Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/19/2000 PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 19, 2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher Robert Loeffler Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Deputy 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 on the agenda was the consent calendar as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of June 19,2000, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for May 22 and May 30, 2000 , C) Agreement with the Resource Center for TANF/Child Welfare Services D) Grant Award for Older Americans Act Title III Funds E) Addendum to Agreement with Colorado West Mental Health for TANF/Child Welfare Services F) Addendum to Agreement with Asistencia Para Latinos for TANF/Child Welfare Services G) Addendum to Agreement with CSU Cooperative extension for TANF/Child Welfare Services H) Addendum to Agreement with Family Visitor Program for TANF/Child Welfare Services I) Addendum to Agreement with Basalt Family Resource Center for TANF/Child Welfare Services J) Addendum to Agreement with Mid-Valley Buddies for T AND/Child Welfare Services K) Addendum to Agreement with Literacy Project for TANF/Child Welfare Services L) Addendum to Agreement with Roaring Fork Legal Services for TANF/Child Welfare Services M) Addendum to Agreement with Robert Durham for TANF/Child Welfare Services N) Addendum to Agreement with Gilliland Counseling for TANF/Child Welfare Services 0) Addendum to Agreement with Joel Karr for TANF/Child Welfare Services P) Addendum to Agreement with Karen LaJoy Smith for TANF/Child Welfare Services Q) Addendum to Agreement with Jose Banuelos for TANF/Child Welfare Services R) Addendum to Agreement with Michael Claussner for TANF/Child Welfare Services S) Contract with the Colorado Department of Public Health for tuberculosis direct observed therapy T) Addendum to the Agreement with the Family Visitor Program for Early Head Start U) Resolutions 2000-082, appointments to the Extension Advisory Board, 2000-083, appointments to the Junior Livestock Commission 1 06-19-2000 V) Award of Bid and approval to purchase Polaris 6 X 6 vehicle W) Agreement between Eagle County and Chris Estes for lease of farm ground and pasture at the Eagle County Regional Airport X) Change Order No.1 to the Upper Cattle Creek Overlay Contract Y) Eagle County Wildfire Annual Operating Plan 2000 Z) Resolution 2000-084 adopting a schedule of fees and charges for Animal Control. Chairman Stone asked if there were any changes to the agenda by the County Attorneys Office. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, responded not today. Commissioner Phillips asked Ms. Forinash about item S, the Contract with the Colorado Department of Public Health for Tuberculosis direct observed therapy. Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services, stated this is an increasing health issue and related in 1999 there were 277 visits for tuberculosis case management. She stated the rate is increasing sufficiently and warrants the increase in the amount being reimbursed. She explained the course of treatment and those diagnosed with tuberculosis. She stated they are brought in to help follow the file. Chairman Stone spoke to the new strains that are coming up that are drug resistant. Ms. Forinash stated as people are treated in their own homes, you don't see the concentration in a facility like in the past. Commissioner Phillips asked if the vaccination is still being given. Ms. Forinash stated there are no vaccinations being given, but there are still tests to determine if someone has been exposed to the disease. Commissioner Phillips spoke to page 9 of the May 30th minutes. She stated in this report the mobile home park is mentioned as is manufactured home park. She suggested staff uses the wording mobile home park and the developer uses manufactured home park. She suggested it should be consistent. She stated she prefers manufactured home park. Chairman Stone suggested the difference is that these are going to be on a foundation. Jean Garren, Planner, stated towards the end of the hearing the two terms were used more interchangeably. She stated in the original presentation they were referred to as mobile homes and that in all aspects they are in fact mobile homes. Commissioner Phillips asked Tom Boni, of Knight Planning, share his opinion. Mr. Boni stated they refer to this as a manufactured home community, though in the regulations of the County, there is no reference to manufactured homes. Commissioner Phillips asked ifthe other Board members would agree to change all the mobile home park mentions to manufactured home parks. Commissioner Gallagher disagreed stating that the minutes are to reflect what was said at the meeting, not are-write of history. Chairman Stone noted the objection, but confirmed that nothing would be changed. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented, items A through Z. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2000-085 To Approve A Variance Permit From The Improvement Standards Established In Section 4-620 And Section 4-630 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations For The Blue Ridge PUD. The Applicant (Kevin and Tammy Tucker) submitted to the Department of Community Development a petition for variances from the requirements of Section 4-620 2 06-19-2000 and Section 4-630 of the Land Use Regulations for the Blue Ridge PUD. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-085, approving of a variance permit from the Improvement Standards established in Section 4-620 and Section 4-630 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for Blue Ridge PUD. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ~solution 2000-086 To Deny The Sketch Plan Of The Ute Creek At Wolcott Planned Unit Development (File No. PDS-00016). Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-086 denying the sketch plan of the Ute Creek at Wolcott PUD, PDS-00016. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-087 To Approve The PUD Sketch Plan For The Abrams Planned Unit Development. On or about February 25th, 2000, Eagle County accepted for filing an application submitted by the Applicant (Steve Osterfoss) for approval ofthe Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for the Abrams PUD (File No. PDS-00020). Chairman Stone asked why this Resolution took so long. Mr. Gennett replied he does not have that answer. Chairman Stone pointed out the file gets old in their minds after such a lengthy time. Joe Forinash, Planner, arrived at the meeting. He responded this is extraordinary and was a result of working on higher priority files beforehand. He remarked there was discussion that took place with the County Attorney as well. Chairman Stone reiterated the need to keep things moving. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-087 approval of the PUD Sketch Plan for the Abrams PUD. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-088 Denyin!! An Appeal Of Staff Decision By Gerry Spector That Those Provisions Of The Eagle County Land Use Regulations Requiring A Live Stream Setback Are In Effect Even When A Platted Drainage Easement Exists In The Same Vicinity. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-088 denying an appeal of staff decision by Gerry Spector, that those provisions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations requiring a live stream setback are in effect even when a platted drainage easement exists in the same vicinity. 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, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) Wolcott Yacht Club Grill LLC, dba/W olcott Yacht Club This is a renewal of a tavern license. This establishment is located along Highway 6, next to Wolcott Market. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) CVC Management LLC dba/The Chaparral 3 06-19-2000 This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license with optional premise. This establishment is located in Edwards next to I-70 on the Singletree side. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Vail Food Services, Inc. dbalWildwood Shelter This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license with optional premised. This establishment is located on Vail Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. dba/Beaver Creek Golf Club Bar & Grill This is a change in trade name, changing from Beaver Creek Golf Club Bar & Grill to Holden's Restaurant. Also included is the renewal of a hotel and restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located at 51 Offerson Road, Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. dba/Saddleridge at Beaver Creek This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located a 44 Meadow Lane in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Chairman Stone mentioned items A thru C and item E are renewals of licenses and item D is a change in trade name. Ms. Roach stated item D also includes the renewal of the liquor license. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda as presented for June 19,2000. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Tavolaccio Restaurant Earlene Roach presented a new application for a hotel and restaurant license for Tavolaccio, Inc., dbalTavolaccio Restaurant. She stated the first order of business is to establish the neighborhood and the needs of that neighborhood. She stated the applicant used from the establishment in a two mile radius as the neighborhood. Commissioner Gallagher moved to establish the neighborhood as from the establishment in a two mile radius for Tavolaccio, Inc., dba/Tavolaccio Restaurant. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ms. Roach stated the next order of business is to establish the needs of the neighborhood. The applicant submitted a petition of approximately 85 names. Giancarlo Macchiaiella, applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated there are about 85 names on the petition. The Board reviewed the petition. Commissioner Phillips asked if they have had people talk to them about the needs of a liquor license. Mr. Macchiaiella responded he has plenty of people who suggested this was a good location. He has a similar restaurant in Aspen of the same type, authentic Northern Italian. Commissioner Gallagher moved to establish the needs of the neighborhood as evidenced by the submitted petition and testimony at this hearing. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ms. Roach stated this application is in order. All applicants are reported to be of good moral character. Commissioner Gallagher asked where the restaurant is exactly. Mr. Macchiaiella responded in Edwards Village near Gore Range Brewery. 4 06-19-2000 Commissioner Phillips asked Ms. Roach if she has any questions or concerns with the license. She suggested this is a new restaurant and she has a feeling that a new license is almost as easy to get as a renewal. She spoke to the lack of presentation by the applicants and that they have gotten lax in issuing new licenses. Ms. Roach stated there are now a lot of liquor licenses in Edwards. Competition is not a reason for denial. She related there is a lot of work that goes into the process before they come befOle the Board. Chairman Stone asked if the Ms. Roach does research on the license he holds from ;;mother County. Ms. Roach responded she has not if it is located in another County. Chairman Stone suggested ifthe restaurant is in the State he believes those should be checked to see how that jurisdiction feels about applicants. Mr. Macchiaiella stated he has operated eight years in Aspen. He stated whether his reputation is good or bad he can't say. Commissioner Phillips asked if all the employees will be TIPS trained. Mr. Macchiaiella stated their managers will ensure that all are appropriately trained. He stated he also has a liquor license in California. He stated they cater to middle aged locals and then to tourists. They are not looking for a younger drinking crowd. He stated it is not a bar for Harley Davidson riders to come by. Commissioner Phillips asked where Mr. Macchiaiella lives. He stated between Los Angeles and Aspen. He will move here when this restaurant opens. Commissioner Gallagher asked who will be the manager. He stated right now he is the manager but he will notify Ms. Roach once he has a signed contract. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve a new hotel and restaurant license for Tavolaccio, Inc., dba/Tavolaccio Restaurant. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone asked for the date of the opening. Mr. Macchiaiella stated in October. Zino Ristorante Earlene Roach presented a modification of premises for Zino Ristorante, Inc. She stated the applicant proposes to add the grassy area next to the patio to their licensed premise. This area will be used for bocce ball and is entirely fenced. Kevin Claire, applicant, was present for the hearing. Chairman Stone asked if the boundary shown in red is the existing boundary. Ms. Roach stated it is and the yellow reflects the addition. Mr. Claire explained they thought it was originally within the premise, but Ms. Roach noticed the lines must be expanded to include the Bocci area. Mr. Gallagher suggested that having alcohol served in a sports observation area is one thing but in a competition arena it may be something else. He stated he wanted the applicant to understand that things may change. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve a modification of premises for Zino Ristorante, Inc. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone stated he agrees with Commissioner Gallagher but related bocci ball is a rather low key game. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. 5 06-19-2000 Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0024, Buckhorn Valley Ray Merry, Director of Environmental Health, presented file number 1041-0024, Buckhorn Valley. He stated the applicant, ROARK Partners, proposes to extend improvements to the existing Town of Gypsum wastewater collection system located in u.s. Highway 6, at the entrance to the Airport Gateway commercial center. To reach the Highway 6 sewer line, it is necessary for this extension to pass through a portion of unincorporated Eagle County. Originally, this application sought an easement to take the sewer line across the airport property, below the existing runway. After extensive discussions with Eagle County Airport personnel, the applicant is now seeking to continue the sewer extension alignment the entire way down the current Cooley Mesa Road right-of-way. The proposed Buckhorn Valley Development will be installing a 12" sanitary sewer main within the existing Cooley Mesa Road right-of-way, tying into the existing Town of Gypsum 15" sanitary sewer line in U.S. Highway 6. After passing through a portion of Cooley Mesa Road, that is owned by Eagle County, the line connects back to the Town of Gypsum infrastructure located in the Airport Gateway Center. The sewer conveyance improvements necessary for this project include approximately 3,115 feet of new 12" sewer line and about fourteen 48" diameter manholes on unincorporated Eagle County land. In January 2000 the Town of Gypsum agreed to annex and serve the development, but, at about the same time, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division issued a "Cease and Desist Order" to the Town of Gypsum. The order notified the Town of permit violations and capacity issues at its wastewater treatment facility. The "Cease and Desist Order" also imposed a tap moratorium on the Town. The order and tap moratorium forced Eagle County Staff to submit a recommendation to delay consideration of the application for the March 1, 2000 Planning commission hearings until capacity issues with Gypsum's wastewater treatment plant could be addressed. At this time staff recommends approval of the Buckhorn Valley 1041 application. The CDPHE has approved the Town's State site application for modification and expansion of its wastewater treatment plant and has removed the tap moratorium. Referrals were sent to the County Engineer, Colorado Department of Public Health, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Division of Wildlife, NWCCOG, USACE, Town of Gypsum, Town of Eagle, Colorado Geological Survey, and the Eagle County Airport. Those responses received are summarized below. County En\!ineer: The application should be referred to Jim Elwood at the Eagle County Airport for comments regarding a potential sewer line running across airport property. It is possible that option 2 would be preferable to preserve the airport's interest in the property. (This response is no longer an issue due to applicant's decision to locate along Cooley Mesa Rd.) County Airport: (Verbal, w/ Jim Elwood) This permit assumes an easement will be granted for the line routing under the potential 'toe' of runway expansion slope. This (proposal) has not been discussed at all with County Airport staff and consulting engineers. Hesitant to recommend moving forward until this 'hypothetical' easement is worked out and approved. (This response is no longer an issue due to applicant's decision to locate along Cooley Mesa Rd.) NWCCOG: Application is extremely premature and does not adequately address the 1041 permit issues identified. Has the Town of Gypsum agreed to maintenance of sewer line proposed in writing? The entity responsible for collection and treatment should be responsible for maintenance as well. Proposed expansion to the existing wastewater treatment plant is necessary to service this project, and has yet to be approved or built. Easement from Eagle County needs to be obtained in order for 6 06-19-2000 project to be completed. How do 899 development units impact natural resources and agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of this proposal? No identification of what BMP's are being utilized. Overall, project application appears to inadequately address 1041 permit issues. (Gypsum's Buckhorn Valley Annexation Agreement dated: January 11,2000 now part of 1041 application. No prior or existing agricultural uses will be impacted by this development.) f:'.9Iorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW): Minimum stream flow issues on Gypsum Creek need clarification. Any construction associated with this application in critical wildlife habitats should be revegetated with the seed mixture listed in the most recent Buckhorn Valley PUD wildlife report. Proposal includes constructing four reservoirs on BLM to augment water. (This application is only intended to address the sewage collection system along Cooley Mesa Road not potential ponds located on BLM land.) Colorado Geoloeical Survey: All potential problems associated with this site have been identified and can be properly mitigated through engineering design and construction. We have no objection to the approval of this proposed sewer system. (Comments attached) Mr. Merry reviewed staffs concerns and issues as follows: Staff has no major concerns and issues with the permit application, however Cooley Mesa Road will ultimately become the Town of Gypsum's maintenance responsibility. Before the Town of Gypsum takes over Cooley Mesa Road, Eagle County must reconstruct it to meet Town of Gypsum standards. As the Cooley Mesa Road reconstruction design proceeds, changes to the sewer design may need to be made. The developer should agree to make changes to the sanitary sewer installation as the need arises, even to the extent of making change orders during installation. In order to allow greater flexibility in the design of the reconstruction of Cooley Mesa Road, the sanitary sewer should be installed as deeply as possible. The sewer line running from MHB3 to MH 6 should be installed at minimum slope to afford the greatest amount of cover. Slopes as low as 0.2% have been used successfully for 12-inch diameter sanitary sewer lines. Mr. Merry introduced Ross Easterling, Planner, who reviewed staff findings as follows: In accordance with Section 6.04.15(Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water/Sewage Treatment Systems) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for extension ofthe Buckhorn Valley PUD sewage conveyance system to the Town of Gypsum wastewater treatment facility: a. Major extensions of domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the development area and source development area to sustain such growth and development; FINDINGS: This extended sewer system, as proposed, can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the development area and source development area to sustain such growth and development. The Town of Gypsum's site application for modification and expansion of its domestic water treatment works has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plan; FINDINGS: The proposed development does not conflict with the Eagle County Master Plan, or the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan, or other applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plans. The development activity will have adequate facilities to collect, treat, and dispose of anticipated types of quantities of wastewater. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users; FINDINGS: Not applicable. There is no water diversion associated with this development. 7 06-19-2000 d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; FINDINGS: Not applicable. Proposed development is not a water project. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; FINDINGS: Not applicable. Proposed development is not a new water treatment system but an extension of existing Town of Gypsum system. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; FINDINGS: Not applicable. Proposed development is not a new wastewater treatment system but an extension of existing Town of Gypsum system. g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewage services or create duplicate services; FINDINGS: Not applicable. The water and sewer services provided by Gypsum are extensions of its existing systems and will not create competing or duplicate services. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; FINDINGS: The proposed sewage conveyance facilities are not a replacement of existing facilities but an extension of currently existing sewage district system. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; FINDINGS: The development of such a system is appurtenant to a sketch plan approval and annexation proceeding granted by the Town of Gypsum. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division; FINDINGS: Not applicable. This is not a wastewater treatment plant. Proposed development extends Gypsum's existing sewage collection system. k. Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; FINDINGS: The applicant has necessary easements for this system. l. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; FINDINGS: No losses of any agricultural resources are rendered through the approval ofthis sewer line extension. After the proposed line extension is in place, it will be buried below grade and revegetated on the surface. m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22,1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; FINDINGS: Not applicable. Development does not discharge either directly or indirectly into any peripheral surface water sources nor will it communicate with groundwater resources. n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate Federal or State air quality standards; FINDINGS: Not applicable. Proposed development extends Gypsum's existing sewage collection system which complies with Federal and State air quality standards. o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forest and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game 8 06-19-2000 migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public out-door recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; FINDINGS: The proposed development ofthis line extension will not significantly deteriorate environmental, recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance if the construction i 3 in accordance with the application submitted. p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; FINDINGS: The proposed development of this line extension will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors. q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution systems will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; FINDINGS: The proposed development will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. r. The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rock slides or other disasters which could cause a system operation breakdown; FINDINGS: The site is not subject to natural hazards, as evidenced by the application submitted. s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health; FINDINGS: Not applicable. Not a water system. t. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area; FINDINGS: The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed extension will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, approval of the Permit application: Major new domestic water or sewer systems, major extensions of such systems, and municipal and industrial water projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant that: That compliance with the special use permit requirements would he unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. FINDINGS: The applicant has requested a waiver of the special use permit requirements, as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. Chairman Stone asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Gallagher asked about a letter from the Town of Gypsum stating they do have the capacity to expand their plant. Mr. Merry stated there is a letter in the file from the Town of Gypsum. Commissioner Gallagher asked about Cooley Mesa Road. Mr. Merry explained the lines along Cooley Mesa Road. Commissioner Phillips asked about the proposed condition. 9 06-19-2000 Mr. Merry stated that was a standard condition of approval as the State authority has given the applicant authorization to proceed. Dave Garton, applicant, explained a map to the Board showing where Cooley Mesa Road goes, the entrance road to Buckhorn Valley, Eldon Wilson Road and the Airport. He stated it was his understanding the Town of Gypsum is going to take over Cooley Mesa Road at a later date. Jeff Scholl, Manager of the Town of Gypsum, stated there was a survey error when the County and the Town annexed the Airport into the Town limits. He stated the Town of Gypsum plans on taking over full maintenance of Cooley Mesa Road next year. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number 1041-0024, Buckhorn Valley, incorporating staff findings and condition. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to grant the waiver of the special use permit requirements, in accordance with the Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00027, Cordillera 7t\ PUD Amendment Jean Garren, Planner, presented file number PDA-00027, Cordillera 7th, PUD Amendment. She stated at its hearing of June 7, 2000 the Commission briefly discussed aspects of the change in the Cordillera PUD Guide regarding lot consolidation and subsequent resubdivision. In its approval of file PDA-00027 with conditions, the Commission agreed with Applicant that submittal of a court-approved water augmentation plan must occur prior to approval of any final plat rather than with submittal of the application (staff could agree); and it noted that original Condition 1 (technical map correction) had been addressed by Applicant in the PUD Guide revisions submitted that day and hence could be deleted. There was no public comment. Note: Conditions of approval as they appear in this Staff Report Addendum reflect the changes made by the Planning Commission, with staffs concurrence. Ms. Garren stated staff has had applications from owners to consolidate lots if they own side by side lots. Lance Badger, applicant, stated they have approximately 350 homes finished, another 60 to 100 currently under the design review process, out of the original 910 units. He stated they estimate being sold out sometime this summer. He stated there are some clean up items to come. Sid Fox, representing the applicant, stated the main factor behind the PUD Amendment, is the greater understanding of geologic concerns. He stated there is a potential landslide area in lot 17 & 18 of the Territories. As a follow up Cordillera did some site specific analysis. It was decided not to put home sites in that area. He stated this amendment will reduce the number of lots and caretaker units, from 19 to 17. This PUD Amendment will create planning parcel Q2, which is a 35 acre parcel and will retain a caretaker unit. As a result of the amendment the minimum lot size will increase from 2 acres to 35 acres. He stated Planning Parcel B will retain a caretaker unit and also increase in lot size from 2 acres to 35 acres. In addition they are proposing to include the horse restrictions for Planning Parcel V and increase the building envelope size. Also being proposed in the modification, is to take the horse area from 1,500 square feet to 1,800 square feet on lots of35 acres or larger. He stated they are adding Exhibit G to the PUD Guide, which streamlines the administration of the caretaker units and how the County and Cordillera recognize an account for caretaker units. Mr. Fox stated there will be further housekeeping items to come before the Board. He stated the applicant accepts staffs findings and conditions. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the applicant can join properties and then that portion. Ms. Garren stated yes but to separate those lots they would have to go through the County process. 10 06-19-2000 Mr. Badger stated the reason they are doing this is at the County's request. He stated they did have owners who owned multiple pieces of property. He stated this change will not change the total number in density during this process. Ms. Garren read staff findings 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: 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 NOT owned or controlled by one person; however, all owners have agreed to this application. 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 Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5- 240 F.3 .f., Variations Authorized. Section 5-240.F .3.e (2) Findin~ Uses. The reference to Table 3-300 and Table 3-320 as stated are inappropriate for these applications since no new land addition is proposed. Subject property is currently zoned PUD and the residential uses proposed ARE uses that are allowed in the PUD. Section 5-240.F.3.e (3). 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 ofthe 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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (3) Findin~s: Dimensional Limitations. The reference to Table 3-340 and Table 3-320 as stated is inappropriate for these applications since dimensional limitations are governed by the PUD Guide. Variations of the dimensional limitations set forth in the PUD Guide may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snow melt between buildings. In determining whether a Variation to allow lots greater than two acres in Planning Parcel R should be granted. the following are found: (b) Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. By removing Lots 17 & 18 of The Territories from an identified geological hazard (landslide) zone and consolidating all building envelopes in "old Planning Parcel R," the proposed PUD DOES avoid natural hazard lands. Further, by doing so the Wildlife Movement Corridor is expanded. Section 5-240.F.3.e (4) Off-Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do 11 06-19-2000 not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees ofthe project will be met; or Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Section 5-240.F.3.e (4) Findin~ Off-Street Parking and Loading. It HAS previously been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. It IS NOT anticipated that a reduction will be requested for either Shared Parking or Actual Needs. Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) 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. Section 5-240.F .3.e (5) Findin~s Landscaping. It HAS previously been demonstrated that landscaping provided in the proposed PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Section 5-240.F.3.e (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. Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Findin~ Signs. A comprehensive sign plan for the Cordillera PUD that is determined to be suitable for it EXISTS with the Cordillera PUD Guide. Section 5-240.F.3.e (7) Adequate Facilities. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Section 5-240.F.3.e (7) Findin2s Adequate Facilities. As conditioned for demonstration of an approved water augmentation plan at Final Plat, it CAN be demonstrated that the proposed development will provide adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads. Same HAVE previously been demonstrated to be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Section 5-240.F.3.e (8) 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. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be 12 06-19-2000 by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Section 5-240.F .3.e (8) Findin~s Improvements. It CAN be demonstrated that all of the improvements standards applicable to the proposed development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6. Section 5-240.F.3.e (9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Section 5-240.F.3.e (9) Findin~ Compatibility with surrounding land uses. Reconfiguring Planning Parcels Q and Rand locating all building envelopes within the old Planning Parcel R boundaries as proposed (no net increase in lots) IS compatible with the large lot nature ofthe surrounding Territories and Wildlife Movement Corridor land uses. 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 nO) Findin~s Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed PUD HAS ALREADY BEEN shown to be primarily consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and Future Land Use Map, as well as with the Eagle County Open Space Plan and the Edwards Sub-Area Plan. The proposed reconfiguration of Planning Parcels Q and R do not affect the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan. 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 ofthe project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) Findin~ Phasing. The Preliminary Plan for the Cordillera Mountain Tract DOES include a phasing plan for the development, and guarantees WILL BE provided with the Final Plat for those public improvements and amenities not previously collateralized that are necessary and desirable for residents 13 06-19-2000 ofthe project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements SHALL BE constructed as early in the project as is reasonable. 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 of the 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 of the 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 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) Finding Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD HAS ALREADY BEEN shown to comply with the common recreation and open space standards above. Over 25% of the total PUD area IS 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, and the PUD DOES provide a 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 PUD. The Improvements Required, Continuing Use and Maintenance, and Organization Standards HAVE previously been met. 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 (3) Finding 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 14 06-19-2000 referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards the Preliminary Plan for 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) Findinf: Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision changes CAN be shown to be primarily consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and Future Land Use Map, as well as with the Eagle County Open Space Plan and the Edwards Sub-Area Plan; same does not affect the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan. Section 5-280.B.3.e (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Section 5-280.B.3.e (2) Findine; Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision changes ARE consistent with the Eagle County 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 (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. 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 Ea~le County Road Capital Imllrovements Plan. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) Findin~ The proposed subdivision HAS NOT created spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines WILL BE sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Section 5-280.B.3.e (4) 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~ Considering its site constraints, the property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for 15 06-19-2000 development under 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) Findine The proposed subdivision, its building envelope locations and PUD Guide restrictions ARE compatible with the adjacent Territories 35-acre lots and the Wildlife Movement Corridor, and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: Section 5-240.F.3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan/or PUD. No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-1 04( 1 )( e) Colorado Revised Statutes that the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation ofthe entire Planned Unit Development, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Section 5-240.F.3.m. Finding (1) Is consistent. The proposed PUD Amendment to: (a) reduce the number of caretaker unit lots in The Territories (Planning Parcel Q) from 19 to 17; (b) create a new Planning Parcel (Q-2), to have one caretaker unit lot; (c) increase the number of non-caretaker unit lots in Planning Parcel R to two. (d) add a caretaker unit to Planning Parcel V and increase the building envelope from 22,500 square feet to 4 acres; and (e) Increase the caretaker unit size in Planning Parcels Q, Q-l, Q-2, and V from 1,200 square feet to 1,800 square feet, IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) Does not affect in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest; and (3) Does not grant special benefit. The proposed PUD Amendment IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board of Eagle County Commissioners approve file number PDA-00027, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following recommended conditions: Note: Condition 1 of the original Staff Report has been met. It is not repeated here. 1. Prior to approval of a final plat for Planning Parcels Q- 2, R, and/or V, whichever shall be first, evidence shall be submitted that an approved, amended Water Augmentation Plan 97-CW280 pursuant to that letter dated May 9, 2000 from Kenneth W. Knox, Assistant State Engineer, Division of Water Resources to Jean Garren, Eagle County Community Development exists. 2. Prior to, or at the time of, submittal of a final plat for Planning Parcels Q-2, R, and/or V, or any further amendment to the Cordillera Subdivision Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document, whichever shall be first, a consolidated Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for The Territories and the Mountain Tract shall likewise be submitted. Said consolidated Plan shall incorporate all previous amendments to both plans into one document, receive written approval from the Division of Wildlife and the Cordillera Property Owners' Association (as allowed in the current documents), be approved by the Board of Eagle County Commissioners, and be recorded prior to the time of recording any other associated document. 3. Final plats for Planning Parcels Q-2, R and V shall show no "future development" parcels or tracts for those areas fully platted. 16 06-19-2000 Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDF -00050, Final Plat Cordillera, Filing 41, Summit Golf Course Jean Garren presented file number PDF-00050, Final Plat, Cordillera, Filing 41, Summit Golf Course. She stated pursuant to requirements of the approval of the Cordillera Fifth Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document, this Final Plat creates the "Summit Golf Course" on the Mountain Tract, open space parcels, the clubhouse facility lot, and one remaining "Future Development" tract (portions of Planning Parcel R). The Preliminary Plan for this development was approved with the Cordillera Fifth Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document recorded at Reception No. 704767 on August 5, 1999 (File No. PDA-00019; Resolution No. 99-139). Ms. Garren spoke to the referral responses as follows: Eagle County Engineering. Comments attached. All concerns of Eagle County Engineering have been satisfied. Eagle County Surveyor. Comments attached. All concerns ofthe Eagle County Surveyor have been satisfied. She stated there are several conditions of approval attached to this Final Plat. Since these conditions are lengthy, copy of Resolution 99-139 follows as "Attachment A: Resolution" to this Staff Report. All conditions are met; they are summarized as follows: Condition I.A: Required fulfillment of all requirements of Section 5.280.B.5. Final Plat for Subdivision. This condition has been met. By the time of the hearing of this file before the Board construction drawings will have been signed by the Chair and the Eagle County Engineer, and an S.IA. will have been executed by Cordillera. Condition I.B: Required either submittal of a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Forest Service whereby Cordillera agreed to provide up to $80,000 for trail access and construction, or collateralization for same to Eagle County. A Memorandum of Understanding has been executed, and reviewed and "OK'd" by the Eagle County Attorney. A copy is attached as back-up to this Staff Report. Condition 1.C: Required submittal of a court-approved Water Augmentation Plan as stringent as that represented in Planning Commission hearing. Staff has compared the Planning Commission "Settlement Document" for Case No. 99-CW-031 with its Judgment and Decree and, although not water attorneys, is of the opinion that the revisions and stipulations of the Judgment and Decree appear to be as or more stringent that the Settlement Document. The applicationfor thisfile PDF-00050 contains a letter dated February 23, 2000 from Applicant's water attorney attesting that "... the decree as approved is at least as stringent as that proposed decree presented to the Planning Commission on June 2, 1999. " Condition I.D: Required submittal of a final routing plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Plan. Same were submitted with the application and referred to Eagle County Engineering and Eagle County Environmental Health. Other than comments of Engineering relative to the whole application, which are all resolved, no specific recommendations were receivedfrom either Department. Condition I.E: Required a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement. Same was recorded at Reception Number 720403 on January 14, 2000. Condition I.F: Is a statement of the Public Play Policy for this golf course. No further action is required 17 06-19-2000 Ms. Garren reviewed staff findings as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b.(3) Final Plat for Subdivision - Action by the Board of County Commissioners: This Final Plat for Subdivision CONFORMS to the approval given to the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 1) Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FL UM of the Master Plan; 2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines SHALL BE sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 4) 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. 5) Compatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve file number PDF-00050, final plat, Cordillera, Filing 41, Summit Golf Course, incorporating Staffs Findings, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. In discussion, Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, asked about the Intergovernmental Agreements. Ms. Garren stated Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, has read and approved the Subdivision Improvements Agreements. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00021, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDS-00021, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm. He reviewed the Planning Commission discussions as follows: Government services building. Commissioners discussed the location of the government services building, and possible uses of the existing building. They also discussed proposed design features of the building. Traffic and pedestrian access. The Commissioners discussed vehicular and pedestrian movement 18 06-19-2000 and safety, both on and off-site. Internal design. The Commissioners discussed the location of trails throughout the site, and the size and location of sports fields. Mr. Forinash reviewed the location and past ownership of the property for the Board. Mr. Forinash reviewed referral responses as follows: Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Proposed pedestrian links from the Tree Farm property to the existing Highway 82 pedestrian underpass are unsafe and realistic. Re-evaluate and revise. Provide safe pedestrian linkages to off-site activity and population centers, for example, connect to the existing Orchard Plaza shopping center trail that ends east of and behind Movieland. Such connections should be included in planning and budgeting process. First major section oftrail internal to the Tree Farm project that should be built, after the items mentioned above, is the planned trail that parallels Valley Road. 1) Some internal trail segments seem superfluous and redundant. In all cases, trail should be as direct as possible. 2) A substantial cost saving would be realized by not paving the proposed loop trail that circles around the lower meadows and provides views of the river and riparian area. 3) The interpretative trail proposed for the riparian corridor should be deleted. 4) No dogs should be allowed on the loop trail and fishing trails. Town of Basalt (Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission) 1) This site should not be compromised by urban scale development such as an office complex as proposed. 2) Additional concerns include: a) pedestrian safety and trail connections b) East Valley Road access c) Impacts from the access road and parking layout d) Protection of open space and riparian areas e) Lighting impacts t) Consistency with existing active recreation plans including facility design and standards g) environmental issues including drainage and water quality h) View plan impacts i) Transit access Staff and the Planning Commission both recommend approval. Dave Michaelson, O'Tack Rock Creek Studio in Carbondale, stated they are happy to be in front of the Board. He suggested if acceptable they will go from the micro to the macro. He introduced Scott Smith from Reno Smith Architects, Stephanie Cobalt, DHM Design in Carbondale, and Phil Scott from Lee Scott Cleary Traffic Engineers. Mr. Michaelson stated they have no issues with the staff report or conditions for approval. He felt the letter from the Trails Committee was insightful. He spoke to the public meetings in EI Jebel recently and the issue regarding the location of the government building. Several options were looked at, including using the existing buildings. That was not found to be financially feasible. Other options were considered being Crawfords and Willits. The tree farm seems to be the best option. He spoke to the location, access to transit, perhaps to rail one day. The issue of traffic and pedestrian circulation is very real and is complicated by the physical issues that exist today. They will look more closely at possible solutions. He spoke to those who have invested tremendous time in reviewing the recreation possibilities. He stated they represented the spirit of uses and will have to come back to be more specific and to meet code. He stated at the last public meeting it was suggested they reconvene a group that will focus on the those needs. He stated they did not realign the trails as 19 06-19-2000 they feel the VHA plan represents what has been there. He stated not everyone wins in projects such as this. He quoted Bob Schultz who suggested if this gets the process moving it is a good start. Chairman Stone stated the Board has before them a suggested motion with conditions added by the Planning Commission. He stated he doesn't necessarily understand them all. He asked to review those, stating one and two he has no problem with (page six of seven of staff's report). He spoke to number 3 and questioned if they can make a requirement as such without the final plat. Ms. Black stated this is actually a side matter as the Forest Service has asked them to stop using this access. She stated this is not necessarily a matter of this approval. Mr. Michaelson stated they understand the Forest Service not wanting them to drive through the employee housing and to access the buildings. He introduced Andy Montoya and Rich Curmingham, Facilities Management, stating they have been working with them to come up with another access until this is resolved. Chairman Stone reiterated it is understood there is an issue but that condition should not be part of this approval. Commissioner Phillips stated the use has gotten to the point that it is over time. She doesn't see it happening by December 1 and questions what they can do. Mr. Michaelson stated they would prefer to have something that signifies that access will not be denied. Rich Curmingham stated he has been in contact with the Forest Service and the Memorandum of Understanding gives access around the residential area. Subject to the PUD there will be another entrance. Chairman Stone spoke to #4 and asked that be addressed later in their presentation. He questioned item #5 and if it is in relation to the trails. Mr. Michaelson stated that is more with the underpass. Chairman Stone asked about #7. Mr. Michaelson stated it has to do with public comment that Crawfords may have a location for the government buildings. Chairman Stone stated that is not something that needs to be discussed. Commissioner Phillips stated after their meeting with Pitkin County, in which the Town of Basalt had a representative present, they all understood this is the location for the government services to be offered by Eagle County. Stephanie Colbalt, DHM Design, stated the plan is similar to the BHA plan with the recreational areas being in the same locations as is the trail system. They are showing an entrance off of Valley Road with an internal road going to the site. She stated the difference in the two plans is the government buildings. Commissioner Phillips questioned if this was the Basalt plan. Mr. Michaelson stated this was an attempt to rectify the Basalt plan with the County plan in 1995. Chairman Stone summarized that they have relied on the information provided from the Town of Basalt. Ms. Colbalt further explained the layout with the parking lots. She spoke to the direct linkages to auto and pedestrian access. She stated it will be the first thing seen as they enter the site. When entering off Highway 82 they have lowered the parking lot allowing the visitor to see Mt. Sopris. Scott Smith, Reno Smith Architects, spoke to the northeast location on the site. He stated the distance from the intersection to the primary entrance was derived from traffic considerations, minimizing any impact in the intersection. The location of the building itself was pulled fairly close to the commercial area but pulled back from the road to keep the views and away from the traffic. He showed the access through the turn around, drop off area for the public and for the Sheriff. Other sites determinates used were to keep the high elements of the building to the south. The views from the 20 06-19-2000 building look out over the site to the west and the south. He spoke to the building itself providing functional use and as a community gathering place. This seems to be a wonderful place to do that. He spoke to the functions of the building. He showed the various department locations, public area and multipurpose facilities. One the second floor are the Health and Human Service functions. Chairman Stone asked if all of this is proposed in the initial phase or if there is a potential future phase. Mr. Smith stated what is shown here today is for the phase they are going through right now. The site is such that they could add additional space down the road. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the discussion with Pitkin County and their desire to have space available for expansion at a later time. Chairman Stone stated that was pending a future Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Smith stated in looking at the design it was to come up with a scheme to compliment the site taking advantage of architecture and the site. He showed the dormers, the facade, the entrance and the areas around the buildings with one story porches. He showed additional sketches showing the break up of the massing. He spoke to the materials and the use of cost effective materials that require little maintenance. They are considering metal roofs with pre-finished paint working together with corrugated roofs. They are looking at a variety of materials using stucco, natural metal siding, and stone veneer. Commissioner Phillips asked about colors and spoke to the roofs of Lake Creek Village. Mr. Smith stated they will look at darker colors to minimize the visual impact. Phil Scott, Engineer with LSE Transportation Consultants, stated they have looked at build out of this site and have concluded about 2500 vehicle trips a day will happen by build out. About 40 per cent will be up valley, 30% down valley and the rest will be local traffic. Their analysis shows they will all operate at level of service D which is acceptable for peek hour traffic. The only exception will be at JW Drive, or Valley Road. At those locations they determined a level of service F without additional signalization would be adequate. He stated they used CD aT projections. The key intersection causes problems with Highway 82. He spoke to the existing signals and the lack of storage at the intersection. He spoke to the realignment of Valley Road and its intersection. He stated there is a four lane cross section, three north bound lanes and one south bound lane. They have added two additional lanes, a separate right turn lane and also a separate right turn lane turning into Valley Road. He stated this plan shows at grade cross walk crossings across Sopris Village Drive and then down valley. He spoke to the pedestrian underpass and the suggestion that be continued across Valley Road. He stated there are some options for cross walks. He showed it would be virtually impossible to go from the existing access to the down valley side. He suggested most of the traffic will be bussed or car pooled, but, much will be auto related. He questions pedestrian traffic accessing the site. He is not certain of the financial feasibility of continuing the tunnel. Chairman Stone asked for clarification of resolving the issues. Mr. Scott stated surface cross walks are certainly the most feasible. Chairman Stone asked about someone walking from a recreation attraction to City Market. Mr. Scott showed the pedestrian path through the project and then along the south side ofthe road. Chairman Stone questioned where the majority of the pedestrians will be headed to and from. Mr. Scott stated there will be some demand between the tunnel and the residential area on the north side of valley road. He suggests that can be safely done, but perhaps not in a direct route. Commissioner Phillips stated there was discussion about getting people across the highway. She stated it is not a County road, it is the State Highway Department. She spoke to a Special District perhaps paying for road improvements. She stated the Highway Department put that tunnel in and she doesn't see them building another right-of-way. Mr. Scott stated they don't know at this point what types of recreational uses there will be. Commissioner Gallagher asked about traffic projections on Valley Road going east. 21 06-19-2000 Mr. Scott stated about 250 trips per day or 10% ofthe 2500 trips per day. He stated 10% will be non related to the facility. Mr. Scott suggested that an overpass will not be the practical solution as the distance is too short. The discussion was opened to the public. Lisa Rugirain, a resident of Pitkin County, was a user ofthe area. She stated the reason she came today is because there have been some changes since the BHA plan was proposed for that park. She is the Chairperson for the Tree Farm Project. She stated there has been a change to the location of this building. She believes there needs to be two accesses to the park. In that vein she would like to recommend a reconsideration of the road location. She stated a lot of community work has gone into this park. She stated since the plan to move the buildings, in looking forward, they may want to leave the area open for development of the Special District. She spoke to the central pivot water system. She stated by putting the road in, it eliminates some of the area from irrigation. She suggested a temporary road to access the existing buildings. She suggested then instead of building the entire road, that the bike path could use some attention now. Rich Cunningham stated the pending agreement with the Forest Service is across their fence. Ms. Rugirain is looking for a road across the County property. Chairman Stone asked if that would resolve the issue. Mr. Cunningham stated the Forest Service is willing to work with them until the final road is constructed. Royal Laybom, area resident and on the Tree Farm Project Committee, stated it was at the Roaring Fork Planning and Zoning Commission meeting when this was discussed. The comment was made by Rich Cunningham that the County would create and maintain a legal access. He stated in developing two accesses, at some point in the future, there will see the possibility for large festivals that will lead to considerable congestion. He spoke to a break away gate with the Forest Service. He stated with the design shown in the pun and the sharp radius at the exit, it will encourage some stacking. He stated a down valley road access would be prudent. That was the basis of some of the task force request. He suggested it would be good on their property. He stated the information that was presented is not sufficient regarding pedestrian access. There has been lots of information gathered on the use of the facility. They have the opinion there will be excessive pedestrian access. He thinks they need to spend some additional time looking at what the public wants and what will be the anticipated use. He spoke to bike paths and safe access for pedestrians. He stated he doesn't know for sure what the solution is. He sits on the Trails Board and spoke to the connection with Willits Lane. He spoke to the lack of sidewalks from the intersection to City Market. He stated it is a legitimate problem. It is a challenge for the Highway Department to look at a feasible solution. Commissioner Phillips reiterated that Highway 82 is a major highway. She believes they would be hard pressed to get another overpass or underpass in that location. She spoke to a bus stop there and the use by locals as well as those coming from other parts of the area. Mr. Laybom stated with the ECO funds, Basalt has built a bus stop there. He stated, according to RAFTA, El Jebel is the highest user of the bus than anyone in that part ofthe valley. He spoke to the need for a bike path that goes down Valley Road. He suggested more work on this issue will make the PUD more acceptable. He stated he thinks the building design is a good one. He spoke to the outer loop being that is used by the Sheriff, will also need to be crossed by pedestrians. He suggested that be reviewed. He stated the issue of single access is a primary one. He stated what was lacking in the BHA plan is a knowledge of the use of the existing buildings and how they work together with the proposed government offices. He spoke to the large "no mans land" on the far side. He stated this is a formidable task. He spoke to discussion with the man who maintains the irrigation system and to the Forest Service. He suggested they relieve the Forest Service from providing any legal access. He stated they have a 2001 ballot. The time table to develop an infrastructure is three maybe four years away. Herb Weisbard, has been one of the formulators of Tree Pack. He stated they worked really hard on getting an idea across to the Board. He spoke to the need for access to the existing buildings. He stated the people believe that would be a proper place to put in the road, widening Valley Road for a pedestrian/bike path. He thinks people will not want to drive if they have an alternative way of getting there. Scott Condon, from the Aspen Times, apologized for missing the discussion on the underpass and asked for clarification. Mr. Scott stated there are some options where surface cross walks could go. The most logical would be a continuation of the tunnel under the roadway, but he has serious doubts it would be justified economically. Mr. Michaelson stated when they come back they will have more defined color schemes. Regarding the pedestrian issues, they recognize there is a lot of work to do yet. They have noted the comments from the Eagle County Trails Committee and are open to look at alternatives. The secondary access is really an issue of traffic generation and what uses will be defined for the existing buildings. Regarding the bike path, they have agreed to meet with the Trails Committee before coming back. He stated from a physical standpoint they will look at it. The comments about the access is more for Mr. Scott to comment on. He stated from the pedestrian underpass viewpoint, they will have to research what the cost might be. He spoke to horizontal distance and that an overpass may not be viable as well. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Scott about the secondary access. Mr. Scott stated the concern is a very valid one if the plans are going to include sizeable special events. He stated he doesn't know if that is 100 or 1000 people. The most single point of access is appropriate for day to day, business activity. If they are talking about sizeable events they should look more closely. Mr. Michaelson stated in reading the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm plan and the BHA plan, if you are looking at an event that would bring in a large number of people, perhaps they will need to look at this much more clearly and identify the impact. Chairman Stone asked about the uses on the north part of the road. Mr. Michaelson stated that was considered to be more of a buffer with perhaps a skateboard facility . Ms. Rugirain spoke to the need for the road to maintain the location. Commissioner Phillips asked about number 5 and if that is inside the park. Mr. Michaelson stated that is for inside and outside the location. Commissioner Gallagher thanked them for their presentation and commended the team. He stated from the public comments he has heard, he would like to see the team get together with the Task Force to explore the reasonable spectrum of events. Commissioner Phillips spoke to conditions 3 and 6 and asked if they are one in the same. Mr. Michaelson stated he doesn't believe so. He stated number three is not to preclude access to the existing building. Chairman Stone asked if they can or can't build a road before the approval of the PUD plan. Ms. Black responded this is Forest Service land, the Board could build the road prior to approval of the next phase of this application. Chairman Stone questioned to accomplish this legally, they can get it built faster across the Forest Service land and not that of the PUD. Ms. Black stated it is a completely different issue and consider it as a separate issue to help the Forest Service. Rich Cunningham stated the alignment does not require a new road, it is getting the agreement with the Forest Service and . Chairman Stone asked Mr. Forinash to read Staffs findings. 23 06-19- 2000 Mr. Forinash read as follows: FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1) The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for PUD. FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE 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. FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4) It has been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD MAY comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6) The sign standards applicable to the PUD SHALL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. However, it appears that the Applicant WILL be able to demonstrate that adequate facilities exist at application for Preliminary Plan approval. FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles. (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. However, it appears that the Applicant WILL BE ABLE to demonstrate that improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS NOT been provided for this development, but WILL BE required as part 24 06-19-2000 of an application for Preliminary Plan approval. FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: ( a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. However, it appears that the Applicant MAYbe able to meet the applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shalf Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3) The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. OTHER FINDINGS: FINDING: PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant has submitted a PUD guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section MAY be fully met at Preliminary Plan. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board of County Commissioners approve file number PDS- 00021, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. Provide sufficient information, including consideration of shared parking, to demonstrate that the proposed development provides adequate parking for all uses, including active and passive recreation, and that sufficient "accessible" parking is provided throughout the complex. 2. The PUD shall have the ability for trail staff to review, approve and refine the internal trail alignment. 3. The road to the existing buildings be constructed by the applicant as soon as feasible. 4. Before the Preliminary Plan hearing, discuss improved pedestrian access across Valley Road with the State Highway Department to determine what is possible. 5. A report on pedestrian and non-motorized movement be provided at application for 25 06-19- 2000 Preliminary Plan, inside the park. 6. A second access for recreation users to be explored. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until June 26, 2000. 1~~ Chairman 26 06-19-2000