(5) Of the 6 Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan policies applying to this project, 2 are
met (New Subdivisions to Provide a % of Housing for Local Residents; Factory-built Housing is
Important); the project does not conform with 2 (Provide Housing for Households with Income
Equivalent to ::; 1 Average Wage Job; Mixed Use Development in Appropriate Locations); and
conformance with 2 policies are fairly debatable due to the rental rather than ownership nature of the
project (Facilitate Increased Ownership by Locals and Workers, and Segment a Portion of the Housing
Market to Protect Locals from Second Home Competition). The project does not conform with 2 of the
7 "Vision Statements" of the Housing Plan (Housing should be located in close proximity to existing
community centers; Housing should be on existing transit routes).
Ms. Garren suggested they can not find that this conforms in most areas of the Master Plan or the
other plans with which it must comply. She referred to the various plans including the Eagle County
Master Plan. The Wolcott Area Community Plan, the Wolcott Area Plan, the Eagle River Watershed
Plan, the Eagle County Open Space Plan and the Eagle county Comprehensive Housing Plan.
Mr. Boni stated the various plan sometimes has overlapping and conflicting specifications. He
elaborated on that referring to the variances. He spoke to his involvement with the Community Plan.
He stated they worked hard to get the Housing Plan put together. He spoke to his work with David
Carter. He stated the desire was to make housing available to the three levels of individual needs. He
stated this is being proposed as a private sector response. He spoke to the housing in existence at the
mobile home parks. They fall within a commonly land lease situation. He spoke to the EI Jebel Mobile
Home Park, the Eagle River Mobile Home Park, and the Aspens in Avon. These are all land lease
facilities that face potential displacement in the future. When you look at the manufactured housing and
the goal statements, you must look at the plan broadly. He stated the situation isn't perhaps that dire, but
a private initiative that provides some wonderful attributes.
Chairman Stone reviewed Mr. Boni's thoughts and that it does conform with the Master Plan and
the Wolcott Area Plan. He asked him to speak about the Watershed Plan and wildlife.
Mr. Boni stated the wildlife will be mule deer and grouse. He stated with regards to the mule deer
they have put together a full impact mitigation plan with no net loss. He stated they have addressed the
impact and they are not avoiding but mitigating.
Chairman Stone asked about the Eagle County Open Space plan and staff s statement on
nonconformance.
Ms. Garren stated in terms of the appropriate patterns none of the plans encourage isolated
development.
Mr. Boni stated in all these questions there are balls to be juggled. He stated they are in a
buffered area. He suggested that is a judgement.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested it is his understanding that there is a large mule deer
migration corridor that crosses Highway 131 and he is concerned about the impact and what will be done
with the increase in traffic. It is a car every four to five seconds. Secondly, the idea of where they are
building a town, twice the size of Minturn, with no businesses, restaurants, gas stations, a bank,
government buildings, convenience stores, senior meals, three churches, etc. He questions building
twice the size with nothing there. He doesn't feel that is agreeable. He agreed with Chairman Stone and
the nature of the development encouraging more traffic than going and coming to work.
Mr. Boni stated typically they are talking about residential communities. He stated they are
connected with an area that is going to be a community center. The population that they will be
18
05-30-2000
supporting will be in the surrounding areas according to the Wolcott Community Plan. He spoke to the
commercial uses to be developed in the town.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the Community Building location.
Mr. Boni spoke to the businesses in Minturn developing out of the mining in the area.
Commissioner Phillips stated she doesn't have any comments.
Chairman Stone stated they have also been remiss at identifying locations for places of worship.
Mr. Knight stated they have agreed to make that available.
The Board took a break.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards [for the
review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision] The Subdivision shall comply with the following
standards:
Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) Consistent with Master Plan.
The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM
of the Master Plan.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) Finding
Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed pun IS NOT consistent with the Eagle County
master plans. In particular:
(1) The project does not conform with 3 Eagle County Master Plan goals (FLUM, Environmental,
Affordable Housing) and shows only mixed conformance with the remaining 4 (Open Space/ Recreation,
Development, Transportation, Community Services). The FLUM designates this land as "Rural."
(2) The project meets none of the 5 Wolcott Area Community Plan: Wolcott Area Plan policies
for development outside the Wolcott Activity Center: Maintain the rural/mountain residential character
of the area; Respect the mountain environment and enhance the quality of life in the Wolcott area;
Encourage enhanced lower density residential development; Balance residential development with
provision of appropriate and timely public services; Resolve impacts through design / ensure
compatibility with adjacent land uses.
(3) The project does not conform with 1 Ea~le River Watershed Plan goal area (Wildlife), shows
only mixed conformance with 3 others (Water Quantity, Water Quality, Land Use); the 5th (Recreation)
is not applicable.
(4) Conformance can be found with only 1 of 5 applicable Eagle County Open Space Plan goal
areas (Avoidance of Geological Hazards); it does not conform with 2 (Preservation of Visual Quality
and Appropriate Development Patterns); and there is only mixed conformance with the last (Open Space
Preservation). Land Use Cooperation and Unique Character Preservation are not applicable to this
project.
(5) Ofthe 6 Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan policies applying to this project, 2 are
met (New Subdivisions to Provide a % of Housing for Local Residents; Factory-built Housing is
Important); the project does not conform with 2 (Provide Housing for Households with Income
Equivalent to :::; 1 Average Wage Job; Mixed Use Development in Appropriate Locations); and
conformance with 2 policies are fairly debatable due to the rental rather than ownership nature of the
project (Facilitate Increased Ownership by Locals and Workers, and Segment a Portion of the Housing
Market to Protect Locals from Second Home Competition). The project does not conform with 2 of the
7 "Vision Statements" of the Housing Plan (Housing should be located in close proximity to existing
community centers; Housing should be on existing transit routes).
Section 5-280.B.3.e (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations.
The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards ofthis 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.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (2) Findin~
19
05-30-2000
The proposed subdivision does NOT comply with all of the Standards of this Section 5-280 and
all other provisions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, including Articles 3, Zone Districts and
Article 4, Site Development Standards. As specifically determined elsewhere, the proposed subdivision
does not comply, conceptually, with the following:
(1) Tables 3-300 Uses and 3-340 Dimensional Limitations: the required findings for granting a
Variation pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.fVariations Authorized can not be made.
(2) Article 4, Division 2 Landscaping; Article 4, Division 3 Signs; Article 4, Division 4 Natural
Resources Protection; Article 4, Division 6 Improvement Standards.
(3) Section 5-280.B.3.3 (1) and Section 5-240.F.3.e.(1O) Consistency with Master Plan; Section 5-
280.B.3.e.(3) Spatial Pattern Shall be Efficient; Section 5-280.B.3.e.(5) and Section5-240.F.3.e.(9)
Compatible With Surrounding Uses.
(4) Section 5-240.F.3.e.(7) [PUD] Adequate Facilities
(5) Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8): the Draft PUD Guide is not sufficient; Section 5-240.F.2.a.(14)(d) and
(e): the Fiscal Impact Analyses submitted show an unacceptable net loss to Eagle County.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) Findin{:
The proposed subdivision, because it is located away from any other similar development, is
completely surrounded with extensive public lands and a single large private land holding, and is at a
distance from existing community services, IS NOT located and designed to avoid creating spatial
patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services. The project lacks existing
infrastructure or proximity to same; its proposed water and wastewater treatment systems WILL require
duplication or premature extension of public facilities. The project WILL result in a "leapfrog" pattern
of development since it is topographically and by access an isolated parcel surrounded on all sides by
Resource zoning.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (5) Compatible With Surrounding Uses.
The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area
and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (5) Findin\:
Compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD IS NOT compatible with the
public and unplatted private lands surrounding the development. Specifically, the proposed
development will cause unacceptable and non-mitigatable negative impacts to adjacent public lands and
its wildlife habitat as identified by the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, and CDOW in their referral responses;
and intense residential development is inappropriate adjacent to a public landfill and a water and
sanitation district compo sting facility, and could compromise the continued use and operation of these
public facilities in the future.
Ms. Garren referred to the Natural Resources Protection. She stated this is where the problem
with wildlife comes in.
Bill Andree, Division of Wildlife, stated his opinion has not changed. He understands there are
economic issues but impacting the public land with impacts from the private land, there will be greater
impacts on that public land. The 12 and 'l'2 foot buffer will not work. He spoke to the road up Muddy
Pass and the truckload of rocks dumped in. He stated there will have to be tremendous excavation to be
able to travel that road. He questions the impacts to the riparian area, drainage and snow removal. He
stated the increased traffic on Highway 131 will be tremendous and there has been no discussion on
impacts, migration, Sheriff time spent on accidents. He stated today there are about 3,000 cars on the
road, that increase will triple. He suggested a large buffer between public lands and the housing would
be helpful. He spoke to Homestead and the 400 acres between the development and public lands. He
suggested a minimum of 1/4 mile. He spoke to fire concern. He stated homes within 100 yards take
away the ability for management. He spoke to the items on trails and the letter he received about trails to
the east of the development. He spoke to the winter range and questioned the wildlife closures. He
20
05-30-2000
stated it is costly to enforce the closures. He stated he has not been contacted on this project for at least
two years in working on the trails. He stated one thing he wants to express is that the best winter range
is worthless if the wildlife can't get to it. The open space would be better served on the public boundary
with clustering the houses in the center. He asked for questions.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if Mr. Andree can give the Board a clue as to what kind of
mitigation would be required like underpasses, etc.
Mr. Andree stated the Dowd Junction underpass is an example where there is only one opening.
He suggested it will have to be about every 1/4 mile with the fencing being $60,000 to $70,000 each
mile. He spoke to the concerns with maintenance.
Chairman Stone stated it was a great presentation and thanked him for his presence. He asked
while on this subject if the Forest Service wishes to speak.
Beth Boyst, U.S. Forest Service, stated she laid out in a letter some of the issues they have. She
spoke to access on the Muddy Creek Road and asked where the public will be parking and the interface
between public and private. There are no national forest system trails to the east. She understands there
are paths. She suggested there is no money to maintain the paths. Soil erosion is a concern. She asked
where the money will come from to construct trails. Fire protection is an issue. They see a tendency for
the buffer to be on public land. There are some benefits for having fire protection in the Wolcott area.
She spoke to their work with the Sheriffs Office. She is concerned about the seasonal restriction being
enforced at certain times. At best it is awkward with the homeowners. Back to the trail head use issues,
are motorized uses appropriate or not, horse use or not. All the area is now opened to non-motorized
travel. Lastly she suggested the development of a private land trail system being developed for the day
user to accommodate joggers and day hikes.
Mr. Knight stated in the original design they have left large buffers around the edge that were
otherwise suitable for housing. He stated they can make adjustments to accommodate the buffers. He
stated they have carefully provided large open space areas. They can do more. Concerning dogs and the
people who own them, they will have a homeowners association. Chateau has their own management
team for enforcement. They don't intend to effect Muddy Creek at all. The existing road is right on the
creek. Their plan is to raise the road and use the dry land to the side. They would not have additional
riparian impacts and their engineers believe that is possible. The area that is generally for non-motorized
use will remain as such and they believe it is appropriate. They had not focused until today on forest
service access in their property. That would not be a major issue for them as long as it is fair. He
questions if it is appropriate on sight. He believes it is difficult to control everyone on seasonal use. He
suggested information regarding use works very well. They can do a great deal to meet those concerns.
Sid Fox stated on Highway 131, this project, if approved will increase traffic. If this project goes
away there will still be a need for the County and State to address wildlife mortality on Highway 131.
He stated the variation they requested on BLM property to the west, they felt they needed that area for
elbow room. He believes without that variance it is a doable design.
Ms. Garren stated the other issue is spacial patterns being efficient. They find that it is not
compatible and this being leapfrog type development.
Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient.
The proposed subdivision shall be 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 shall be consistent with the
utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan.
Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eae:le County Road Capital Improvements
Plan.
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate
21
05-30-2000
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.
Mr. Boni read from the regulations regarding these issues and the provision of public services,
utility extensions, etc. He stated this is an otherwise undisturbed area. He stated they think as the
growth continues in Eagle County this is within the Wolcott Area Plan and will be a community center.
Though it does cross undeveloped areas, it is mainly across public land. He stated as the growth
continues to take place the services will develop.
Chairman Stone stated he believes this is jumping out beyond the pattern of development and that
the Wolcott center should be happening first and this second. He spoke then to the submittal of a PUD
guide.
Chairman Stone asked about the finding for submittal of a PUD Guide.
Ms. Garren stated at this point in time that is a positive finding.
Chairman Stone asked about #4, development paying its own way.
Ms. Garren stated she interprets it to have not yet been met. She reads this as being the applicant
has not proven they will pay their own way.
Chairman Stone read the finding and asked if the applicant agrees or not.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant
shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions."
Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Findin~ Applicant HAS NOT submitted a PUD guide that demonstrate
that this Section can be fully met at Preliminary Plan.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(14)(d) and (e)
Initiation: Given that the fiscal analyses of both Applicant and Eagle County indicate that the proposed
project could generate an annual net LOSS to Eagle County at build out of between $162,700 and
$207,000 (1998 dollars), Applicant HAS NOT submitted a satisfactory "Statement of estimated
demands for County services" and "Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous
year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue."
Mr. Knight stated except for developments of second homes that don't provide services that may
be true. He stated sales tax will be paid by residents elsewhere. They can add commercial space but do
not feel it will be viable. He believes that noncommercial facilities are all that way. They will build and
maintain all of the roads and provide all other needed interior services.
Chairman Stone suggested that covers the findings. He asked to jump to public comment.
John Foyer, a resident of Bellyache Ridge and a property owner in the Highlands, stated the
precedent has already been set for development in the area. The surrounding land use compatibility is
not at all consistent. He spoke to the 35 acre parcels and the Denver Water Board holdings. He stated
the additional traffic will be considerable. He spoke to the Wolcott crossroad and the traffic that is now
present, including that at the existing facilities, rafting and BPI traffic. He stated the compatibility is just
not there. He asked if the owners of the Wolcott buildings want to tear them down.
Steve Dahmer, wildlife biologist and manager of Piney River Ranch, stated he has written a
number of letters. He spoke to the comments made today but asked to look at the project as a whole. He
spoke to the management ofthe ranch and from their standpoint this project is the wrong kind of project.
He spoke to the grazing issues they have on the public lands. He stated they will experience trespass
problems greater than what they do now. From his standpoint there are a lot of negative impacts with
use by right. He stated a use by right up there, 35 acre parcels, would be more appropriate. When you
introduce 9 to 13 thousand more cars, the deer will loose out. He stated with this project having onsite
impacts in a bad winter, you are compounding the effect the development will have on public lands. He
suggested he will be glad to help with solutions but believes a development of this size will be
22
05-30-2000
detrimental.
Chairman Stone asked for additional public comment. There was none.
Mr. Knight stated they have heard about an alternative access point being important. They are
willing to work with the County and the BLM if that is the direction given. He stated on the PUD, the
storage area provides a potential sight and if it is the Board's request, they will solve that issue.
Mr. Kellogg spoke to Commissioner Phillips request for sale of land. He stated he could set up a
separate corporation to sell lots and offer lots for sale by a separate corporation. He believes the
affordability issue will be the determiner. He stated they could leave that choice to the purchaser.
Commissioner Phillips stated in finding 5-280.b.3.e(l) on page 16 and the Eagle River Water
Shed Plan. She asked if there was consensus on whether the water is adequate or not.
Mr. Knight stated due to the questions regarding water supply, they obtained a water
augmentation plan from the District Court that is approved. He stated Mr. Jouflas has water availability.
If water is not available they will pump out of the Eagle River. He can use the Wolford water down
valley for replacement. The Wolford Mountain is solely for the purpose of the Shoshone plant in the
valley. They have agreed to meet the Eagle County Erosion Control standards and at preliminary plan
will have the engineering stand.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they need to make up augmentation water at the Colorado River
and if they are depleting water, will they be making that up on the Colorado.
Mr. Knight stated that is correct. He stated they have submitted the plan but do not have the
specifics available.
Ms. Garren stated two of staffs points on water quantity and quality, she questions the 14 acre feet
out of Eagle Park and 174 acre feet from the augmentation plan from Wolford. She stated both the
DOW and NWCOG have had concerns with runoff and concerns with fisheries in the rivers.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the difference is about 160 acre feet.
Mr. Knight stated he believes it is not.
Commissioner Gallagher stated they would be getting the water out of the Eagle Park because of
the depletion.
Mr. Boni stated in the debate concerning snow making in Vail there was a dialogue in the paper,
Ken Nubaker, from Trout Unlimited and a water conservative individual, stated provided minimum
stream flows are maintained in the Eagle River, habitat is not being harmed.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he would accept their being required to maintain the flows but has
concern with the depletion.
Mr. Knight stated they are actually adding Wolford Mountain Water after peak run off times when
the stream is high. They replace the Eagle Park water when the flows are low. He stated in low water
years they replace from Eagle Park as needed. Under normal years there is enough water in the stream to
irrigate. They are adding more water when the streams are high.
Commissioner Gallagher responded he disagrees and that depletion does take place when the
streams are high.
Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn into executive session to discuss some ofthe legal
interpretation of the findings that they must meet.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
The time was noted at 4:55 p.m.
Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn from executive session and reconvene into the regular
meeting.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
The time was noted at 5 :08 p.m.
Chairman Stone returned to the file reviewing the findings the Board needs to make to approve
the file. The first item on page nine is 5-240.F.3.e they all agree unified ownership was a positive
finding. 5-240-F.3.(2) Uses.
23
05-30-2000
Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees with staff. This would be a negative.
Commissioner Phillips stated she thought the Board had agreed on the uses with the exception of
wildlife and water.
Chairman Stone asked if they need to make a finding as it is a use by right.
Mr. Fritze suggested in looking at compliance with this standard it throws them to 5-240.F.3 and
the basis for planning variations.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if he understands that to find compliance that a variation will have
to be granted.
Mr. Fritze stated that is correct.
Commissioner Phillips states that she finds a positive finding if there is a basis for variation to be
granted.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if that is parenthetical 2. He stated he does change his position
and will make this a positive finding.
Next was Dimensional Limitations.
Commissioner Phillips suggested that is a finding they would look at preliminary plan and when
the need arises.
Next was Off Street Parking and Loading, 240.F.3.e
The Board concurred this was a positive finding.
Next was Landscaping.
The Board determined this finding was a positive.
Next was Signs.
The concurred that finding was also a positive.
Next was Adequate Facilities.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees with staff findings there are not adequate facilities.
Commissioner Phillips and Stone agreed.
Next was Improvements, F-240-F.3.e.
Commissioner Phillips believes that access is still a concern and therefore finds it a negative.
Commissioner Gallagher and Stone agreed.
Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses was next.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees with staff s findings that it is not compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Phillips agreed and spoke to the Landfill.
Chairman Stone agreed as well.
Regarding Consistency with the Master Plan was next.
Commissioner Phillips saw this a positive finding with conditions that were discussed and could
be added at preliminary plan.
Commissioner Gallagher disagreed and finds this to be inconsistent with the Master Plan.
Chairman Stone stated he agrees with Commissioner Phillips and believes they can find
compatibility with the plan.
Phasing was next.
The Board concurred this was a positive finding.
Common Recreation and Open Space was next.
The Board concurred this was a positive finding.
Natural Resource Protection was next.
The Board found this as a positive finding.
Next was F-240-B3.e, Consistent with Land Use Regulations.
The Board concurred to discuss this later in the hearing.
Next was Spacial Patterns Shall Be Efficient.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he agrees with staff, the three negatives being appropriate.
24
05-30-2000
Chairman Stone stated that instead of emanating from the building center, it is going beyond that.
Commissioner Phillips sees this as a negative finding not because of the leapfrog development but
because it being a less suitable location.
Suitability with Development was next.
The Board concurred this was a positive finding.
Next was Compatible with Surrounding Uses.
Chairman Stone stated this matter was discussed previously.
Initiation was next.
Chairman Stone stated this was changed from a negative to a positive finding.
Next was Commercial and Industrial Standards.
Chairman Stone stated that was not applicable.
Next was School Land Dedication Standards.
Chairman Stone stated this was a positive finding.
Next was Road Impact Fees.
Chairman Stone stated that was a positive finding.
Next was Initiation for fiscal analysis.
Chairman Stone stated the applicant has provided the data that there will be a net loss. He asked
if the Board should care that it is or is not.
Mr. Fritze stated the requirement is that they provide the information, not how that information
mayor may not be used.
The Board concurred that would be a positive finding.
The Board returned to discussion on Dimensional Limitations. This includes mobile home park
boundary, front yard set back should be 25 feet rather than 50 feet, mobile home park boundary rear set
back should be 12 ~ feet rather than 20 feet.
Mr. Fritze responded that they should be addressed as requested. He stated the Board could make
a finding that they need not address this section at this time or whether appropriate conditions can be
imposed to bring it into compliance.
Ms. Garren stated the applicant has requested those items.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny File PDS-OOO 16 as the application fails to comply with
standards found in 5-240.F.3.e of the Land Use Regulations, Standards set forth in the regulations.
Further the application fails to comply with 5-280.B.3.e of the Land Use Regulations, requiring
standards to be met.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion for discussion.
In discussion, Mr. Fritze suggested the motion be as usual with direction to staff that the Board's
final action be a resolution incorporating the specific findings where at least two Commissioners concur.
Commissioner Gallagher amended his motion accordingly.
Commissioner Phillips concurred.
Commissioner Phillips stated long term affordable housing is an issue for Eagle County which is
something that has to be addressed soon. She suggested that anywhere else in the State this would be
considered affordable. She is a strong supporter of private property rights and would like to see this
project built. She thinks the water and access is still a major concern and that they must look at making
it a shorter route. She suggested any location closer to the Wolcott center would make this a viable and
acceptable project. She stated with those concerns it would be hard for her to vote for approval of this
project.
Chairman Stone suggested in the spirit of cooperation, the changes that must be made to make
this acceptable would so change the development they would be talking about a different plan. He
agrees they should deny this as presented but believes they can work towards a resolution that will meet
the concerns. He stated it is distressing to him and he was searching for solutions that will work on this
piece of property. He is not sure what the solutions are. He does not want it to come out that Eagle
25
05-30-2000
County is not for affordable housing.
Commissioner Gallagher commented the fact this is a mobile home does not make it affordable
even with 10% being set aside for short term affordability. He agrees strongly that compatibility with
surrounding uses is a requirement. He believes this would fill a spot but is not appropriate.
Chairman Stone reiterated that a motion has been made and seconded for denial of file PDS-
00016, Ute Creek at Wolcott, with the final action of the Board being the resolution prepared by staff.
Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Mr. Knight thanked the Board for their consideration. He stated the current process precludes
them from changing the application. The process is detrimental in that regard. He stated the Board has
suggested they look for alternative access but the BLM has not provided that as a option.
Chairman Stone stated it if far more difficult to deny a project than to approve one. He stated no
matter what is built there, access with be an issue. He stated they will work with staff to initiate that
move forward.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
June 5, 2000.
Attest:
Clerk to the
c2'~~
26
05-30-2000