Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/31/2000 PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 31, 2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara 1. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: 1041-0030, SSA-0008 & SSA-0009, Adam's Rib - Frost Creek The Board did not open this file. PDP-00026, ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00026 & ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch. Chairman Stone asked how many affordable homes have been built in Beaver Creek, Bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead. The answer is none. He stated they cannot continue to only build upper end housing. He stated this matter has not been resolved. The recommendation from the applicant does not address affordable housing. He stated the applicant has stated they will either build new units or purchase other units. That has not happened. He stated he will vote against this development or any other that is not building affordable housing units. He stated it came to him that this came about because of the Frost Creek proposed development. Eagle Ranch does not have affordable housing. He stated $350,000.00 is only affordable to some individuals. Mark Thorne, Vail Resorts Development Company, stated he is prepared to address that issue. He stated they reviewed some of the proposals at the last hearing. He handed out a revision letter to the letter dated October 18,2000. He stated number five indicated 1,200 square feet is the minimum square' footage. He stated the penalty has been increased 1.5 times. Chairman Stone stated the new proposals do not address affordable housing as it should be. He stated people have been talking about this for years. He stated the County tries to give land to Habitat for Humanity but people say it should be open space. It has been said that the County should look at affordable housing near community centers. He stated he knows Vail Resorts has problems with mid- level management because they cannot afford to buy housing. Mr. Thorne stated Red Sky Ranch, at 87 home sites, is considerably less dense than what it is being compared to. He stated they would agree that these would be new units built within the time frame rather than recycled units. He stated they are attempting to become very involved with Habitat for Humanity. Chairman Stone asked KT Gazunis to speak. K.T. Gazunis, Habitat for Humanity, stated they can only be a small part of the solution. She stated they would only be looking at a small percentage of the need. She stated their houses are for sale units and are small modest houses. She stated they would welcome a closer relationship to any developer. The key to their success is to get the community together to build the houses. She does not 1 10-31-2000 think that the need will be addressed by this developer alone. She stated when talking about affordable housing, there is one piece of the formula which is shared appreciation rather than deed restrictions. Over the course of the time as the people are paying off the mortgage, their equity grows. It helps subsidize the front end but they cannot flip it over and sell it. It works effectively over a period of 30 years. If they choose to sell the house after 10 years of a 30 year mortgage, they would only get 1/3 of the equity. She stated deed restrictions do not work as well. Chairman Stone asked what is the biggest challenge. Ms. Gazunis the biggest problem is finding land, then infrastructure. She reviewed a project currently under way in Leadville. James Mandel, Vail Resorts, asked about the largest contributors Ms. Gazunis stated Vail Board of Realtors, Vail Resorts, Slifer Smith & Frampton, George Saunders Construction, Colorado Division of Housing, etc. She stated the Colorado Division of Housing paid for most of the infrastructure in Leadville. Chairman Stone stated he does not think that Vail Resorts has not done enough. He stated they have done nothing for affordable housing in Vail, Beaver Creek, Bachelor Gulch, Arrowhead. He suggested perhaps some of the developers need to get together with someone else to have an appropriate growth pattern. David Carter, Housing Director, stated he has not been extensively involved on this application. The short answer is yes this is moving in the right direction. He stated what he hears is that the County does more for Vail Resorts. He stated there will be earmarked units in this development and in others. He stated the proposal seems fair. However there is another developer that says they provide too many rental units. He stated if they provide the for sale units they will recoup some of their costs. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn into "Executive Session" to receive legal advice from County Attorney. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 11 :28 a.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 11 :44 a.m. Commissioner Gallagher asked if Jack Lewis would make a statement. Jack Lewis, Vail Resorts, stated since he has been with Vail Resorts the strategy of Vail Resorts, seasonal housing is at the bottom of the food chain, it is expensive to build, long term rental housing is next and third is for sale housing. He stated they have been involved in everyone of those types of housing. He stated they will now have the ability to house over 40% of their seasonal workers. He stated that will have a significant effect on the housing market. He stated they have been involved in Eagle- Bend and Lake Creek. For sale housing they have been negotiating to buy blocks of housing for their employees. He stated they put deed restrictions on those units to create a pool for Vail Resorts employees. They have initiated a land exchange in which they will end up with land in Avon. They are also looking at how they can help employees get into a house. He stated there are properties that are under the average cost of housing. He stated they have done a significant amount in the past few years to solve the problem. Chairman Stone stated it is not easy to raise a family in a townhouse or condominium. That is why people do not want to buy those units. He stated he appreciates the offer of the 1,200 square foot minimum because that is closer to what a family can live with. Commissioner Phillips suggested they return to the application process. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the letter on the 30th of this month, and if the applicant was. willing to furnish new units and not recycle used facilities. He asked if the applicant can bring down the waiting period to less than five years. 2 10-31-2000 Mr. Thorne stated it could be done in about four years. Mr. Forinash stated he has submitted the conditions that were originally proposed and the last page is the current recommended conditions. Staff and the applicant are in agreement with the conditions and all findings are positive. Chairman Stone stated he believes the Board should only go through the current 13 recommended conditions. Mr. Forinash stated the variance from Improvement Standards should be heard first and then the remainder of the Zone Change and the PDP file. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Ragonetti if all his concerns were met. Mr. Ragonetti stated they were so far. Chairman Stone asked about interval ownership of some of the lots. Mark Thorne stated 27 of the total lots are clustered and are 1/3 acre in size. There is a clause that allows for interval ownership but it is not their plan. They would prefer whole ownership but it is in the plan as an option. Chairman Stone asked what the applicant has the right to do. Mr. Thorne stated he does not believe there is a minimum number concerning the interval ownership. He stated the Planning Commission had the same concerns. He stated their plan is along the main stream interval ownership. Chairman Stone stated interval ownership raises concerns with the infrastructure of the roads and such, as these type of homes have more usage with interval ownership. At final plat there will be additional ownership. Joe Forinash stated there is a PUD Guide that does have those provisions in there. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has two questions about roads, on-site and off-site. In looking at the preliminary plan layout, it appears there is an Interstate Highway going up through the parcel that is fed by a County Road. Kent Crane, Alpine Engineering, stated Bellyache Ridge Road is a County Road and is classified as a Connector. He stated there are currently improvements underway. He pointed out on a map the location of the roads and which were County and which were owned by the County. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this project changes the requirements of that County road. John Vengrin, Engineering Department, stated Bellyache Ridge Road should not be affected by this application. Structurally the road could use some improvements at this time due to construction traffic. Chairman Stone stated they just had a meeting about all the traffic that is happening in the Edwards area. Is the level of service going to be safe on that portion of the road and is there plenty of site distance and will it withstand the additional traffic. Is there being traffic added to the road incidentally and then all at once there will be too much traffic. Mr. Vengrin stated approximately 8 years ago the road was improved and he believes the road can handle the traffic projected. He stated in 10 or 20 years with all of the developments that occur, there could be a problem. If there are no further up zoning in this area there will be no traffic problems. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the roads in the property. He stated there are plenty and what would it take to block that road so that no one has access. Rick Plyman, Peter Jamar Associates, stated there is only one access to the western side. He stated Bellyache Ridge Road also only has one access. He stated they did do a lot of work on this problem and there is a condition that speaks to this. He stated they have gone back and added turn around in a few places. Commissioner Gallagher stated there have been similar projects that had the same problem and the solution was an emergency access for emergency vehicles only. Mr. Crane stated there may be some opportunity to utilize the pedestrian golf course path as emergency access. 3 10-31-2000 Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the Colorado Forest Service referral response about a long winding road that dead ends. Chairman Stone stated the next item is the variance request. VIS-OOll, Red Sky Ranch Chairman Stone stated staff is stating this should be zoning for rural residential which would be appropriate for lots of2.69 acres. Specifically this is more residential suburban medium density. John Vengrin stated the Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides on variances from the improvements standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated. , Staff recommendations are found in Section VII of staff report. This is a petition for a Variance Permit from those requirements of Section 4-620 and Section 4- 630 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations ("LUR") as noted in the attached Exhibit "A" which was submitted by the applicant. These variances will be within the area known as the Red Sky Ranch PUD. The applicant's request for variance is attached to staff report as Exhibit "A". The Applicant is currently applying for a Zone Change and a Preliminary Plan approval for the Red Sky Ranch PUD. During design of the Preliminary Plan application, they used the Road and Trail Standards, but have identified certain requirements from which they want to vary. They wish to vary from these standards in order to be more compatible with community values in the immediate area and to lessen hardships associated with strict compliance with the standards. In Exhibit "A", the applicant has identified Intersection Grade, Intersection Angle with Other Roadways, Simple Curvature, Shoulder Type, Minimum Tangent Separation Between Switchbacks, Maximum Super elevation, Minimum Trail Width, Minimum Trail Surfacing, and Trail Drainage as the parts of the Road and Trail Standards of the LUR from which they want to vary. The specific locations of the requested variances are also identified in Exhibit "A". Prior to consideration of the variances for the Red Sky Ranch PUD, the Board of County Commissioners must first make a finding on the appropriate road classification. Normally, road classifications for a development are determined by first, identifying the zoning, and second, estimating the average daily traffic that will use a particular road in the development. The Land Use Regulations (LUR) can then be used to determine the proper road classification to use for design. However, in the case of Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications, the LUR is not specific on the procedure for determining the road classification, since PUD zoning is not mentioned in the procedure. Because of this shortcoming in the LUR, the Engineering Department has based the road classification procedure for PUD applications on a principal of comparable density. Since this is merely a policy used by staff, decisions by staff based on this policy should be subject to affirmation by the Board of County Commissioners. Deb DeCrausaz, of Alpine Engineering, who is representing the applicant, has written a letter addressing this issue. In her letter, dated September 26,2000, which is attached as part of this staff report, Ms. DeCrausaz argues that an appropriate comparable zoning for the Red Sky Ranch PUD is Rural Residential (RR), which has a minimum lot size of2-acres. (See Section 3-340 of the LUR for minimum lot sizes.) The corresponding road classification would then be Rural Residential Roads as defined in Section 4-620.D.4 of the LUR. She justifies this comparable density based on an average lot size of 2.169 acres. If, however, the number oflots exceeding two acres are counted from the Table of Lots and Acreage, which is attached to her letter, it is found that only 31 of the 87 proposed lots exceed two acres. Most of the proposed lot sizes correspond with Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) or Residential Suburban Medium Density (RSM) with minimum lot sizes ofO.34-acres and 0.18- acres respectively. Since compliance with lot size limitations established by zoning is not normally based on averaging, it is, 4 10-31-2000 reasonable to conclude that the comparable density ofthe Red Sky Ranch PUD is Suburban in nature, and that the resulting road classification is Suburban Residential Road as defined in Section 4-620.D.5 of the LUR. Should the Board of County Commissioners decide that Suburban Residential Road is the appropriate standard for the Red Sky Ranch PUD, then this variance application as it relates to the road standards is moot and the applicant must redesign the construction drawings to be in compliance with the Suburban residential Road Standard. Should the Board of County Commissioners decide that Rural Residential Road is the appropriate standard for the Red Sky Ranch PUD, then this application may proceed. In either case the Board of County Commissioners should consider the variance from trail standards. Application Must Be Specific: In previous applications for variances from the road standards, the Eagle County Attorney's Office has requested that the application be very specific concerning the section of the LUR for which a variance is requested, the location of the variance, and the reason for the variance, including the hardship caused by attempting to comply with the LUR. The applicant has provided this specific information in Exhibit "A". Should the Board of County Commissioners decide to approve the request for variance, Exhibit "A" will be incorporated into the Resolution. County Engineer: The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610.A.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards... ." For the purpose of my evaluation, I interpreted the standards in the LUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values", since the LUR were adopted after extensive work and comment by the community. Mr. Vengrin pointed out on a map the road in question, the applicants main intersection, which portions of the road are suburban and rural. Suburban roads are wider and the curves are not as sharp and the speed is higher than on a rural road. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated there is a table in the Land Use Regulations showing the different types of roads and the requirements of each. Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Vengrin is recommending a higher road classification than what is being requested from the applicant. Commissioner Gallagher asked about exhibit A and tying the roads together. Mr. Crane showed on a map the roads and the differences in the road. He stated only having 87 lots on 700 acres does not require a suburban road but rather a rural road. He stated they are not suggesting curb and gutters on these roads. He stated their trails will have curb and gutters. He read from the County Land Use Regulations concerning classification ofthe roads. Mr. Vengrin pointed out on a map the location of what he believes should be suburban roads. Chairman Stone asked if it makes sense to have a different road classification for that small stretch of road. Mr. Vengrin stated the applicant has requested a variance from the rural standards to make the road more of a suburban classification. Chairman Stone asked if it makes sense to consider the basic road classification to call it rural residential and then consider the variance from Improvement Standards. Mr. Vengrin stated there will be mixed standards. Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Vengrin is asking for different than what the applicant is requesting. 5 10-31-2000 Mr. Vengrin stated he is recommending a mixture of rural residential, suburban collector and suburban residential. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there are only three that Mr. Vengrin differs on the classification. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the applicant has withdrawn the request for everything except the clubhouse. Mr. Crane stated in general it would require the curb, gutter and sidewalk. It would affect road widths and grades. It would take a standard 11 foot driving lane and make it 15 feet wide. He does not think this is necessary for this type of road. He stated they are requesting the same classification as is on Bellyache Ridge Road. He stated that is the similar classification they are requesting. Mr. Vengrin stated they are platting the higher density area and believes it would be a good idea to discuss the higher density today. Commissioner Gallagher stated the Bellyache Ridge Road is a collector. Mr. Vengrin stated that is correct. Commissioner Gallagher asked about higher use and traffic. Mr. Vengrin stated the densities of the lots in this subdivision are predominately higher than others. Tom Ragonetti, Attorney for the applicant, referred to the definition of a rural residential road from the County Land Use Regulations. He stated there are a number of lots under two acres but there are a larger number of lots that are above two acres. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the same standard should apply to those parcels that are less than 12 acre. He stated it appears that those clusters will have higher traffic and more density. Mr. Ragonetti stated legally speaking the Master Plan definition would allow the lIz acre lots that are clustered. Whether the way these are clustered is the appropriate way is the question. Chairman Stone stated it is the applicants responsibility to prove their case as to why the variance should be granted. It is more of a safety factor than an engineering factor. Mr. Ragonetti stated his comments were not directed to the variances but rather the road classifications. Mr. Vengrin stated there is some language in the Regulations defining a rural residential road, as one not being clustered. He stated the intent of the regulations is to look at the group of homes as they are. If there are homes that are not on 12 acre lots it is not a rural area. Mr. Fritze stated the intent of the regulations is the intent that the road be classified by the County Engineer. He stated this is not an appeal but rather a request for variance. Mr. Vengrin stated they do not have the tools they need to determine what the roads should be classified. Mr. Fritze stated the Engineering Department has the training to determine what the road should be classified. Commissioner Phillips asked if the Mr. Vengrin is changing his mind on the recommendation. Mr. Vengrin stated this discussion is a pre-discussion to the variance. Commissioner Phillips asked if it is changing as they go along. Mr. Fritze asked if they were wrapped up in a procedural thing. Is there an agreement or disagreement? Rick Plyman, Peter Jamar and Associates, stated the cluster area is not a part of that discussion. Chairman Stone asked if they are in agreement or disagreement concerning the roads. Mr. Plyman stated County Staff is saying the road that goes to the clubhouse should be a suburban road and the applicant is saying it should be a rural road. They believe the LUR's support their request. Chairman Stone stated this is not mostly a real estate development, but rather to serve resort needs. If the Board just looks to the LUR it is not assuming there is a lot of traffic going in and out of 6 10-31-2000 this place. What is really going to be the traffic pattern going in and out of this development. This is a small lot but is going to be serving the resort needs. Maybe there is consideration beyond the strict interpretation ofthe LUR that must be considered that has to do with the people coming there to play on the golf course. Chairman Stone stated the road into the clubhouse will have much greater use than the other roads in the area. Mark Thorne stated they would agree to suburban standards and the entrance can be rural collector. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the capacity of the golf course. Mr. Thorne stated that course will be flipped. Chairman Stone asked about the numbers associated with the traffic and the numbers for safety on that road. He used Cordillera as an example. Mr. Crane stated the column of traffic is not what is being brought into play, it is the character of the road. Chairman Stone asked if all the roads are the same or have they been designed differently. Mr. Carne pointed out on the map the differences of the road. He explained the differences between the roads and variances requested. Mr. Vengrin stated since the applicant has offered to make the higher density road suburban and the rest rural in nature. Commissioner Phillips asked if there was anyone present who resides on Bellyache Ridge Road. Mr. Crane stated in terms of the variances, they agree with staff findings. Chairman Stone stated the applicant needs to show what the hardships are and why the variances should be granted. Mr. Crane stated they have prepared a letter and a table that speaks to those reasons. He handed out a table that speaks to the hardships that relate to the variances. He stated they have withdrawn the variance request 2,11, 13, 14, 16,22 & 23. Mr. Vengrin concurred those variances numbers can be withdrawn. Chairman Stone stated 6,8, 10,24,25,26 will not provide a road or trail design that is equally durable and safe to the rural residential road, sidewalk and trail standards. Mr. Vengrin concurred. Commissioner Gallagher asked about 18, 19 & 20 that have not been addressed. Mr. Crane stated those spoke to the tangent distance of an intersection and those are not required. Mr. Vengrin concurred. Chairman Stone stated on page 4, the variance numbers there is disagreement on are 4, 6, 8, 10, 24, 25 & 26. Mr. Crane referred to number 6. They believe this provides a safe functional area for traffic. They were working with topography constraints, a large retaining wall, constraints with the golf course. He stated this road is fine for vehicle traffic. He stated Holy Cross requested they widen the turns substantially. The amount of traffic is minimal. Chairman Stone asked about variance number 10 and if it was similar. Mr. Vengrin stated when going over Tennessee Pass from Red Cliff, there are a couple of switchbacks with a long straight section of roadway. The purpose of this straight stretch is to gain elevation but also to give the driver a chance to recover. He stated another example is North Wolcott on Highway 131 where there are only curves with no straight stretch. Mr. Crane stated one difference is the speed limits. He stated those are much different than a residential road. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the distance of the straightaway. Mr. Vengrin stated 440 is the stopping distance at that speed. Mr. Crane stated on number 10, they had a meeting with the Engineering Department concerning 7 10-31-2000 Aspen Bluff. Some having more curves would make people drive a little slower. Chairman Stone asked if any of these options require a variance. Mr. Crane suggested that depends on your definition of a variance. Commissioner Gallagher asked what a switch back is. Mr. Vengrin stated it is a curve that is close to 180 degrees. Chairman Stone asked which of the three options Mr. Vengrin likes the best. Mr. Vengrin stated option #2 makes the best sense. Chairman Stone spoke to the applicants research and what will work to service these ten home sites. He asked if option #2 is the best of the three available options, there must not be another option where they can fulfill the Land Use Regulations and put in the tangent piece. Mr. Vengrin stated he thinks there are other options. He mentioned Bellyache Road. Mr. Crane stated they have concerns and from a marketing standpoint they would want to bring everyone through one location. He spoke to the golf course and wetlands and their desire not to disturb that countryside. Mr. Vengrin spoke to the copy of the preliminary plan and between the 12th green and 13th tee there is access in from Bellyache. He suggested in the special use permit there were some roads proposed coming off of Bellyache. Mr. Vengrin stated unless they change the road configuration significantly this would be the only option. He also spoke to variance #6. Chairman Stone asked about variance #10 which uses option #2. Commissioner Phillips said she doesn't think these are switch backs and she would accept this. Commissioner Gallagher asked about controlling speed. Mr. Crane stated therein lies the difficulties of working with the Land Use Regulations. He stated there is a signing plan that has been submitted. Chairman Stone moved to variance #8 having satisfied #10 and #8. Mr. Crane stated this is the angle at which Larksparrow Place comes into Red Sky Drive. He suggested this is not a 90 degree turn. He stated it is 28 and complies to ASHTO standards. Commissioner Gallagher confirmed it is a 72% approach. He asked what is the distance that it is straight. Mr. Crane stated that is 200 feet. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Vengrin if there is an alternative. Mr. Vengrin referred to the drawing and showed Bellyache Road going up hill. He showed Larksparrow Place. He stated the purpose is to service the four lots and the Holy Cross Access. He noted at the intersection that the elevation goes down 156 feet. He stated if they came off at another location they would gain an elevation of 12 feet. He stated they are dealing with difficult terrain, but that is their choice. He spoke to the contours. He stated he doesn't see a whole lot of reason to even build Larsparrow place. Commissioner Phillips asked about the ridge top. Mr. Vengrin suggested it would be worth a visit. Chairman Stone asked why they ran the road up that way. Mr. Crane stated this road was approved with a special use permit. Running through the golf course, the road is no longer whole. He stated it was approved in the special use permit without the four lots. He stated it has been constructed to this configuration. They angled this to allow a better access for the Holy Cross truck to come through. Commissioner Phillips asked if Mr. Vengrin agreed there would be more of an environmental impact. Mr. Vengrin stated he originally thought that route would interfere with the roadway. He stated he doesn't see how this would effect the golf course design. 8 10-31-2000 Mr. Crane stated he thinks it would significantly effect this but he is not a golf course engineer. Mr. Vengrin again suggested they get a look at the area. He suggested they can avoid that whole side. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the angle of approach of the intersection and other service providers approaching the intersection. Mr. Vengrin stated the right hand turn will be an easier turn. He stated he can't answer the question as he does not have the intersection. Commissioner Gallagher asked how the intersection is controlled. Mr. Vengrin stated by a stop sign. He stated the remaining issues are trail related. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this road is already constructed. Mr. Crane stated it has not be surfaced and portions of the retaining wall have yet to be constructed. Commissioner Phillips stated she believes #8 is acceptable and she doesn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has concern with the intersection angel that it be negotiable with fire apparatus. Mr. Crane suggested they make the variance contingent with the turning diagrams. Chairman Stone spoke to the trails for 24,25, and 26. He suggested they may widen the road coming in the opposite direction. Mr. Crane stated by in large they speak to the minimum width, the surfacing, the grade and the drainage. He stated the type of paths system they are requesting are made up of different components. He spoke to the sidewalk and detached path from the main entrance. He showed the other trails and the traffic areas. He stated the intent of some of the paths are just for the homeowners. He spoke to the recommendation that it be reviewed by Ellie Caryl who commented that a four foot wide trial along Bellyache would be more beneficial. Chairman Stone stated 24, 25, and 26 are not talking about specific areas but about the sidewalks and trails in general. He asked if any of these meet the Land Use Regulations. Mr. Crane stated he believes the detached path complies with Regulations. Chairman Stone stated they don't have an itemization for the trails or the reduced design requirements. Mr. Crane stated it will be more of a hiking path design. Chairman Stone asked if they are there to satisfy what is required by the Land Use Regulations. Mr. Crane suggested what is required by the Land Use Regulations is an approved trails plan in conjunction with the PUD. Chairman Stone asked if all trails are to be developed to a minimum standard. Mr. Forinash stated there is a trail requirement and there is no variance. Chairman Stone asked about a trail plan suggesting that the Board may have latitude to determine if this specific trial plan is keeping with nature and the Land Use Regulations. Mr. Fritze agreed. Chairman Stone asked what the nature is for specific areas and what that means. Mr Crane explained the red line being an attached sidewalk that will be four to five feet. He explained as they get into the development it becomes a detached path. He stated it is also used as multiple use for the golf course. He stated it is similar in nature going from one club house to the other. That will be ten feet wide. He stated all of the rest of the trails would be 3 foot wide, wood chipped trails. Chairman Stone stated the only area he has a concern with is that being for golf carts and for people. Mr. Crane stated there is not a mix with the golf play. He suggested it would be signage and that it is a mixed use path. 9 10-31-2000 Mr. Vengrin spoke to the ten foot wide trail with two foot clear zones. Mr. Crane suggested this is intended more for pedestrians. Chairman Stone asked about a wood chip path along the paved path. They all agreed that would be wonderful. Commissioner Gallagher asked what they need to do to that path to make it available for emergency vehicles. Mr. Crane stated they may want to widen a curve or two. He stated the topography may provide natural walls. He stated they need to evaluate that. Commissioner Gallagher stated he was surprised to see there would be no bikes on the trails. He asked about winter use and them being plowed or maintained in the winter. He asked about cross country skiing. Rick Plyman stated the wildlife mitigation plan really restricts activity in the winter. Staff findings are as follows: Board of County Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners' responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260.G.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. Hardship is not defined in the LUR. However, the definition of hardship in Webster's Dictionary implies that hardship is derived from some sort of privation or deprivation. The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the applicant will be deprived of some or all of their right to use the land if the LUR is strictly followed. Staff findings are as show on staff report and as follows: Assuming that the Board of County Commissioners will make a finding that the Rural Residential Road standard is appropriate, and that they wish to consider the request for variances, staff makes the following findings: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G of the LUR. 2. The petition has been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. Variances Numbers 1, 3,4,5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 21 as shown in Exhibit "A" requested by the petitioner will provide a road design that is equally durable and equally safe to the Rural Residential Road designation standards but would be considerably less expensive, use less land, and blend in better with the community standards in the area. 4. Variances Numbers 6,8, 10,24,25, and 26 as shown in Exhibit "A" requested by the petitioner will provide a road or trail design that is equally durable and equally safe to the Rural Residential Road and Sidewalk and Trail Standards with the addition of the 3 foot path and other considerations as discussed.. Items 2,8, 11, 13, 14, 16,22, and 23 all relate to either the angle of intersection or the length of straight (tangent) roadway required on each side of the intersections. In all cases, the regulations could be complied with minimal modification to the plans. Furthermore, in each of these cases, the proposed design does not incorporate any feature which offsets the diminished safety associated with the alternative to the standard. Items 6, and 10 relate to the length of straight (tangent) roadway required between the sharp curves in the switchback portion of the roadway. The regulations clearly indicate that switchbacks should be avoided unless there are no other options available. If switchbacks must be used, then the regulations state that there shall be a minimum length of straight road between the switchbacks to ensure. adequate safety. The proposed design does not incorporate any feature which offsets the diminished safety associated with the alternative to the standard. 10 10-31-2000 Items 24,25, and 26 relate to the construction ofthe trails. The requested variances may be suitable in some cases. However, the petitioner has requested variances for all trails "Throughout the Red Sky Ranch project". Until the applicant specifically itemizes the locations and reasons for the reduced trail design, it is not possible to evaluate the impact of this variance request, nor to determine if the intent of the regulations will be met. The Board of County Commissioners must decide on the following findings: 5. The applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence to the Rural Residential Road Functional Classifications for the road system in the Red Sky Ranch PUD. 6. The applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence to the Sidewalk and Trail Standards for the trail system in the Red Sky Ranch PUD. 7. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variances exceed any currently perceived adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, or adverse impacts to the affected lands. Commissioner Phillips stated she believes variance 10, option 2 as found on page 4. Mr. Fritze stated the remaining numbers not mentioned by the Chairman have been removed. Commissioner Phillips stated those are 2, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,22,23. She stated she now agrees with all the findings. Commissioner Gallagher stated he also agrees with the findings. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number VIS-OOO 11, Red Sky Ranch, variance from Improvements Standards for 6, 8, 10, 24, 25 & 26, with the conditions that all oral and written recommendations by the applicant and materials submitted in connection with this application, and/or in one or more public hearing shall be binding. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. In discussion, Chairman Stone asked if Commissioner Gallagher wanted to include staff findings one through seven which would include the requested variances 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17 and 21 as shown in Exhibit A. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would include those in his motion. Commissioner Phillips stated the second concurs. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone asked procedurally ifthey can hear these files together. Mr. Fritze stated they can. Chairman Stone asked if there are any issues that need fighting over. Mr. Forinash stated he believes that they are in agreement with all of the findings and that they are all positive. Commissioner Phillips stated she has some questions regarding the ridge top development and asked about envelopes for location of the home sites. She stated she doesn't want to drive through Wolcott and see houses on the ridge. Rick Pylman stated they have building envelopes for all ofthe residential lots and the track set out for the golf course. They have completed the visual analysis for all of the lots and they believe they can build them without penetrating the ridge line. He stated for the clubhouse and when they come back for final plat they must show their architectural design which is condition 7b. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the individual septic systems and forming the metropolitan district for waste water. She asked about hooking up to the main system. Mr. Pylman stated for each individual home that is unlikely. Commissioner Phillips asked when the metropolitan district is being formed.;Mr. Pylman stated they are holding an election next week. Commissioner Phillips asked about the clustering and asked about the density of the cluster. 11 10-31-2000 Mr. Plyman spoke to the interval ownership and that they reduced the density on the west side. They added those into the area and that became more of a cluster project than a single family lot project. He stated the plan they have shown is about 1/3 acre lots and that will come back for review. Commissioner Phillips spoke to her frustration over lengthy projects and how they relate to the Master Plan. She recognizes the Master Plan should be flexible and believes they have allowed that in this development. She asked if the caretaker units are attached. Mr. Pylman stated they are. Commissioner Phillips asked what is meant by broad conceptual level. Mr. Forinash stated as they have looked at this from preliminary plan forward they have broadened their perspective. He stated when staff findings were made it was in the context after the Board found it at sketch plan. Jim Fritze stated what you have is not a lie but may be a difference of opinion and not everyone may agree to that. Chairman Stone suggested instead of reading all the findings that they request they be incorporated in to the record with the 13 conditions. Staff findings are as follows: The Applicant has provided a revised PUD Guide which includes these provisions. This condition can be satisfied when the Board approves the Resolution. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 2) Provide on the final plates) that the building envelopes proposed for all lots, other than Lots 24 through 50, provide at least as much separation between structures as required in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the Resource (R) and Agricultural Residential (AR) zone districts or obtain a variation as provided in the Land Use Regulations as a part of this Preliminary Plan or a subsequent amendment. (1) This condition will not be satisfied until approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. 3) Comply to the provisions of Division 4-1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, of the Land Use Regulations, throughout the PUD. The Applicant has provided a revised PUD Guide which includes this provision. This condition can be satisfied when the Board approves the Resolution. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 4) Provide, prior to approval of a final plat for each respective area of the PUD, a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, for the entrance and common areas located within that filing, which the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the Applicant. (2) This condition will not be satisfied until approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. 5) Provide, prior to approval of a building permit for each non-residential site within the PUD (plus the caretakers home site), a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, for that site, which the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the Applicant. (3) This condition will not be satisfied until approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. 6) Amend the PUD Guide so that the PUD is subject to Section 4-250, Illumination Standards, of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicant has provided a revised PUD Guide which includes this provision. This condition can be satisfied when the Board approves the Resolution. Staff and the Applicant agree 12 10-31-2000 that this condition mav be deleted. 7) Provide in the Comprehensive Sign Plan that all provisions of Division 4-3, Sign Regulations, of the Land Use Regulations shall be applicable unless specifically superceded by the sign provisions of the PUD Guide. The Applicant has provided a revised PUD Guide which includes this provision. This condition can be satisfied when the Board approves the Resolution. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 8) A void duplication of any road names within the development with any other road or street names within Eagle County. (4) This condition will be satisfied upon approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. 9) Meet all of the roadway standards of the Land Use Regulations (Section 4-620, Roadway Standards), or as an alternative, receive prior to approval of this preliminary plan necessary variances in accordance with Section 5-260.G., Variance from Improvement Standards. Planning Staff has now received confirmation dated October 26, 2000,from the County Engineer's consultant indicating that the drawings and reports presented are sufficient for preliminary plan approval. With variances from improvement standards that may be approved by the Board, this condition will be satisfied. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 10) Grant, prior to the Applicant's dedication of the right-of-way for the relocated Bellyache Ridge Road, a public access easement to include all that portion of the proposed trail along Bellyache Ridge Road which is not within the right-of-way. (5) This condition will be satisfied upon approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. 11) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of a building permit for each non-residential site within the PUD (plus the caretakers home site), that adequate snow storage for off-street parking areas is provided in accordance with Section 4- 140.K., Snow Storage, ofthe Land Use Regulations. This condition may be satisfied prior to approval of building permit applications. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 12) Provide, prior to approval of each final plat, information and documentation to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that all proposed common recreation and open spaces will continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD, and to ensure its on-going maintenance in accordance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. Staff and the Applicant are agreed that representations in the application itself and in the public hearings satisfy the purposes of this condition, and agree that this condition mav be deleted. 13) Revise the PUD Guide to be at least as restrictive as the applicable provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations with respect to the number of parking spaces for primary and secondary dwelling units. The Applicant has provided a revised PUD Guide which includes this provision. This condition can be satisfied when the Board approves the Resolution. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 14) Revise the Red Sky Ranch Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan to reflect that it will be effective immediately upon Preliminary Plan approval for the portion of the property east of Old Faithful Ridge and, for the portion of the property west of Old Faithful Ridge, upon the approval of the first final plat for that area. The Applicant has provided a revised Red Sky Ranch Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan which includes the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 15) Attach the approved Red Sky Ranch Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan to the PUD 13 10-31-2000 Guide and record it as a part of the Board Resolution approving this PUD Preliminary Plan. The Applicant has provided a revised Red Sky Ranch Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan which includes the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife and may he attached to the PUD Guide and recorded with the Board Resolution approving this PUD Preliminary Plan. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 16) Adhere to the suggestions of the Colorado State Forest Service (Letter dated August 25, 2000) to reduce the wildfire hazard, with the following exceptions: The applicant shall consult with the Colorado State Forest Service and the Avon Fire Department to determine appropriate locations and design for emergency turnarounds and for specific driveway designs and these shall be indicated upon the Final Plat and be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Plat. (6) The Applicant is continuing to work on this condition. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate, can be met and should be retained. 17) Provide, prior to approval of the final plat for each phase of the development, complete engineering and construction drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. Engineering drawings for the Preliminary Plan have been determined to be essentially complete. The Applicant will be required to provide construction drawings, which may reflect Variances from Improvement Standards which may be approved by the Board, prior to approval of the respective final plat. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 18) Conform to the standards of Section 4-630, Sidewalk and Trail Standards or as an alternative, obtain a variance pursuant to Section 5-260.G., Variance from Improvement Standards. Planning Staff has now received confirmation dated October 26, 2000,from the County Engineer's consultant indicating that the drawings and reports presented are sufficientfor preliminary plan approval. With variances from improvement standards that may be approved by the' Board, this condition will he satisfied. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. 19) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of each final plat for this PUD, that: a. Access to the Holy Cross Energy substation is adequate and that electrical service will be provided to the development. If the requested Variances from Improvement Standards are approved, the Applicant will be able to satisfy Holy Cross Energy regarding adequate access to its substation. Once that is established, Holy Cross is expected to make a commitment to serve the development. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. a. Adequate fire protection services will be provided to this development. The Avon Fire Department has reviewed the plans for the development and has indicated its satisfaction. Beginning January 1, 2001, the development will be served by the newly formed Eagle River Fire Protection District. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. a. No penetration above the ridge line, as viewed from 1-70, will occur, or to propose appropriate lot-specific height restrictions to preclude any such penetration. This review should be completed in conjunction with the approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. a. Exterior colors of buildings, including roofs, will be compatible with the natural characteristics of the site. (7) This review should be completed in conjunction with the approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. 20) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Engineer no later than the approval of each final plat for this PUD that: a. Proposed individual septic systems will be located in a manner that will not unduly jeopardize slope stability. 14 10-31-2000 This review should be completed in conjunction with the approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. b. Adequate access easements have been 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. This review should be completed in conjunction with the approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. Adequate right-of-way exists for snow storage along all internal roads. This review should be completed in conjunction with the approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. Required geologic testing has been completed in a satisfactory manner and that the proposed development may proceed without undue risk of geologic hazards, or that appropriate mitigation has or will be provided. This review should be completed in conjunction with the approval of certain final plats. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. All requirements of the Land Use Regulations with respect to standards for irrigation systems (Section 4-640), drainage (Section 4-650), grading and erosion control (Section 4-660), utility and lighting (Section 4-670), water supply (Section 4-680), and sanitary sewage disposal (Section 4-690) will be satisfied. (8) Planning Staff has now received confirmation dated October 26, 2000,from the County Engineer's consultant indicating that the drawings and reports presented are sufficientfor preliminary plan approval. With variances from improvement standards that may be approved by the Board, this condition will be satisfied. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. Provide, no later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD, a response from the School District regarding its preference for a land dedication or a payment of cash-in-lieu, and to make a dedication or cash payment which satisfies the requirements of the Land Use Regulations with respect to school land dedication standards. The School District has indicated its preference for a payment of cash-in-lieu of land. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. Provide, no later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD, a payment for off-site road impacts in the amount of $1,000 per residential unit, or some other amount which may be determined by . the Board of County Commissioners. (9) This condition is to be satisfied at the time of approval of the first final plat for this PUD. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. Satisfy all outstanding applicable conditions ofthe associated PUD Sketch Plan (File No. PDS- 00017/ Board Resolution No. 2000-47). (10) Staff has reviewed with the Applicant those conditions of the pun Sketch Plan which warrant continuation as conditions of this Preliminary Plan, and have agreed that the following condition, as modified herein to be more appropriate to this pun Preliminary Plan, is appropriate and should be retained: Bellyache Ridge Road. Applicant acknowledges that the Bellyache Ridge Road right-of-way is comprised of the aggregate of those rights-of-way described in that deed between Burens Properties and Eagle County recorded in Book 226 at Page 960 and that deed between George P. Joujlas and Eagle County recorded in Book 227 at Page 981. Prior to applicationfor Preliminary Plan, Applicant agrees to create a legal description of the Bellyache Ridge Road right-of-way fully encompassing and describing both deeds and submit an application pursuant to Section 5-2200 Public Wav and Easement of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Eagle County shall consider vacating the right-of-way the new roadway is to replace, and, upon vacation, Applicant shall dedicate said new roadway to Eagle 15 10-31-2000 County as an 80 foot as-built right-of-way by delivering to Eagle County a warranty deed therefor. In the event said contemplated vacation is denied by Eagle County, Applicant will amend the approved PUD Preliminary Plan as necessary solely for that portion of the site east of Old Faithful Ridge in order to provide for the relocation of its golf course activities thereby affected (Condition No.2 per Board Resolution No. 2000-47, as modified) Staff and the Applicant agree that all other conditions of approval of the PUD Sketch Plan have been satisfied or have been incorporated elsewhere in the application or these conditions of approval and mav be deleted. Satisfy all outstanding applicable conditions of the associated the Special Use Permit (File No. ZS-00032 / Board Resolution No.98-141). Staff and the Applicant agree that all conditions of approval of the Special Use Permit have been satisfied or have been incorporated elsewhere in the application or these conditions of approval and mav be deleted. Designate the site specific locations of the on-site housing units no later than six months after the approval of the first final plat for this PUD; designate in writing the off-site housing units for seasonal employees no later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD; and notify the Director of Community Development within 30 days of any change in the designated off-site housing units. (11) This condition will be met after approval ofthefirstfinal plat/or this PUD. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. Revise the proposed affordable housing plan to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners to be more specific about what constitutes an "affordable housing unit" and how any cash payment at the end of a five year time period might be calculated, and provide a revised copy to be recorded with the Board Resolution approving this PUD Preliminary Plan. At the time the Board considers a Resolution approving this Preliminary Plan, the Applicant will provide an Affordable Housing Plan which reflects the direction of the Board. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. Further, that: Notwithstanding the continuing applicability and obligation on the part of the Applicant to adhere to and fulfil the conditions of the Special Use Permit previously approved per Board Resolution No. 98-141, said Special Use Permit shall terminate at the time the Final Plat for this PUD is approved. (12) Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained without reference to the on-going applicability of the conditions of approval. All oral and written representations by the Applicant in materials submitted in connection with this application and/or in one or more public hearings shall be binding. (13) Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition is appropriate and should be retained. Concurrent with the approval of this Preliminary Plan for PUD, the Applicant and the Board of County Commissioners enter into a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement binding the PUD to any conditions placed in the Resolution. A PUD Agreement will be presented to the Board with the Resolution approving this Zone Change and Preliminary Plan. Staff and the Applicant agree that this condition mav be deleted. Chairman Stone asked for a motion. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion for discussion. In discussion, Commissioner Gallagher asked for the record what is being changed from and to. Mr. Forinash stated it is being changed to a PUD zone district. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve PDP-00016, Red Sky Ranch, incorporating staff 16 10-31-2000 findings and with the conditions as referenced being 1 - 13 as shown in the staff report dated October 30 and as follows: 1) Provide on the final plate s) that the building envelopes proposed for all lots, other than Lots 24 through 50, provide at least as much separation between structures as required in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the Resource (R) and Agricultural Residential (AR) zone districts or obtain a variation as provided in the Land Use Regulations as a part of this Preliminary Plan or a subsequent amendment. (2) 2) Provide, prior to approval of a final plat for each respective area of the PUD, a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, for the entrance and common areas located within that filing, which the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the Applicant. (4) 3) Provide, prior to approval of a building permit for each non-residential site within the PUD (plus the caretakers home site), a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, for that site, which the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the Applicant. (5) 4 ) Avoid duplication of any road names within the development with any other road or street names within Eagle County. (8) 5) Grant, prior to the Applicant's dedication of the right-of-way for the relocated Bellyache Ridge Road, a public access easement to include all that portion of the proposed trail along Bellyache Ridge Road which is not within the right-of-way. (10) 6) Adhere to the suggestions of the Colorado State Forest Service (Letter dated August 25,2000) to reduce the wildfire hazard, with the following exceptions: The applicant shall consult with the Colorado State Forest Service and the Avon Fire Department to determine appropriate locations and design for emergency turnarounds and for specific driveway designs and these shall be indicated upon the Final Plat and be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Plat. (16) . 7) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of each final plat for this PUD, that: a. Access to the Holy Cross Energy substation is adequate and that electrical service will be provided to the development. b. No penetration above the ridge line, as viewed from 1-70, will occur, or to propose appropriate lot-specific height restrictions to preclude any such penetration. c. Exterior colors of buildings, including roofs, will be compatible with the natural characteristics of the site. (19) 8) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Engineer no later than the approval of each final plat for this PUD that: a. Proposed individual septic systems will be located in a manner that will not unduly jeopardize slope stability. b. Adequate access easements have been 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. c. Adequate right-of-way exists for snow storage along all internal roads. d. Required geologic testing has been completed in a satisfactory manner and that the proposed development may proceed without undue risk of geologic hazards, or that appropriate mitigation has or will be provided. (20) 9) Provide, no later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD, a payment for off-site road impacts in the amount of $1 ,000 per residential unit, or some other amount which may be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. (22) 17 10-31-2000 10) Applicant acknowledges that the Bellyache Ridge Road right-of-way is comprised of the aggregate of those rights-of-way described in that deed between Burens Properties and Eagle County recorded in Book 226 at Page 960 and that deed between George P. Jouflas and Eagle County recorded in Book 227 at Page 981. Prior to application for Preliminary Plan, Applicant agrees to create a legal description of the Bellyache Ridge Road right-of-way fully encompassing and describing both deeds and submit an application pursuant to Section 5-2200 Public Way and Easement of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Eagle County shall consider vacating the right-of-way the new roadway is to replace, and, upon vacation, Applicant shall dedicate said new roadway to Eagle County as an 80 foot as-built right-of-way by delivering to Eagle County a warranty deed therefor. In the event said contemplated vacation is denied by Eagle County, Applicant will amend the approved PUD Preliminary Plan as necessary solely for that portion of the site east of Old Faithful Ridge in order to provide for the relocation of its golf course activities thereby affected. (Condition No.2 per Board Resolution No. 2000- 47, as modified.) (23) 11) Designate the site specific locations of the on-site housing units no later than six months after the approval of the first final plat for this PUD; designate in writing the off-site housing units for seasonal employees no later than the approval ofthe first final plat for this PUD; and notify the Director of Community Development within 30 days of any change in the designated off-site housing units. (25). 12) The Special Use Permit previously approved per Board Resolution No. 98-141 (Eagle County File No. ZS-00032), shall terminate at the time the first Final Plat for this PUD is approved. (27) 13) All oral and written representations by the Applicant in materials submitted in connection with this application and/or in one or more public hearings shall be binding. (28) Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Jim Fritze stated the final action of the Board will be the written Resolution. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until November 6,2000. Attest: Clerk to the Bo ~c.~ Chairman 18 10-31-2000